Letters From New York Highjacked!
While taking my usual Saturday morning constitutional around the Blogosphere I came across this story. Michele was a liberal who had a conversion to the right. Her liberal friends decided that the grown up, mature thing to do to celebrate her epiphany would be to hijack her blog and take it over.
Doesn't it make you proud to be a liberal? Here's a link to Michele's new site. Please go over and visit. Show her some support and let her know that Conservatives care and know how to treat each other with respect.
Welcome to the right side, Michele!
Saturday, July 03, 2004
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
For the Common Good
“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.“
That's Hillary Clinton speaking to a group who had paid big bucks to hear her speak. I guess there's no accounting for common sense. I'm not sure who that refers to, the people who paid the bucks to hear her, or Hillary herself. Apparently, she thinks everyone is as stupid as a box of rocks.
I've never been hired by a poor person. I've worked for middle class people and I've worked for millionaires. The one thing they had in common was that they worked hard for what they had. When the business was profitable, they hired more people, or they bought raw materials to produce more goods. The business became more profitable. Sure, they made money, but they created jobs that weren't there in the first place. They created jobs, paid taxes, and spent money. But it still isn't enough. In reality, nothing you have will ever be enough for socialists. They want everything you've got, but how much of their own do they want to give up?
So, Hillary says that because the wealthy have worked hard, the jobs they've created isn't enough. She wants to take "things" away for the "common good." Common good usually means "the less fortunate" who haven't "won life's lottery." Hogwash! Most people are poor because they've made bad decisions. They quit school, started having children they couldn't afford at an early age, worked minimum wage jobs and they lived beyond their means. This is all socialistic claptrap. Let's take from the rich and give to the poor. Keep telling the poor that they're poor because someone else is rich and getting tax cuts. If it's up to Hillary and her crowd, America will become a nation of takers, willing to be kept by the government - Big Brother. Don't worry, Big Brother will take care of you. It worked in the Soviet Union and the Soviet Bloc, didn't it? Oh, I forgot, it didn't!
We're not wealthy by any means. We sometimes live payday to payday like most other Americans. But, you know what? I don't blame anyone but us. I made some bad financial decisions in my past and so did my husband. We're working our way out of them, and we've learned from our mistakes. Not everything was our fault, but I'm not blaming anyone for medical bills or our mistakes.
A few days ago, I posted Reagan's Little Red Hen story. I got it from Right Wing News. It's a study in socialism and should be told and retold. I gave the link before. This time, I want you to read the story here.
Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'
"Not I, " said the cow.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Not I," said the pig.
"Not I," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did. The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Out of my classification," said the pig.
"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.
"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.
At last the time came to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake bread?" asked the little red hen.
"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.
"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.
"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.
"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for the neighbors to see.
They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."
"Excess profits," cried the cow.
"Capitalist leech," screamed the duck.
"I demand equal rights," yelled the goose.
And the pig just grunted.
And they painted "unfair" picket signs and marched round and around the little red hen shouting obscenities.
When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy."
"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.
"Exactly," said the agent. "That's the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations productive workers must divide their products with the idle."
And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, I am grateful." But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.
“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.“
That's Hillary Clinton speaking to a group who had paid big bucks to hear her speak. I guess there's no accounting for common sense. I'm not sure who that refers to, the people who paid the bucks to hear her, or Hillary herself. Apparently, she thinks everyone is as stupid as a box of rocks.
I've never been hired by a poor person. I've worked for middle class people and I've worked for millionaires. The one thing they had in common was that they worked hard for what they had. When the business was profitable, they hired more people, or they bought raw materials to produce more goods. The business became more profitable. Sure, they made money, but they created jobs that weren't there in the first place. They created jobs, paid taxes, and spent money. But it still isn't enough. In reality, nothing you have will ever be enough for socialists. They want everything you've got, but how much of their own do they want to give up?
