Never was there a more important tool for the success of a free country than the education of her people. However, it is equally important for education to be independent of government, to keep it from being used has a means for propaganda and social engineering. In history if we have learned anything, it is that in order for tyrants to control the people they have to control what information the people know, if not outright deny education all together for their people. Even today some governments deny education to their people to maintain control over them. After all, an ignorant populas will find most anything they are told believable.
In the case of the U.S. when it comes to education, billions of dollars have been spent on education every year since 1980 with the quality of education in decline ever since. Supervising education by government in the U.S. in 1980 was not a new concept, in 1867 a Department of Education was created and demoted a year later. Before 1980, Congress had already had their hands on controlling education with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Not only does this government taxation violate the constitution by intentionally taking out of context the Commerce Clause(That already has The Department of Commerce to regulate any commerce of education between states) and the term "General Welfare"(that is used today to justify what ever excuse politicians want to use to pay for something with your money) but, it also violates the 10th Amendment that clearly expresses that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Please show me where in the constitution it says the Federal government has specific powers to regulate or fund education. The Commerce Clause was intended to regulate or to set up rules of commerce between states not to run anything or fund it. Where as the "General welfare" merely expresses that the Federal government protect and provide an atmosphere of freedom to pursue ones goals in peace. Where people have been able to justify taxes with these terms is a failure of the people to pay attention to the politicians and the Founders intent. To use our tax dollars for social programs is simply a politician buying votes on a larger scale.
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000063.asp http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/97/c26.htm
We have reached the final of my seven deadly government attempts to run our lives with our money and in doing so going for broke. Everytime the government tries to envoke their power over us under the guise of what's best for us, they fail us greatly.
Micheal Garry
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
0 for 7 and Going for Broke: 0 for 6 The Department of Energy
If you want to see an example of government’s opportunistic nature during a crisis to grow, look no further than The Department of Energy. The Department of Energy, created in 1977 during the Carter administration, was established for the primary purpose of getting the U.S. off her dependence of foreign oil. Now, 33 years later, not only has it failed to make us independent from foreign oil but, it has regulated the private sector into destabilization of her markets, a reduction of her domestic output, and a decrease in consumer welfare.
The budget for 2010 is projected at 38 Billion dollars. Does this sound like a success story to you? With all government departments and their programs there seems to be no establish goal and if there is one that is not met, the agency and the programs grow.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/energy
The department of Energy has been now hijacked by the faulty science of “Climate Change” with regulation without representation that is certain to stifle an already beaten down economy.
This is a department that was created by socialists for the sole purpose to change our behavior because it does meet how they feel everyone should live, claiming dire consequences to the Earth if we don’t behave. It sounds like religious zealots to me. I am all for sustainable energy but, windmills? You have to do better than that. The great thing about Capitalism is, it filters out the bad ideas and comes up with real solutions that are feasible and make sense/cents. If windmills were a good idea we would have farms everywhere, if electric cars were a good idea people, not the government, would be demanding their production.
The only exception to this rule is when government gets in the way, like in the case of nuclear energy. It’s the safest and cleanest form of energy yet, because of government, we have not built a new Nuclear Power Plant since 1974. Once again, showing that government does not solve America’s problems but, gets in the way by the taxation of her progress.
http://russp.org/nucpower.htm
- Micheal Garry
The budget for 2010 is projected at 38 Billion dollars. Does this sound like a success story to you? With all government departments and their programs there seems to be no establish goal and if there is one that is not met, the agency and the programs grow.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/energy
The department of Energy has been now hijacked by the faulty science of “Climate Change” with regulation without representation that is certain to stifle an already beaten down economy.
This is a department that was created by socialists for the sole purpose to change our behavior because it does meet how they feel everyone should live, claiming dire consequences to the Earth if we don’t behave. It sounds like religious zealots to me. I am all for sustainable energy but, windmills? You have to do better than that. The great thing about Capitalism is, it filters out the bad ideas and comes up with real solutions that are feasible and make sense/cents. If windmills were a good idea we would have farms everywhere, if electric cars were a good idea people, not the government, would be demanding their production.
The only exception to this rule is when government gets in the way, like in the case of nuclear energy. It’s the safest and cleanest form of energy yet, because of government, we have not built a new Nuclear Power Plant since 1974. Once again, showing that government does not solve America’s problems but, gets in the way by the taxation of her progress.
http://russp.org/nucpower.htm
- Micheal Garry
Sunday, June 27, 2010
0 for 7 and Going for Broke: 0 for 5 Medicare & Medicaid
Both programs born from the 1965 Social Security Act, were signed into law by President Johnson has yet another attempt by our government to use tax payers money to cure society’s problems. This is my fifth example on how government fails us with social engineering attempts. After 45 years running, Medicare and Medicaid are running in deficits and are heading towards bankruptcy. The government’s own Congressional Budget Office warns that these two programs are unsustainable. When government gets involved two things will occur; the problem reoccurs every year, government has an excuse to exploit it for taxes and votes. These, the ones that interpret welfare to mean whatever they see fit, are politicians not angels of virtue, give them enough power without restriction and they will go on to abuse their position.
http://www.naturalnews.com/026974_Medicaid_Social_Security_medicare.html
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2007/12/03/gvsc1203.htm
From cradle to grave the government with its good intentions breaks down the nuclear family. In this case we no longer have to worry about grandma or grandpa we just ship them off to the old folks home where medicare or medicaid will take care of them or in other words you and me. What happen before these programs, families took care of their own burdens. It seems only fair, they raised their kids so what's wrong with expecting a little help back.
These government programs also promote fiscal Irresponsibility. Government creates an atmosphere of dependence and creates the illusion that it would be impossible to save on your own. The government also, with these notions, treats us like children telling us that we could not make it without their help.
Is this true? What did people do before Medicare and Medicaid?
I know what did have to happen for survival, families had to stick together, people had to work hard and pass on buying those new pair of tennis shoes or having a TV none the less two or three in a household. Yes, the American family survived and had to alter their behavior to do so.
When you look at families and their elderly today how many instances can you point out to yourself where their priorities were misplaced. What kind of car do they drive? What kind of house do they live in? Did they make any sacrifices? You might tell me that is none of your business. My friends it is all of our business as long as people our using tax payers money and we pay those taxes.
- Micheal Garry
http://www.naturalnews.com/026974_Medicaid_Social_Security_medicare.html
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2007/12/03/gvsc1203.htm
From cradle to grave the government with its good intentions breaks down the nuclear family. In this case we no longer have to worry about grandma or grandpa we just ship them off to the old folks home where medicare or medicaid will take care of them or in other words you and me. What happen before these programs, families took care of their own burdens. It seems only fair, they raised their kids so what's wrong with expecting a little help back.
These government programs also promote fiscal Irresponsibility. Government creates an atmosphere of dependence and creates the illusion that it would be impossible to save on your own. The government also, with these notions, treats us like children telling us that we could not make it without their help.
Is this true? What did people do before Medicare and Medicaid?
I know what did have to happen for survival, families had to stick together, people had to work hard and pass on buying those new pair of tennis shoes or having a TV none the less two or three in a household. Yes, the American family survived and had to alter their behavior to do so.
When you look at families and their elderly today how many instances can you point out to yourself where their priorities were misplaced. What kind of car do they drive? What kind of house do they live in? Did they make any sacrifices? You might tell me that is none of your business. My friends it is all of our business as long as people our using tax payers money and we pay those taxes.
- Micheal Garry
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
0 for 7 and Going for Broke: 0 for 4 The War on Poverty
When we talk about failure in our government to run programs, the “War on Poverty” may be the most expensive failure in its attempt to solve another of our countries problems with money. Trillions of dollars and 80 years later, the tax payers have not been told what they are getting for their money or what the measurement for success of this war is. I can assure you that the way things are, the system does nothing more than promote the behaviors that keep the people in their poor surroundings.
Can we really claim that we are winning this war? Every election year we ask for the same amount of money or more and the same problems are still there that were the last year, would you believe them none the less support their war. Liberals seem to forget that when it comes to the military and the amount we spend on war. What do we hear from them? We hear how much we are wasting on the war; at least this government spending is clearly stated as the responsibility of our government. The War on Poverty has no claim to the constitution or justification in taking wealth from one and giving it to another.
Liberals often use the word poverty to describe poor in America when election time comes and it’s time to justify spending in congress. Can we really declare a war on poverty when there is no real poverty in this country? If one has been injured, one does not die because there is no hospital near by or the hospital is only for the dictators of that country. If one is hungry, one does not starve to death because there is no such thing as a food bank or soup kitchen to go to. We cry poverty when people can not afford the latest pair of Nikes, when a person lives in squalor but, has a brand new car. What we call poverty is misplaced priorities by people who have chosen wrong. These impoverished still have Television, phones, cars, and a place to live. Do people in real poverty have these choices, I don't think so.
