(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
Monday, March 29, 2010
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)