So, Hillary says that because the wealthy have worked hard, the jobs they've created isn't enough. She wants to take "things" away for the "common good." Common good usually means "the less fortunate" who haven't "won life's lottery." Hogwash! Most people are poor because they've made bad decisions. They quit school, started having children they couldn't afford at an early age, worked minimum wage jobs and they lived beyond their means. This is all socialistic claptrap. Let's take from the rich and give to the poor. Keep telling the poor that they're poor because someone else is rich and getting tax cuts. If it's up to Hillary and her crowd, America will become a nation of takers, willing to be kept by the government - Big Brother. Don't worry, Big Brother will take care of you. It worked in the Soviet Union and the Soviet Bloc, didn't it? Oh, I forgot, it didn't!
We're not wealthy by any means. We sometimes live payday to payday like most other Americans. But, you know what? I don't blame anyone but us. I made some bad financial decisions in my past and so did my husband. We're working our way out of them, and we've learned from our mistakes. Not everything was our fault, but I'm not blaming anyone for medical bills or our mistakes.
A few days ago, I posted Reagan's Little Red Hen story. I got it from Right Wing News. It's a study in socialism and should be told and retold. I gave the link before. This time, I want you to read the story here.
Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'
"Not I, " said the cow.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Not I," said the pig.
"Not I," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did. The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Out of my classification," said the pig.
"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.
"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.
At last the time came to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake bread?" asked the little red hen.
"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.
"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.
"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.
"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for the neighbors to see.
They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."
"Excess profits," cried the cow.
"Capitalist leech," screamed the duck.
"I demand equal rights," yelled the goose.
And the pig just grunted.
And they painted "unfair" picket signs and marched round and around the little red hen shouting obscenities.
When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy."
"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.
"Exactly," said the agent. "That's the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations productive workers must divide their products with the idle."
And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, I am grateful." But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.
It's Wictory Wednesday!
This is a chance for you to show your support for Bush/Cheney, Republicans, conservatives, or whatever you feel is right with America.
Volunteer here or donate here
Do it, because, to paraphrase a former president, YOU CAN! Do it because you're the little red hen and want to keep the bread you worked for and made yourself.
This is a chance for you to show your support for Bush/Cheney, Republicans, conservatives, or whatever you feel is right with America.
Volunteer here or donate here
Do it, because, to paraphrase a former president, YOU CAN! Do it because you're the little red hen and want to keep the bread you worked for and made yourself.
Monday, June 28, 2004
Iraqi Turnover
The Iraqi government is in charge of Iraq now. The turnover occured two days ahead of schedule. I heard that it was changed because of possible assassination attempts and other violent acts. For all I know, it's possible that the 30th was the announced day, and the real date was always the 28th. I'm just amazed that it was done as quietly as it was. Just goes to prove that politicians can keep a secret.
In any case, I hope this shuts down some of the commentary that the US is in Iraq for the oil. If that was the case, our gas prices would be alot lower than they are. It won't of course, now the other side will be saying that Iraq is too unstable and we should not have turned over power yet.
The other thing will be, now that we have turned power over, why are our troops still there? Why aren't they home yet? They are there as a courtesy to the Government of Iraq which is still in its infancy. I'm sure that while the various ministers of government are capable of running the government, there are still security issues that they are not yet able to handle. They are still hiring police officers even though the insurgents are, or at least were, bombing recruiting offices. I'm sure the Iraqi military is not in much better shape.
There are still problems that need to be overcome. It's not unlike Europe after WWII. After any war, there are citizens who are not happy with the outcome; they wanted a different ending. In Iraq, there are insurgents who want a return to the old ways. It's not necessarily a matter of wanting the US out, they don't want a democracy of any kind.
It was seven years before Germany held elections after WWII. Iraq will be holding elections no later than January 31, 2005. I'd say that says alot for Iraq and the US.
America is a country that has done so much for so many countries and asked so little. After both World Wars, all we asked for was some land to bury our dead. How many other countries have done so much and asked so little?
Makes me proud to be an American.
The Iraqi government is in charge of Iraq now. The turnover occured two days ahead of schedule. I heard that it was changed because of possible assassination attempts and other violent acts. For all I know, it's possible that the 30th was the announced day, and the real date was always the 28th. I'm just amazed that it was done as quietly as it was. Just goes to prove that politicians can keep a secret.