What the war on poverty has inadvertently done has made a casualty of the nuclear family, thus making it more difficult for people to rise above despair with no one there to raise them but a mother working and a welfare check. If you were engaged in a war that has cost trillions with the same problem each year and no real victory in sight, wouldn't you change your strategy of how you are battling the enemy?
The problem with this war is, it is not to defend anyone’s freedoms but does take away their wealth. Using the general welfare argument is disingenuous at best, because if you read enough of the founder’s opinions on general welfare it is clear that general welfare was not meant for politicians to use as a means of redistribution of wealth. Using the commerce clause is equally disingenuous for the commerce clause intentions were to have the Federal government referee between states where there were disputes in commerce. I am not quite sure how anyone could take the federal right of regulating trade between states has the right by congress to make laws to redistribute wealth. Remember, taxes for roads, police, fire, Military, etc... are not programs used to give towards one persons benefit by way of check. These taxes benefit all.
This war begs to ask the question, how do you justify a war on poverty that has no written goals, no written objectives, little to no oversight on its effectiveness, and no one to hold responsible for success or failure. All there is to justify the trillions of dollars spent in this 80 year war is; a road paved with good intentions, a nation in trillions of dollars in debt, and many liberals that feel good about themselves using others money, all in the name of “The War on Poverty”.
- Micheal Garry
Liberals often use the word poverty to describe poor in America when election time comes and it’s time to justify spending in congress. Can we really declare a war on poverty when there is no real poverty in this country? If one has been injured, one does not die because there is no hospital near by or the hospital is only for the dictators of that country. If one is hungry, one does not starve to death because there is no such thing as a food bank or soup kitchen to go to. We cry poverty when people can not afford the latest pair of Nikes, when a person lives in squalor but, has a brand new car. What we call poverty is misplaced priorities by people who have chosen wrong. These impoverished still have Television, phones, cars, and a place to live. Do people in real poverty have these choices, I don't think so.
What the war on poverty has inadvertently done has made a casualty of the nuclear family, thus making it more difficult for people to rise above despair with no one there to raise them but a mother working and a welfare check. If you were engaged in a war that has cost trillions with the same problem each year and no real victory in sight, wouldn't you change your strategy of how you are battling the enemy?
The problem with this war is, it is not to defend anyone’s freedoms but does take away their wealth. Using the general welfare argument is disingenuous at best, because if you read enough of the founder’s opinions on general welfare it is clear that general welfare was not meant for politicians to use as a means of redistribution of wealth. Using the commerce clause is equally disingenuous for the commerce clause intentions were to have the Federal government referee between states where there were disputes in commerce. I am not quite sure how anyone could take the federal right of regulating trade between states has the right by congress to make laws to redistribute wealth. Remember, taxes for roads, police, fire, Military, etc... are not programs used to give towards one persons benefit by way of check. These taxes benefit all.
This war begs to ask the question, how do you justify a war on poverty that has no written goals, no written objectives, little to no oversight on its effectiveness, and no one to hold responsible for success or failure. All there is to justify the trillions of dollars spent in this 80 year war is; a road paved with good intentions, a nation in trillions of dollars in debt, and many liberals that feel good about themselves using others money, all in the name of “The War on Poverty”.
- Micheal Garry
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
0 for 7 and Going for Broke: 0 for 3 Fannie Mae + Freddie Mac
Not only do government programs fail to serve the recipients of others wealth, they also could have a negative effect in the private sector such has Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did. Fannie Mae has been in “business” for 72 years and Freddie Mac for 40 years, these two government supported companies played the biggest role of our most recent economic downturn and are broke. All these programs that are broke play by different rules than the private sector and are able to still exist, running huge deficits, at tax payer’s expense.
These programs, of course, are claimed to be for the welfare of others. At what cost do these programs stop being a benefit and become a burden on economical growth? A simple answer is to say, the program becomes a burden when you have a larger number of dependents than you have producers to support the programs needs.
Senators Barney Frank, Christopher Todd, and Charles Schumer had much to do with the huge economic downturn. These criminal politicians with the help of other liberals in Washington, through extortion like methods, used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for social engineering. Offering people home loans they could not afford. Eventually, these loans were offered on such a large scale that once these unrealistic loans started to foreclose, causing huge losses in the housing market. This was done in the name of welfare and fairness but, eventually helped plunge us in the situation we are in now.
Many in the Bush administration warned that these loans and the practices of these two programs were not sustainable. Liberal after Liberal told Federal regulators that they were wrong; Gregory Meeks goes as far as calling regulators incompetent and along with Maxine Waters and other liberals claiming there was no crisis with housing loans in the housing market.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
If this was the private sector, the leaders of these programs would be brought up on charges of fraud and more. That is the beauty of government programs; they rarely are represented by the people and rarely answer to those that are not profiting in some way from them. We the people need to stop politician gravy trains like this, and get rid of this notion that government programs can correct all that is wrong. The sad reality is government programs line more pockets of the government, and take away more money from the producers that make this country the success story that it is.
- Micheal Garry
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Saving Public Transportation or Prolonging its Failure?
Socialism versus Free Market has failed once again, with Public Transportation. The government’s answer is, pretty much admitting to it being a failure, to make new law (The Public Transportation Act of 2010) to bailout the problem and pass on the cost to the tax payer under the guise of preserving public transportation.
Where the problem begins is that, public transportation is competing with other forms of transportation (Cabs, personal vehicles, etc…). They are competing with the cost of what maybe cheaper to do. I calculate how much it is to pay for gas versus the fare to take me back and forth from work. With this competition, come the decisions that a normal company playing buy the rules of the free market would have to make regarding many costs of operation.
The costs of operation would include fuel, maintenance, and employee payroll. Has with all businesses in the Free Market, this formula depends on the right percentage of funds being allocated to each expense in order to compete and stay in business. The formula is where the problem is, the drivers, mechanics, and other operations jobs are union workers making a scale of pay that is not justifiable and out of wack with the percentage of other costs to run public transportation. This makes it harder to compete in the Free Market. Plus, being subsidized, eventually the money will run dry and more taxes will be needed and the cost will also be passed to the consumer because, tax increases will not be enough. The bus riders will only stand or afford so many hikes before seeking alternatives and you need riders to stay in business. Thus, bringing us to The Public Transportation Preservation Act.
This type of government solution through subsidizing with taxes and than, after the venture fails, using taxes to preserve it, is in part why we are in trouble now. This behavior does not reward success, it rewards failure by punishing those who do succeed with higher taxes to support those that don’t.
What should be done in this case and in many others? Much like innovation is born from necessity; innovation can be stifled by subsidizing failed and or out of date ideas. What if government decided to subsidize the horse and buggy business or Kerosene lamps when electricity was discovered? I personally think that Public Transportation's best bet for survival at this point is to leave it to the experts. Leave Transportation to people who know how to run businesses and compete to survive, privatize it.
The economy naturally expands and retracts, and with this comes new ways to do business and the old ways die. The economy is not in a vacuum, we can either try to fight innovation or we can adapt to it and build our businesses upon it. Government does not succeed in and should not attempt to create innovation, it simply should step out of the way and make an atmosphere where innovation is free to grow and thrive. It is only when government steps aside that we have been at our best.
Let us not use legislation to save a failure, let’s deregulate the market so that ideas can be truly free to inspire and grow our economy. To deregulate is not bad, we need to enforce the laws we already have to protect against wrongdoing in the private sector. Where we most need regulation is with our government.
- Micheal Garry
Where the problem begins is that, public transportation is competing with other forms of transportation (Cabs, personal vehicles, etc…). They are competing with the cost of what maybe cheaper to do. I calculate how much it is to pay for gas versus the fare to take me back and forth from work. With this competition, come the decisions that a normal company playing buy the rules of the free market would have to make regarding many costs of operation.
The costs of operation would include fuel, maintenance, and employee payroll. Has with all businesses in the Free Market, this formula depends on the right percentage of funds being allocated to each expense in order to compete and stay in business. The formula is where the problem is, the drivers, mechanics, and other operations jobs are union workers making a scale of pay that is not justifiable and out of wack with the percentage of other costs to run public transportation. This makes it harder to compete in the Free Market. Plus, being subsidized, eventually the money will run dry and more taxes will be needed and the cost will also be passed to the consumer because, tax increases will not be enough. The bus riders will only stand or afford so many hikes before seeking alternatives and you need riders to stay in business. Thus, bringing us to The Public Transportation Preservation Act.
This type of government solution through subsidizing with taxes and than, after the venture fails, using taxes to preserve it, is in part why we are in trouble now. This behavior does not reward success, it rewards failure by punishing those who do succeed with higher taxes to support those that don’t.
What should be done in this case and in many others? Much like innovation is born from necessity; innovation can be stifled by subsidizing failed and or out of date ideas. What if government decided to subsidize the horse and buggy business or Kerosene lamps when electricity was discovered? I personally think that Public Transportation's best bet for survival at this point is to leave it to the experts. Leave Transportation to people who know how to run businesses and compete to survive, privatize it.
The economy naturally expands and retracts, and with this comes new ways to do business and the old ways die. The economy is not in a vacuum, we can either try to fight innovation or we can adapt to it and build our businesses upon it. Government does not succeed in and should not attempt to create innovation, it simply should step out of the way and make an atmosphere where innovation is free to grow and thrive. It is only when government steps aside that we have been at our best.
Let us not use legislation to save a failure, let’s deregulate the market so that ideas can be truly free to inspire and grow our economy. To deregulate is not bad, we need to enforce the laws we already have to protect against wrongdoing in the private sector. Where we most need regulation is with our government.
- Micheal Garry
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
0 for 7 and Going for Broke: 0 for 2 - Social Security
Social Security, the most notable of the programs that came out of the “New Deal” in the 1930’s, had it’s start in 1935 has a good intended supplement for retirees by redistributing others wealth by force to give to others that did not save or have money. What they are not mentioning in government run schools is that, The Supreme Court actually struck down a large portion of the “New Deal”, ruling them unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not go far enough and the birth of Socialism began with the stroke of President Roosevelt's pen for much of the 1930’s.
Again, we will put aside the fact that it is wrong to take a percentage of ones money and give it to someone else because they did not properly save and manage their finances. What did people ever do before this? People today act has though people would be starving in the streets if it was not for Social Security. That is simply not true, like many other safety nets that are at the expense of others, people would be forced to take matters into their own hands and take responsibility for their own families. This would also serve has an incentive to live within ones means and keep families together.
What I can not put aside in looking at this program is the fact that it is giving out more money than it is taking in. Remember Bernie Madoff? Much like the Ponzi scheme he was imprisoned for, the Federal government does in the name of Social Security. Has a matter of fact, I think it might be worse. Social Security investors are being forced to invest into a program that promises a return but, the investor puts more in than they receive on return. The most generous predictions by the Congressional budget Office shows a decade until the system goes broke. Unless they bring more money in through more taxes or raise the age, this will surely only delay its end. I would say that instead of keeping Mr. Madoff in prison, The Feds should have him on the payroll.
So, 75 years of Social Security, how much longer does it take to admit failure? I say give real freedom of choice and let people decide what investments to make on their own. This idea is more in line with freedom than the way the system is now. There are risks to this idea but, when you look at the proven track record of failing government programs, privatizing Social Security sounds like a good bet.
- Micheal Garry
Again, we will put aside the fact that it is wrong to take a percentage of ones money and give it to someone else because they did not properly save and manage their finances. What did people ever do before this? People today act has though people would be starving in the streets if it was not for Social Security. That is simply not true, like many other safety nets that are at the expense of others, people would be forced to take matters into their own hands and take responsibility for their own families. This would also serve has an incentive to live within ones means and keep families together.
What I can not put aside in looking at this program is the fact that it is giving out more money than it is taking in. Remember Bernie Madoff? Much like the Ponzi scheme he was imprisoned for, the Federal government does in the name of Social Security. Has a matter of fact, I think it might be worse. Social Security investors are being forced to invest into a program that promises a return but, the investor puts more in than they receive on return. The most generous predictions by the Congressional budget Office shows a decade until the system goes broke. Unless they bring more money in through more taxes or raise the age, this will surely only delay its end. I would say that instead of keeping Mr. Madoff in prison, The Feds should have him on the payroll.
So, 75 years of Social Security, how much longer does it take to admit failure? I say give real freedom of choice and let people decide what investments to make on their own. This idea is more in line with freedom than the way the system is now. There are risks to this idea but, when you look at the proven track record of failing government programs, privatizing Social Security sounds like a good bet.
- Micheal Garry
Monday, May 24, 2010
0 for 7 and Going for Broke: 0 for 1 - The U.S. Post Office
Although, it is pretty clear that by their many quotes and writings on the subject(One example: The Federalist Papers), the Founders of this country in no way meant the definition of welfare to be bastardized into what politicians have defined it today. Using “General Welfare” to establish their own power and reasons for being a career politician.
Let’s put that aside for a moment the General Welfare Debate and look at another reason that government should not be running Welfare programs that drain the wealth from the private sector to use under the false pretense of charity. It’s quite simple, they fail every time.
Let’s take a look at one of the very first programs the government ran, The U.S. Post Office. Established in 1775. 235 years in business and just last year this is what its CEO said of the programs financial status in front of Congress, "If current trends continue, we could experience a net loss of $6 billion or more this fiscal year," - Postmaster General John E. Potter. In other words they are BROKE!
The formula that contributed to this was the idea that you can compete with the private sector and the many different methods of delivering information without adjusting wages and making cuts necessary to compete. The Unions have a role in the financial noose they have placed around the neck of The Post Office with higher wages than what the cost of doing business calls for and the retirement benefits that come with it. If this was a private company running itself in this way, it would be out of business.
- Micheal Garry
Let’s put that aside for a moment the General Welfare Debate and look at another reason that government should not be running Welfare programs that drain the wealth from the private sector to use under the false pretense of charity. It’s quite simple, they fail every time.
Let’s take a look at one of the very first programs the government ran, The U.S. Post Office. Established in 1775. 235 years in business and just last year this is what its CEO said of the programs financial status in front of Congress, "If current trends continue, we could experience a net loss of $6 billion or more this fiscal year," - Postmaster General John E. Potter. In other words they are BROKE!
The formula that contributed to this was the idea that you can compete with the private sector and the many different methods of delivering information without adjusting wages and making cuts necessary to compete. The Unions have a role in the financial noose they have placed around the neck of The Post Office with higher wages than what the cost of doing business calls for and the retirement benefits that come with it. If this was a private company running itself in this way, it would be out of business.
- Micheal Garry
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Letter From an Out of Touch Liberal
(Original Post: April 8, 2010)
A little background first. I initially befriended my Step-brother on FaceBook with the best intentions not aware of his liberal leanings. He began to make comments which became more unpleasant and even vulgar at times. He did not like my stance on a few issues such as Gay Marriage and Welfare but, instead of giving me reasons he disagreed he began to call me names and even began trying to assassinate my character to whoever would read it. Mind you, he knows little to nothing about me.
I am sure this is a familiar story for those of us who have encountered liberals Idea of tolerance when discussing things they object to. Harassment followed on virtually every post with Steve making it his job to be the prove-yer of truth, his truth anyway. He had finally gave up on his crusade until this message and his Idea of victory for America in is own words. Enjoy!
Steve April 7 at 11:22pm
See, it was all just a matter of time before your theories and beliefs deflated.
ACORN...the video was edited to push an agenda.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/w
http://www.salon.com/news/
http://www.personalliberty
"ClimateGate"
http://www.nytimes.com/201
And the real kicker is the lack of interest many Republicans now have in repealing the health care bill. They are more interested in their upcoming elections and know that pushing too hard against a bill that's going to have a positive effect is akin to cutting off their own head.
If they truly believed the bill was bad, they'd push and push and push to repeal the bill...regardless of the upcoming election.
Finally, I'm surprised your name hasn't popped up in the Michigan militia arrests. But, I don't expect it to be long before you snap and shoot up a post office.
Now, I certainly don't expect you to read any of the links I provided you with...you never do. You simply choose to believe the drivel of the right wing whackos that thrive off stupidity.
My Response:
You must of missed me,
I'm not sure what you are gloating about. What theories were defeated? Acorn is a corrupt organization that is out of business with several voting fraud cases pending all over the states. Care to listen to your beloved organization.
http://www.youtube.com/wat
The Healthcare bill with back room deals and a promise to correct problems later and to use an executive order that cannot be used for a law that has passed anyway. Not what you would call upfront and honest. Not to mention that 38 States are pursuing legal action based on States rights against federal mandates that extend into the states. I am sure you are perfectly fine with people being fined for not participating or not meeting the minimum requirements for what coverage they feel you should have.
Your desire to force people to submit to what you think is right has no limits. Where as my belief is in giving people more choices to do and live how they want without government involvement.
still hanging on to global warming i see, one of the few. I have found it is useless to prove a negative and that's what it is at least for what humans can do for it or against it.