In any case, I hope this shuts down some of the commentary that the US is in Iraq for the oil. If that was the case, our gas prices would be alot lower than they are. It won't of course, now the other side will be saying that Iraq is too unstable and we should not have turned over power yet.
The other thing will be, now that we have turned power over, why are our troops still there? Why aren't they home yet? They are there as a courtesy to the Government of Iraq which is still in its infancy. I'm sure that while the various ministers of government are capable of running the government, there are still security issues that they are not yet able to handle. They are still hiring police officers even though the insurgents are, or at least were, bombing recruiting offices. I'm sure the Iraqi military is not in much better shape.
There are still problems that need to be overcome. It's not unlike Europe after WWII. After any war, there are citizens who are not happy with the outcome; they wanted a different ending. In Iraq, there are insurgents who want a return to the old ways. It's not necessarily a matter of wanting the US out, they don't want a democracy of any kind.
It was seven years before Germany held elections after WWII. Iraq will be holding elections no later than January 31, 2005. I'd say that says alot for Iraq and the US.
America is a country that has done so much for so many countries and asked so little. After both World Wars, all we asked for was some land to bury our dead. How many other countries have done so much and asked so little?
Makes me proud to be an American.
Hehehehehe....
The phone rang this evening. When I picked it up the caller announced he was calling for the Republican National Party in Washington DC and did I have a few minutes to answer some questions. Okay, sure, I have a couple of minutes.
After asking how important, on a scale of 1 - 5 with 5 being the most important, was it to retain a Republican Administration in the White House, he got on to the real reason for the call (I answered that I thought the answer would be at least a 4. This made him very happy). The upshot was, could the RNP count on me for a donation of least $100. More would be better, of course. I said, well, there's only one problem. I'm not a Republican. Short (surprised?) pause, and then, "You're not?" No, I don't believe I've ever been a registered Republican. I also just had to add that I wasn't a Democrat either, that I'm registered as an Independent. He apologized all over himself saying he was sorry for the call, and he'd do what he could to stop the calls. And reassured me that no RNP candidate was paying for the call.
I didn't care that the RNP was calling, I actually found it humorous. I can't wait until the Democrats call with their version of the first question - How important is it to me that the Democrats regain the White House? With the raving lunatics that seem to populate the DNC these days, it would scare me to death.
The phone rang this evening. When I picked it up the caller announced he was calling for the Republican National Party in Washington DC and did I have a few minutes to answer some questions. Okay, sure, I have a couple of minutes.
After asking how important, on a scale of 1 - 5 with 5 being the most important, was it to retain a Republican Administration in the White House, he got on to the real reason for the call (I answered that I thought the answer would be at least a 4. This made him very happy). The upshot was, could the RNP count on me for a donation of least $100. More would be better, of course. I said, well, there's only one problem. I'm not a Republican. Short (surprised?) pause, and then, "You're not?" No, I don't believe I've ever been a registered Republican. I also just had to add that I wasn't a Democrat either, that I'm registered as an Independent. He apologized all over himself saying he was sorry for the call, and he'd do what he could to stop the calls. And reassured me that no RNP candidate was paying for the call.
I didn't care that the RNP was calling, I actually found it humorous. I can't wait until the Democrats call with their version of the first question - How important is it to me that the Democrats regain the White House? With the raving lunatics that seem to populate the DNC these days, it would scare me to death.
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Profiling Revisited
Apparently, our government, in it's PC wisdom, has decided that it's discriminatory for airline security to question more than a few people of the same ethnic origin at the same time. This from Michael Smerconish's column in the Philadelphia Daily News (link here)
Hmmmm....can't question more than "a few" young, Arab men who are flying the same flight? If United and American had done that on September 11, 2001, we might not be facing this question today.
Let's return to my previous ranting about the dreaded, evil act of profiling. First of all, it's something that we all do without thinking every single day of our lives. It's based on experience, prejudices, and teachings. You look at a person, and in milliseconds, make a judgment as to whether this is a dangerous person who may be harmful to you or people with you, someone you might want to keep your eye on, or someone who is harmless. You might feel "bad vibes" from this person, or maybe they give you the heebie-jeebies. You've never seen this person before in your life and don't know why, but this is someone you want to steer clear of.