Michigan militia? shooting up a post office, you really don't know me well. No surprise. I have to admit you are holding back, you have called me and implied a lot worse. Oh yeah, you might want to check what political party the members of that militia affiliated themselves with. Well, one they knew about the rest they couldn't determine. I know evidence shmevidence.
http://www.toledoblade.com
If right wing drivel is Less government and more freedom, yes I will continue to support that. If right wing drivel is being against laws that are design to protect a chosen few or agendas that are not for all Americans, again yes.
I am conservative and will continue to support people carrying this message. I am happy to see that Republicans are being challenged by Conservatives successfully as well as Democrats being challenged. You probably did not know that almost half of the Tea Party is made up of Fiscal democrats and Independents with the other half Conservative.
http://voices.washingtonpo
Talk to me in November, the fight against socialism is far from over.
Taking other peoples hard earned money and having others decide who is worthy of receiving it is not charity, it's stealing.
- Micheal Garry
I am sure this is a familiar story for those of us who have encountered liberals Idea of tolerance when discussing things they object to. Harassment followed on virtually every post with Steve making it his job to be the prove-yer of truth, his truth anyway. He had finally gave up on his crusade until this message and his Idea of victory for America in is own words. Enjoy!
Steve April 7 at 11:22pm
See, it was all just a matter of time before your theories and beliefs deflated.
ACORN...the video was edited to push an agenda.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/w
http://www.salon.com/news/
http://www.personalliberty
"ClimateGate"
http://www.nytimes.com/201
And the real kicker is the lack of interest many Republicans now have in repealing the health care bill. They are more interested in their upcoming elections and know that pushing too hard against a bill that's going to have a positive effect is akin to cutting off their own head.
If they truly believed the bill was bad, they'd push and push and push to repeal the bill...regardless of the upcoming election.
Finally, I'm surprised your name hasn't popped up in the Michigan militia arrests. But, I don't expect it to be long before you snap and shoot up a post office.
Now, I certainly don't expect you to read any of the links I provided you with...you never do. You simply choose to believe the drivel of the right wing whackos that thrive off stupidity.
My Response:
You must of missed me,
I'm not sure what you are gloating about. What theories were defeated? Acorn is a corrupt organization that is out of business with several voting fraud cases pending all over the states. Care to listen to your beloved organization.
http://www.youtube.com/wat
The Healthcare bill with back room deals and a promise to correct problems later and to use an executive order that cannot be used for a law that has passed anyway. Not what you would call upfront and honest. Not to mention that 38 States are pursuing legal action based on States rights against federal mandates that extend into the states. I am sure you are perfectly fine with people being fined for not participating or not meeting the minimum requirements for what coverage they feel you should have.
Your desire to force people to submit to what you think is right has no limits. Where as my belief is in giving people more choices to do and live how they want without government involvement.
still hanging on to global warming i see, one of the few. I have found it is useless to prove a negative and that's what it is at least for what humans can do for it or against it.
Michigan militia? shooting up a post office, you really don't know me well. No surprise. I have to admit you are holding back, you have called me and implied a lot worse. Oh yeah, you might want to check what political party the members of that militia affiliated themselves with. Well, one they knew about the rest they couldn't determine. I know evidence shmevidence.
http://www.toledoblade.com
If right wing drivel is Less government and more freedom, yes I will continue to support that. If right wing drivel is being against laws that are design to protect a chosen few or agendas that are not for all Americans, again yes.
I am conservative and will continue to support people carrying this message. I am happy to see that Republicans are being challenged by Conservatives successfully as well as Democrats being challenged. You probably did not know that almost half of the Tea Party is made up of Fiscal democrats and Independents with the other half Conservative.
http://voices.washingtonpo
Talk to me in November, the fight against socialism is far from over.
Taking other peoples hard earned money and having others decide who is worthy of receiving it is not charity, it's stealing.
- Micheal Garry
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Right Way: Avoiding Socialism/Poverty
(Original Post March 29, 2010)
There are those of us who claim that there is no wrong way and no right way to get to where you want to go. Well, there are still right ways of doing things despite the modern mentality that everybody is right. After all, it would be wrong to hurt someone’s feelings by stating their fallacy.
Did you know that there is a right way to avoid being poor? Now, I am talking about a right way that would not harm your fellow man by; selling him drugs, stealing from him, or benefiting from another’s hard work by redistribution of wealth (oops! I already covered stealing).
The right way to avoid poverty goes something like this:
1. Avoid sexual promiscuity to avoid risk of a pregnancy before establishing yourself or finding a serious committed relationship.
2. Study and graduate from high school.
3. Get a job right out of high school with or without going to college.
4. Don’t have children unless you are financially able without welfare.
5. Properly parenting your children to live 1 – 4 of the above mentioned to avoid poverty. Before one can support hungry mouths, one must be able to support their own hungry mouth.
The above steps will create a cycle, creating better opportunities for individual success and help build a healthy community for many years to come. Now, I did not come up with this on my own. Many people before me have known this and its practice. I’m sure if you read the biography of the rich you’re going to find that the above formula was followed by most unless they were born into wealth. Now, there are exceptions to every rule lets just focus on the rule.
These above steps do not require lobbyists, political bribes, or higher taxes. This just requires a change in behavior, which will not bode well for career politicians that make a living on others dependency on government for survival. Socialism can not exist without dependants. How could they justify the high taxes on wealth if their programs eliminate “poverty”? The point being, Socialist-Democrats look at how many people need welfare for their success, versus how many people do not need it. The redistribution of wealth is the goal, not the elimination of poverty. This is stealing in its worst form because; it hides behind a moral high ground to take peoples money.
Despite what people might tell you, there are many Conservative ways to cut costs, solve social issues, and help people without spending a penny of the tax payer’s money. These ways are not the easiest. They require taking responsibility for ones own behavior and not throwing other peoples money at problems. Throwing money at it only lines other people’s pockets and the same problem exists every year right around budget time. So, there is not only a right way but much better way to avoid poverty without stealing from another through taxes to do so. This also destroys Socialism in the process, restores peoples self respect, and creates innovation and wealth like nothing else can.
- Micheal Garry
There are those of us who claim that there is no wrong way and no right way to get to where you want to go. Well, there are still right ways of doing things despite the modern mentality that everybody is right. After all, it would be wrong to hurt someone’s feelings by stating their fallacy.
Did you know that there is a right way to avoid being poor? Now, I am talking about a right way that would not harm your fellow man by; selling him drugs, stealing from him, or benefiting from another’s hard work by redistribution of wealth (oops! I already covered stealing).
The right way to avoid poverty goes something like this:
1. Avoid sexual promiscuity to avoid risk of a pregnancy before establishing yourself or finding a serious committed relationship.
2. Study and graduate from high school.
3. Get a job right out of high school with or without going to college.
4. Don’t have children unless you are financially able without welfare.
5. Properly parenting your children to live 1 – 4 of the above mentioned to avoid poverty. Before one can support hungry mouths, one must be able to support their own hungry mouth.
The above steps will create a cycle, creating better opportunities for individual success and help build a healthy community for many years to come. Now, I did not come up with this on my own. Many people before me have known this and its practice. I’m sure if you read the biography of the rich you’re going to find that the above formula was followed by most unless they were born into wealth. Now, there are exceptions to every rule lets just focus on the rule.
These above steps do not require lobbyists, political bribes, or higher taxes. This just requires a change in behavior, which will not bode well for career politicians that make a living on others dependency on government for survival. Socialism can not exist without dependants. How could they justify the high taxes on wealth if their programs eliminate “poverty”? The point being, Socialist-Democrats look at how many people need welfare for their success, versus how many people do not need it. The redistribution of wealth is the goal, not the elimination of poverty. This is stealing in its worst form because; it hides behind a moral high ground to take peoples money.
Despite what people might tell you, there are many Conservative ways to cut costs, solve social issues, and help people without spending a penny of the tax payer’s money. These ways are not the easiest. They require taking responsibility for ones own behavior and not throwing other peoples money at problems. Throwing money at it only lines other people’s pockets and the same problem exists every year right around budget time. So, there is not only a right way but much better way to avoid poverty without stealing from another through taxes to do so. This also destroys Socialism in the process, restores peoples self respect, and creates innovation and wealth like nothing else can.
- Micheal Garry
Monday, May 3, 2010
Haiti: Exportation of Welfare
(Originally written January 20, 2010)
Welfare fails just as badly abroad has the welfare system here in the states. The same reasons New Orleans was such a tragedy is the same reasons Haiti was a tragedy. Both places had a failed infrastructure despite millions of dollars being given to them in aid year after year, with no incentive to work hard.
Welfare stifles a climate of prosperity, and in doing so hurts the infrastructure turning an event like this into much worse. It is easy to throw money at a problem and feel good about yourself, it is much harder to resist and give someone no alternative than to make it on their own and be self sustaining. We should not give Haitians fish we should teach them how to fish.
- Micheal Garry
Welfare fails just as badly abroad has the welfare system here in the states. The same reasons New Orleans was such a tragedy is the same reasons Haiti was a tragedy. Both places had a failed infrastructure despite millions of dollars being given to them in aid year after year, with no incentive to work hard.
Welfare stifles a climate of prosperity, and in doing so hurts the infrastructure turning an event like this into much worse. It is easy to throw money at a problem and feel good about yourself, it is much harder to resist and give someone no alternative than to make it on their own and be self sustaining. We should not give Haitians fish we should teach them how to fish.
- Micheal Garry
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Statistics Don't Lie; First Impressions are in the Measurements
(Original Post: January 16, 2010)
I had come across an old Nike ad that a FaceBook friend had posted on her page. It is relevant to say she is a very beautiful woman that posted this ad. The ad basically spoke of, in a very sympathetic tone, how a woman is measured by things she can’t control, like her body curves (36-24-26) and not what’s inside. Going on to state that statistics lie.
A woman is often measured for her body curves by design. It is the natural order of things for a man to be drawn to a girl’s beauty, the law of attraction. Ladies do the same thing except, it is financial security that is the measurement for her. It is unusual for a beautiful girl to be with a guy that does not financially have a lot to offer, unless he is very attractive. It is very common to see a not so attractive man that is financially secure with a beautiful woman. Look around if you have doubts, it’s all around us, on television, at work, in the movies, etc…..
If liberals had their way what would be their solution? I think it would be obvious for those of us that have paid attention to liberals over the years. The goal would be the same has the goal of socialism always is. In order to make everyone equal, you would have to make everyone look the same. Since we will never see a day where above average looking people would be subjected to operations to lessen their beauty and equal the dating field (at least I hope not), they would have to turn to liberal members of congress to pass a beauty tax.
It is unfair in the liberal point of view that people are born looking more beautiful than others, it is necessary to punish those with beauty with a tax. Has we know with liberals already, what they can't convince the masses to do they turn to our willing members of congress to legislate for them ignoring the constitution in the process. This would make above average looking liberals feel better about themselves while, fleecing beautiful Americans everywhere. This money of course would go to less than average looking Americans for plastic surgery and other methods of alteration to beautify themselves.
Sorry average looking Americans, not only will you not benefit from the plan but, this plan will eventually grow too large needing more money and average looking Americans will have to pay this beauty tax to keep the program a float. Sound familiar? If liberals can convince the public on a theory to pay a Cap-N-Trade tax, a beauty tax would not be a far stretch. Remember, the goal for liberals is to feel good about themselves, outcome does not matter.
Is there some hypocrisy in the Nike ad? After all, I do not recall a Nike commercial with many women, if any, with less than beautiful measurements. Do you think that Nike is going to sell a product using a woman with less than average looks, or for that matter average looks? This ad sends a confusing message to young women, and this is why an ad such as this one is so amusing to me. Many women do not like the price that comes with their beauty, and the intentions are to make people feel better about themselves however, lets not ignore basic facts of nature and our sex sells society in order to make ourselves feel better.
I am sure there are a lot of beautiful women just as beautiful on the inside but, beauty comes with a price and that price usually comes in the form of objectification. Statistics don't lie they continue the work of beauty that nature fights so hard to keep and protect. This does not mean all beautiful women are dumb. It means that statistically speaking, the first impressions are in the measurements.
- Micheal Garry
I had come across an old Nike ad that a FaceBook friend had posted on her page. It is relevant to say she is a very beautiful woman that posted this ad. The ad basically spoke of, in a very sympathetic tone, how a woman is measured by things she can’t control, like her body curves (36-24-26) and not what’s inside. Going on to state that statistics lie.
A woman is often measured for her body curves by design. It is the natural order of things for a man to be drawn to a girl’s beauty, the law of attraction. Ladies do the same thing except, it is financial security that is the measurement for her. It is unusual for a beautiful girl to be with a guy that does not financially have a lot to offer, unless he is very attractive. It is very common to see a not so attractive man that is financially secure with a beautiful woman. Look around if you have doubts, it’s all around us, on television, at work, in the movies, etc…..
If liberals had their way what would be their solution? I think it would be obvious for those of us that have paid attention to liberals over the years. The goal would be the same has the goal of socialism always is. In order to make everyone equal, you would have to make everyone look the same. Since we will never see a day where above average looking people would be subjected to operations to lessen their beauty and equal the dating field (at least I hope not), they would have to turn to liberal members of congress to pass a beauty tax.
It is unfair in the liberal point of view that people are born looking more beautiful than others, it is necessary to punish those with beauty with a tax. Has we know with liberals already, what they can't convince the masses to do they turn to our willing members of congress to legislate for them ignoring the constitution in the process. This would make above average looking liberals feel better about themselves while, fleecing beautiful Americans everywhere. This money of course would go to less than average looking Americans for plastic surgery and other methods of alteration to beautify themselves.
Sorry average looking Americans, not only will you not benefit from the plan but, this plan will eventually grow too large needing more money and average looking Americans will have to pay this beauty tax to keep the program a float. Sound familiar? If liberals can convince the public on a theory to pay a Cap-N-Trade tax, a beauty tax would not be a far stretch. Remember, the goal for liberals is to feel good about themselves, outcome does not matter.
Is there some hypocrisy in the Nike ad? After all, I do not recall a Nike commercial with many women, if any, with less than beautiful measurements. Do you think that Nike is going to sell a product using a woman with less than average looks, or for that matter average looks? This ad sends a confusing message to young women, and this is why an ad such as this one is so amusing to me. Many women do not like the price that comes with their beauty, and the intentions are to make people feel better about themselves however, lets not ignore basic facts of nature and our sex sells society in order to make ourselves feel better.
I am sure there are a lot of beautiful women just as beautiful on the inside but, beauty comes with a price and that price usually comes in the form of objectification. Statistics don't lie they continue the work of beauty that nature fights so hard to keep and protect. This does not mean all beautiful women are dumb. It means that statistically speaking, the first impressions are in the measurements.
- Micheal Garry
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
The Shame Of It All
(Original Post: Tuesday, December 22, 2009)
Once upon a time in a time a couple generations ago there lived shame. Shame was a sort of check on society’s behaviors, a kind of neighborhood watch on bad behavior, society’s conscious. The people on the watch were your parents, grandparents, neighbors, and even politicians (believe or not).
What happen to shame? Where did it go? When did shame leave town?
The fall of shame can be traced to the “New Deal”, governments attempt to solve all of society’s problems with other peoples money. This was a big part of the extinguishing of shame. It did two things; it made begging easier to do (Welfare), eliminating the shame of it by making the beggar anonymous, and strong arming the public into giving money to the anonymous beggar or taking from Peter to pay anonymous(Paul). The second thing it did was to eventually make it easier to get divorced, by making the spouse pay (most cases men) for support in the name of child support or alimony. This made it easier to divorce; this was the beginning of the climb towards a 50% divorce rate. Again showing, governments attempt to fix a problem through social engineering, made the problem worse not better.
It did not take long before the mainstream media and the interchangeable Hollywood elites followed suit in extinguishing shame. This was done by; vilifying any institution that followed a code of morality, mocking religion and family values has narrow minded and outdated, the destroying of the “Nuclear family” by promoting single moms and even glorifying them, the Promotion of gay marriage with or without children involved, saying that the presence of a father is not required to raise a child. Government replacing the father with a check. Let’s not forget trying to make legislation in the name of civil rights for a sexual preference. The whole point of this is to gain acceptance, for that you need to eliminate society’s shame of it. This can be achieved by forcing it down the public's throat(Gay Pride Parades) or by forced acceptance through legislation(Hate Crimes)
It is a natural tendency to want acceptance from everyone and shame was inconvenient for those who wanted to do, promote, or make money from shameful things and gain acceptance. The beautiful thing about shame is it requires no legislation and is society’s conscious. Without shame people accept things without care of consequence and only care about the present feeling, with everyone being right and nothing being wrong. Our leaders have no shame anymore. These leaders will offer things to voters for votes, ignoring the constitution. The voters lack shame in selling there vote for a promised bridge, post office, city/state project, etc..., enabling a politician to violate their oath of office. Society has not benefited from the absence of shame but, has suffered from the lack there of.
- Micheal Garry
Once upon a time in a time a couple generations ago there lived shame. Shame was a sort of check on society’s behaviors, a kind of neighborhood watch on bad behavior, society’s conscious. The people on the watch were your parents, grandparents, neighbors, and even politicians (believe or not).
What happen to shame? Where did it go? When did shame leave town?
The fall of shame can be traced to the “New Deal”, governments attempt to solve all of society’s problems with other peoples money. This was a big part of the extinguishing of shame. It did two things; it made begging easier to do (Welfare), eliminating the shame of it by making the beggar anonymous, and strong arming the public into giving money to the anonymous beggar or taking from Peter to pay anonymous(Paul). The second thing it did was to eventually make it easier to get divorced, by making the spouse pay (most cases men) for support in the name of child support or alimony. This made it easier to divorce; this was the beginning of the climb towards a 50% divorce rate. Again showing, governments attempt to fix a problem through social engineering, made the problem worse not better.
It did not take long before the mainstream media and the interchangeable Hollywood elites followed suit in extinguishing shame. This was done by; vilifying any institution that followed a code of morality, mocking religion and family values has narrow minded and outdated, the destroying of the “Nuclear family” by promoting single moms and even glorifying them, the Promotion of gay marriage with or without children involved, saying that the presence of a father is not required to raise a child. Government replacing the father with a check. Let’s not forget trying to make legislation in the name of civil rights for a sexual preference. The whole point of this is to gain acceptance, for that you need to eliminate society’s shame of it. This can be achieved by forcing it down the public's throat(Gay Pride Parades) or by forced acceptance through legislation(Hate Crimes)
It is a natural tendency to want acceptance from everyone and shame was inconvenient for those who wanted to do, promote, or make money from shameful things and gain acceptance. The beautiful thing about shame is it requires no legislation and is society’s conscious. Without shame people accept things without care of consequence and only care about the present feeling, with everyone being right and nothing being wrong. Our leaders have no shame anymore. These leaders will offer things to voters for votes, ignoring the constitution. The voters lack shame in selling there vote for a promised bridge, post office, city/state project, etc..., enabling a politician to violate their oath of office. Society has not benefited from the absence of shame but, has suffered from the lack there of.
- Micheal Garry
Monday, April 12, 2010
Would Jesus drop bombs?
(Original Post Sunday, November 8, 2009)
I saw a bumper sticker a few days ago that asked the question, "Would Jesus drop bombs?". I mulled it over a few days to figure out what was behind the question and than to address the question. Would Jesus drop bombs on his enemies? After some pondering and an education in Christianity that goes back to Sunday school, I came up with a way to respond to such a puzzling question. Puzzling because, I really do not believe the driver really was seeking the truth or really cared what Jesus would do. Instead, the driver was trying to catch Christians who support the war in hypocrisy. I discuss this only by using the Bible has a reference not my own beliefs. If you do not believe, it would be silly to even debate the question. It would be a moot point.
At this point before going on, we have to agree on the premise that God and Jesus are one of the same and that anything Jesus would or would not do would be the same of God (A part of the Holy Trinity). Those of you still with me now can proceed in having an honest look at the question, "Would Jesus drop bombs?". After thinking back about what I have studied from the Bible the answer would be undoubtedly, yes. I do not see how one reading the Bible,or at least the Cliff notes, could avoid the very same conclusion.
The Great Flood, God decided to punish mankind, by flooding the Earth for 40 days and 40 nights, because of their evil doings by wiping out a great many more people than with a bomb. Sodom and Gomorrah, because of sexual deviance it was written God had wiped out an entire city, without rebuilding it afterward. Kind of like the destruction that would occur by dropping a nuclear bomb today. Judgment Day, the unimaginable horror that will happen to those of us that are left behind is far worse than any bomb that man can drop in the arena of combat. These are to name a few of what the wrath of God has done and will do according to the Bible, to Gods enemies.
Granted some Christians themselves refer to these examples I have given as stories and some interpret them as real occurrences but, The Wrath of God, beyond bombs, is a constant theme in the Bible. It would appear that Jesus would do a lot more damage to his enemies in the end than to merely drop a bomb. I will go further to say that, Jesus would support a war that battles against an enemy that kills the young, rapes women, and enslaves their subjects. The better question to be asked is, "Would Jesus want man to live freely or under tyranny?".
- Micheal Garry
I saw a bumper sticker a few days ago that asked the question, "Would Jesus drop bombs?". I mulled it over a few days to figure out what was behind the question and than to address the question. Would Jesus drop bombs on his enemies? After some pondering and an education in Christianity that goes back to Sunday school, I came up with a way to respond to such a puzzling question. Puzzling because, I really do not believe the driver really was seeking the truth or really cared what Jesus would do. Instead, the driver was trying to catch Christians who support the war in hypocrisy. I discuss this only by using the Bible has a reference not my own beliefs. If you do not believe, it would be silly to even debate the question. It would be a moot point.
At this point before going on, we have to agree on the premise that God and Jesus are one of the same and that anything Jesus would or would not do would be the same of God (A part of the Holy Trinity). Those of you still with me now can proceed in having an honest look at the question, "Would Jesus drop bombs?". After thinking back about what I have studied from the Bible the answer would be undoubtedly, yes. I do not see how one reading the Bible,or at least the Cliff notes, could avoid the very same conclusion.
The Great Flood, God decided to punish mankind, by flooding the Earth for 40 days and 40 nights, because of their evil doings by wiping out a great many more people than with a bomb. Sodom and Gomorrah, because of sexual deviance it was written God had wiped out an entire city, without rebuilding it afterward. Kind of like the destruction that would occur by dropping a nuclear bomb today. Judgment Day, the unimaginable horror that will happen to those of us that are left behind is far worse than any bomb that man can drop in the arena of combat. These are to name a few of what the wrath of God has done and will do according to the Bible, to Gods enemies.
Granted some Christians themselves refer to these examples I have given as stories and some interpret them as real occurrences but, The Wrath of God, beyond bombs, is a constant theme in the Bible. It would appear that Jesus would do a lot more damage to his enemies in the end than to merely drop a bomb. I will go further to say that, Jesus would support a war that battles against an enemy that kills the young, rapes women, and enslaves their subjects. The better question to be asked is, "Would Jesus want man to live freely or under tyranny?".
- Micheal Garry
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
A Visit to the Doctor
Original Post: Wednesday, June 24, 2009
I have visited the doctor in the last couple months more than I have in the past 10 years, not your hypochondriac. I am insured, not because I was one of the lucky ones but, because I chose to work for a company that offered good care. Anyways, I digress.
I pulled and than 9 days later tore my calf muscle, a visit to the doctor was in order. I called to schedule an appointment choosing the times available (11am the following day) and even requesting a specific doctor.
I showed up at the registration desk and after identifying self, it took less than 2 minutes and I was off to the doctor’s office. There were not too many people in the lobbies, probably because of their efficient screening process over the phone to screen out people with hang nails or a headache. It was about 5 minutes and I was called into the waiting room. A nurse observed me and the doctor saw me within a 5 minute time period. The doctor asked me some questions and looked at my injury than came to a diagnosis. I was treated with care and was in and out before an hour’s time.
Sounds like a pleasant experience. Now, imagine the government running health care, the same government that brought you the efficiently run BMV (waiting in line for hours), Medicaid and Medicare (and still were told, by liberals, choices are being made between dog food and prescriptions), social Security (that we can no longer afford to pay for), Welfare (One of the most quotable topics by the Founding Fathers, warning us against not for our current state of welfare.), and I’m sure you can add to the list. Not to mention, that you could get in trouble, under Obamacare, for not having Health care Insurance. Is that freedom of choice? So, in the eyes of a liberal, a woman has a right to kill her baby but not the choice of being insured or not? I’m not making this up. The scary part is, the Obama Administration and Congress are making this up has they go. Their main goal is to make you pay not only someone’s groceries but now their health care also.
- Micheal Garry
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."-- James Madison
Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson
I have visited the doctor in the last couple months more than I have in the past 10 years, not your hypochondriac. I am insured, not because I was one of the lucky ones but, because I chose to work for a company that offered good care. Anyways, I digress.
I pulled and than 9 days later tore my calf muscle, a visit to the doctor was in order. I called to schedule an appointment choosing the times available (11am the following day) and even requesting a specific doctor.
I showed up at the registration desk and after identifying self, it took less than 2 minutes and I was off to the doctor’s office. There were not too many people in the lobbies, probably because of their efficient screening process over the phone to screen out people with hang nails or a headache. It was about 5 minutes and I was called into the waiting room. A nurse observed me and the doctor saw me within a 5 minute time period. The doctor asked me some questions and looked at my injury than came to a diagnosis. I was treated with care and was in and out before an hour’s time.
Sounds like a pleasant experience. Now, imagine the government running health care, the same government that brought you the efficiently run BMV (waiting in line for hours), Medicaid and Medicare (and still were told, by liberals, choices are being made between dog food and prescriptions), social Security (that we can no longer afford to pay for), Welfare (One of the most quotable topics by the Founding Fathers, warning us against not for our current state of welfare.), and I’m sure you can add to the list. Not to mention, that you could get in trouble, under Obamacare, for not having Health care Insurance. Is that freedom of choice? So, in the eyes of a liberal, a woman has a right to kill her baby but not the choice of being insured or not? I’m not making this up. The scary part is, the Obama Administration and Congress are making this up has they go. Their main goal is to make you pay not only someone’s groceries but now their health care also.
- Micheal Garry
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."-- James Madison
Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson
Monday, March 29, 2010
(S.O.S.) Same Old Song: An Inconvenient Debate
(Original Post - Monday, May 11, 2009)
We were sold by the media and politicians 35 years ago on an Ice Age that we were causing if we didn't change our ways. Now, with just as much certainty as then, we are being told that we are now causing Global Warming. Hell, lets have it both ways and call it Climate Change. Always be skeptical when the speaker of a cause is a politician, not a scientist.
Fact: There is not a consensus in the scientific community that temperature change is the result of man made co2, not by a long shot. There is even speculations by scientists that temperature may drive co2 levels in the atmosphere which is the opposite of what Al Gore believes to be co2 levels drive the temperature. Al Gore refuses a debate, probably because he may have to use facts to support his argument where there are none.
We, the people that don’t believe everything our politicians tell us, our told that this is a fact without a debate. We our told there is a consensus where there is not. We our taxed solely on the basis that it may be happening (gasoline taxes for emissions and smoking taxes to pay for emissions testing, etc...).
When does the taxing of our behaviors stop, our founders did not write the Constitution so that the government could tax our behavior and any taxes to help stop Global Warming is exactly that. An intrusive government taxes behavior and it needs to stop. Lets face the facts, the middle class and tax paying poor end up paying for these unproven environmental policies with higher taxes raising the price of gas, electric, and heating oil bills.
Its politicians like this I fear:
"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)
Translation – We have to keep on deceiving the American People so that we can dictate our economic and environmental values on them. Obviously can’t win them over with the truth.
- Micheal Garry
We were sold by the media and politicians 35 years ago on an Ice Age that we were causing if we didn't change our ways. Now, with just as much certainty as then, we are being told that we are now causing Global Warming. Hell, lets have it both ways and call it Climate Change. Always be skeptical when the speaker of a cause is a politician, not a scientist.
Fact: There is not a consensus in the scientific community that temperature change is the result of man made co2, not by a long shot. There is even speculations by scientists that temperature may drive co2 levels in the atmosphere which is the opposite of what Al Gore believes to be co2 levels drive the temperature. Al Gore refuses a debate, probably because he may have to use facts to support his argument where there are none.
We, the people that don’t believe everything our politicians tell us, our told that this is a fact without a debate. We our told there is a consensus where there is not. We our taxed solely on the basis that it may be happening (gasoline taxes for emissions and smoking taxes to pay for emissions testing, etc...).
When does the taxing of our behaviors stop, our founders did not write the Constitution so that the government could tax our behavior and any taxes to help stop Global Warming is exactly that. An intrusive government taxes behavior and it needs to stop. Lets face the facts, the middle class and tax paying poor end up paying for these unproven environmental policies with higher taxes raising the price of gas, electric, and heating oil bills.
Its politicians like this I fear:
"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)
Translation – We have to keep on deceiving the American People so that we can dictate our economic and environmental values on them. Obviously can’t win them over with the truth.
- Micheal Garry
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
S.O.S.: Save Our Selves (Ohio Seat-Belt Law)
It is easy to site stats for accident fatalities with people who don’t wear their seatbelts. Why is that? Well, let me ask you a question. How often have you heard a news reporter, if ever, mention after an accident that the person had been wearing their seatbelt and died or survived because they didn’t have their seatbelt on? I have never heard that mentioned or ever read about it. Do you mean to tell me that it is not possible to get into an accident when the seatbelt can do more harm? The reason they don’t report those instances is because it does not support what they have decided is what’s best for you (Political Correctness). Did someone say follow the money? The law will bring in some money through fines for the States.
Like a lot of the nanny laws out there they look for the study that supports their view. The other argument is, if a seat-belt could save your life shouldn’t you wear one? Only if you could guarantee that I will be in that accident when wearing a seat-belt would save me but, no one can guarantee that. So, shouldn’t I have the right to make the choice of wearing it or not.
The only purpose of this law is to tell me how I should be safe and that is not the governments job to do so. Who are they protecting me from in making this law of wearing my seat-belt? And, don’t get me started on the fact that the Federal Government blackmails the States into submission with highway funds to pass these intrusive laws.
- Micheal Garry
“Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” -Ronald Reagan
Monday, March 22, 2010
JOHN KASICH FOR GOVERNOR
Conservative Express is proud to announce its support for John Kasich for Governor of the State of Ohio.
When he was Chairman of the House Budget Committee, he helped construct the first balanced budget in decades. In helping craft a balanced budget, he helped eliminate wasteful government spending. This is the perfect time to eliminate wasteful spending.
Although Governor Ted Strickland is a good man, he's not the forward thinking conservative governor we need.
Kasich is a visionary.
Ohio is struggling and it needs a strong, free enterprise, anti tax, pro business governor to lead it.
Kasich is that man.
--Leon D. Atterberry
When he was Chairman of the House Budget Committee, he helped construct the first balanced budget in decades. In helping craft a balanced budget, he helped eliminate wasteful government spending. This is the perfect time to eliminate wasteful spending.
Although Governor Ted Strickland is a good man, he's not the forward thinking conservative governor we need.
Kasich is a visionary.
Ohio is struggling and it needs a strong, free enterprise, anti tax, pro business governor to lead it.
Kasich is that man.
--Leon D. Atterberry
Monday, March 15, 2010
Sounding the Alarm: A Country in Distress
(Original Post) March 9, 2009 - Monday
An S.O.S. was sounded by Morse code when a Vessel was in distress. The acronyms commonly used to be easily remembered for emergencies were "Save Our Ship" and "Save Our Souls".
I have chosen S.O.S. to be the title of a series of blogs that will be of a political topic, like: the continuing growth of government, global warming or climate change, taxes, war, racism, freedom, hypocrisy, and more. I believe this country is in distress of losing its very nature of being a free Republic and becoming an oppressive socialist state.
The following S.O.S. blogs will not be about name calling or propaganda but, it will be my thoughts about issues that concern me or just plain frustrate me. However, if the first thoughts on something you see that makes you upset is "there out to be a law" you probably will not want to read any of the S.O.S. blogs other wise you may think there out to be a law against my point of view.
- Micheal Garry
An S.O.S. was sounded by Morse code when a Vessel was in distress. The acronyms commonly used to be easily remembered for emergencies were "Save Our Ship" and "Save Our Souls".
I have chosen S.O.S. to be the title of a series of blogs that will be of a political topic, like: the continuing growth of government, global warming or climate change, taxes, war, racism, freedom, hypocrisy, and more. I believe this country is in distress of losing its very nature of being a free Republic and becoming an oppressive socialist state.
The following S.O.S. blogs will not be about name calling or propaganda but, it will be my thoughts about issues that concern me or just plain frustrate me. However, if the first thoughts on something you see that makes you upset is "there out to be a law" you probably will not want to read any of the S.O.S. blogs other wise you may think there out to be a law against my point of view.
- Micheal Garry
Thursday, March 11, 2010
GREAT ARTICLE BY THOMAS SOWELL
Abraham Lincoln once asked an audience how many legs a dog has, if you called the tail a leg? When the audience said "five," Lincoln corrected them, saying that the answer was four. "The fact that you call a tail a leg does not make it a leg."
That same principle applies today. The fact that politicians call something a "stimulus" does not make it a stimulus. The fact that they call something a "jobs bill" does not mean there will be more jobs.
What have been the actual consequences of all the hundreds of billions of dollars that the government has spent? The idea behind the spending is that it will cause investors to invest, lenders to lend and employers to employ.
That was called "pump priming." To get a pump going, people put a little water into it, so that the pump will start pumping out a lot of water. In other words, government money alone was never supposed to restore the economy by itself. It was supposed to get the private sector spending, lending, investing and employing.
The question is: Is that what has actually happened?
The stimulus spending started back in 2008, during the Bush administration, and has continued under the Obama administration, so it has had plenty of time to show what it can do.
After the Bush administration's stimulus spending in 2008, business spending on equipment and software fell-- not rose-- by 28 percent. Spending on durable goods fell 22 percent.
What about the banks? Four months after the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP) poured billions of dollars into the banks, the biggest recipients of that money made 23 percent fewer loans than before. A year later, the credit extended by American banks as a whole was down-- not up-- by more than $20 billion.
Spending in general was down. The velocity of circulation of money fell faster than it had in half a century.
Just two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal reported, "U.S. banks posted last year their sharpest decline in lending since 1942." You can call it a stimulus, if you want to, just as you can call a tail a leg. But the actual effect of what is called a "stimulus" has been more like that of a sedative.
Why aren't the banks lending, with all that money sitting there gathering dust?
You don't lend when politicians are making it more doubtful whether you are going to get your money back-- either on time or at all. From the White House to Capitol Hill, politicians are coming up with all sorts of bright ideas for borrowers not to have to pay back what they borrowed and for lenders not to be able to foreclose on people who are months behind on their mortgage payments.
President Obama keeps telling us that he is "creating jobs." But more and more Americans have no jobs. The unemployment rate has declined slightly, but only because many people have stopped looking for jobs. You are only counted as unemployed if you are still looking for a job.
If all the unemployed people were to decide that it is hopeless and stop looking for work, the unemployment statistics would drop like a rock. But that would hardly be a solution.
What is going on, that nothing seems to work?
None of this is new. What is going on is what went on during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Money circulated more slowly during the 1930s than during the 1920s. Banks lent out a smaller proportion of the money they had on hand during the 1930s than they did in the 1920s. Anti-business rhetoric and anti-business policies did not create business confidence then, any more than it does now. Economists have estimated that the New Deal prolonged the depression by several years.
This is not another Great Depression, at least not yet, and the economy may recover on its own, if the government will let it. But Obama today, like FDR in the 1930s, cannot leave the economy alone. Both have felt a need to come up with one bright idea after another, to "do something."
The theory is that, if one thing doesn't work, it is just a matter of trying another. But, in an atmosphere where nobody knows what the federal government is going to come up with next, people tend to hang on to their money until they have some idea of what the rules of the game are going to be.
That same principle applies today. The fact that politicians call something a "stimulus" does not make it a stimulus. The fact that they call something a "jobs bill" does not mean there will be more jobs.
What have been the actual consequences of all the hundreds of billions of dollars that the government has spent? The idea behind the spending is that it will cause investors to invest, lenders to lend and employers to employ.
That was called "pump priming." To get a pump going, people put a little water into it, so that the pump will start pumping out a lot of water. In other words, government money alone was never supposed to restore the economy by itself. It was supposed to get the private sector spending, lending, investing and employing.
The question is: Is that what has actually happened?
The stimulus spending started back in 2008, during the Bush administration, and has continued under the Obama administration, so it has had plenty of time to show what it can do.
After the Bush administration's stimulus spending in 2008, business spending on equipment and software fell-- not rose-- by 28 percent. Spending on durable goods fell 22 percent.
What about the banks? Four months after the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP) poured billions of dollars into the banks, the biggest recipients of that money made 23 percent fewer loans than before. A year later, the credit extended by American banks as a whole was down-- not up-- by more than $20 billion.
Spending in general was down. The velocity of circulation of money fell faster than it had in half a century.
Just two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal reported, "U.S. banks posted last year their sharpest decline in lending since 1942." You can call it a stimulus, if you want to, just as you can call a tail a leg. But the actual effect of what is called a "stimulus" has been more like that of a sedative.
Why aren't the banks lending, with all that money sitting there gathering dust?
You don't lend when politicians are making it more doubtful whether you are going to get your money back-- either on time or at all. From the White House to Capitol Hill, politicians are coming up with all sorts of bright ideas for borrowers not to have to pay back what they borrowed and for lenders not to be able to foreclose on people who are months behind on their mortgage payments.
President Obama keeps telling us that he is "creating jobs." But more and more Americans have no jobs. The unemployment rate has declined slightly, but only because many people have stopped looking for jobs. You are only counted as unemployed if you are still looking for a job.
If all the unemployed people were to decide that it is hopeless and stop looking for work, the unemployment statistics would drop like a rock. But that would hardly be a solution.
What is going on, that nothing seems to work?
None of this is new. What is going on is what went on during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Money circulated more slowly during the 1930s than during the 1920s. Banks lent out a smaller proportion of the money they had on hand during the 1930s than they did in the 1920s. Anti-business rhetoric and anti-business policies did not create business confidence then, any more than it does now. Economists have estimated that the New Deal prolonged the depression by several years.
This is not another Great Depression, at least not yet, and the economy may recover on its own, if the government will let it. But Obama today, like FDR in the 1930s, cannot leave the economy alone. Both have felt a need to come up with one bright idea after another, to "do something."
The theory is that, if one thing doesn't work, it is just a matter of trying another. But, in an atmosphere where nobody knows what the federal government is going to come up with next, people tend to hang on to their money until they have some idea of what the rules of the game are going to be.
GETTING INVOLVED
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We MUST do everything we can to elect conservatives to office..not just in Washington but at the state, local and county levels.
We've a great job in Va, Ma and NJ. We cannot rest on our laurels.
We need to be involved. We cannot sit back and let our country continue going in the direction it's going.
I urge you to contribute, vote, write letters to editors, newspapers, etc...also, call talk shows to spread the message.
Leon D. Atterberry
We MUST do everything we can to elect conservatives to office..not just in Washington but at the state, local and county levels.
We've a great job in Va, Ma and NJ. We cannot rest on our laurels.
We need to be involved. We cannot sit back and let our country continue going in the direction it's going.
I urge you to contribute, vote, write letters to editors, newspapers, etc...also, call talk shows to spread the message.
Leon D. Atterberry
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Politics of Celebrating Diversity vs. The Melting Pot
(Original Post) February 10, 2009 - Tuesday
There seems to be a misnomer out there that celebrating diversity somehow will bring people together. When ever has pointing out differences ever brought anyone together. When dating, we try to find someone who shares some of our desires and likes, this also happens when considering friends and associations. Of course, we will never agree completely with anyone.
The movement of Celebrating diversity does more harm than good, it drives a wedge between people by promoting exclusivity for groups encouraging its members to look for those differences, it does not unite people. A common reason people hate or have distrust is because of the differences people see in one another. A common reason for unity is the similarities they see in one another.
The Melting Pot, this is the basic idea of bringing people together based on similarities not differences and uniting them under one nationality. This does not mean we all have to think one way or another or throw away our heritage. What it does is, encourage an atmosphere of common ground with people that may not be alike in many ways but may share a lot of the same thoughts and ideas that you do.
When you celebrate similarities you are celebrating a reason to come together or at least encouraging people to find common ground. When you celebrate diversity or differences what are you really celebrating? Celebrating that people are different is like celebrating the mere existence of something. So, when I am celebrating diversity, should I be celebrating the fact that I was born white or that someone else was not? We would be better served celebrating that we all believe in the concept of freedom and that we all our Americans.
My friend and I disagree politically but, we don’t get together and celebrate it. What we do is get together and celebrate are friendship and things we both like, mostly. Your certainly not making a convincing argument for people to come together celebrating differences but, are encouraging people to stay in their separate communities. It sounds like the promotion of segregation to me. I would much prefer to find out what I have in common with someone than to point out our differences. So, lets celebrate similarity.
- Micheal Garry
There seems to be a misnomer out there that celebrating diversity somehow will bring people together. When ever has pointing out differences ever brought anyone together. When dating, we try to find someone who shares some of our desires and likes, this also happens when considering friends and associations. Of course, we will never agree completely with anyone.
The movement of Celebrating diversity does more harm than good, it drives a wedge between people by promoting exclusivity for groups encouraging its members to look for those differences, it does not unite people. A common reason people hate or have distrust is because of the differences people see in one another. A common reason for unity is the similarities they see in one another.
The Melting Pot, this is the basic idea of bringing people together based on similarities not differences and uniting them under one nationality. This does not mean we all have to think one way or another or throw away our heritage. What it does is, encourage an atmosphere of common ground with people that may not be alike in many ways but may share a lot of the same thoughts and ideas that you do.
When you celebrate similarities you are celebrating a reason to come together or at least encouraging people to find common ground. When you celebrate diversity or differences what are you really celebrating? Celebrating that people are different is like celebrating the mere existence of something. So, when I am celebrating diversity, should I be celebrating the fact that I was born white or that someone else was not? We would be better served celebrating that we all believe in the concept of freedom and that we all our Americans.
My friend and I disagree politically but, we don’t get together and celebrate it. What we do is get together and celebrate are friendship and things we both like, mostly. Your certainly not making a convincing argument for people to come together celebrating differences but, are encouraging people to stay in their separate communities. It sounds like the promotion of segregation to me. I would much prefer to find out what I have in common with someone than to point out our differences. So, lets celebrate similarity.
- Micheal Garry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