In airline profiling, we have the experience and prejudice of September 11. Previous to that date, hijackings in the US consisted mostly of young men wanting to go to Cuba. The airlines dealt with it by doing whatever the hijacker wanted. It resulted in a free trip to Cuba for the passengers, and, except for the delay in arrival at their original destination, was relatively harmless.
Since September 11, we have to endure much more extensive security measures and secondary screening procedures. I haven't had reason to fly since September 11, but I imagine most of the traveling public profiles the other passengers, especially those who fit the profile of the 9/11 hijackers - young, Arab males. Now, if any, I repeat, any, of the hijackers had been blue-eyed blondes, I would be writing an entirely different entry here.
Experience has told us that young men with dark hair and eyes who also have olive complexions are to be looked twice at. Do I like doing this? No, I hate it. I don't like putting all men who fit a particular description in the same category as the 19 vermin who destroyed so many lives. I live in Florida, this description fits a lot a young men. We have both Mid-Eastern and Hispanic populations here, and if you don't hear them speak, or don't ask for a personal history, that very general description fits both ethnicities.
Let's say a woman has been raped. She describes the rapist as being about 22 years old, 5'10", dark brown hair, green eyes, and has a scar on his right cheek. The cops then go out and start questioning men who are over 40, over 6', blonde or graying hair, with blue eyes and no scar. Does this make sense? But, they can't question the men who fit the description of the rapist, it's not PC. It might hurt someone's feelings. In the meantime, the rapist is still out there.
We have got to get away from this PC nonsense. I don't want to give up my personal freedoms by any stretch of the imagination, but I also don't want to be searching old women in wheelchairs and eight-year-old children until there is a reason to suspect that something is being hidden by Grannie or Junior.
Search everyone or search those who fit the descriptions of the 9/11 hijackers. If I fit the profile and got screened every time I turned around, I'd be royally ticked off at those doing the searches, but especially at those who caused it in the first place.
Let's not ever forget what brought this on in the first place.
Apparently, our government, in it's PC wisdom, has decided that it's discriminatory for airline security to question more than a few people of the same ethnic origin at the same time. This from Michael Smerconish's column in the Philadelphia Daily News (link here)
Hmmmm....can't question more than "a few" young, Arab men who are flying the same flight? If United and American had done that on September 11, 2001, we might not be facing this question today.
Let's return to my previous ranting about the dreaded, evil act of profiling. First of all, it's something that we all do without thinking every single day of our lives. It's based on experience, prejudices, and teachings. You look at a person, and in milliseconds, make a judgment as to whether this is a dangerous person who may be harmful to you or people with you, someone you might want to keep your eye on, or someone who is harmless. You might feel "bad vibes" from this person, or maybe they give you the heebie-jeebies. You've never seen this person before in your life and don't know why, but this is someone you want to steer clear of.
In airline profiling, we have the experience and prejudice of September 11. Previous to that date, hijackings in the US consisted mostly of young men wanting to go to Cuba. The airlines dealt with it by doing whatever the hijacker wanted. It resulted in a free trip to Cuba for the passengers, and, except for the delay in arrival at their original destination, was relatively harmless.
Since September 11, we have to endure much more extensive security measures and secondary screening procedures. I haven't had reason to fly since September 11, but I imagine most of the traveling public profiles the other passengers, especially those who fit the profile of the 9/11 hijackers - young, Arab males. Now, if any, I repeat, any, of the hijackers had been blue-eyed blondes, I would be writing an entirely different entry here.
Experience has told us that young men with dark hair and eyes who also have olive complexions are to be looked twice at. Do I like doing this? No, I hate it. I don't like putting all men who fit a particular description in the same category as the 19 vermin who destroyed so many lives. I live in Florida, this description fits a lot a young men. We have both Mid-Eastern and Hispanic populations here, and if you don't hear them speak, or don't ask for a personal history, that very general description fits both ethnicities.
Let's say a woman has been raped. She describes the rapist as being about 22 years old, 5'10", dark brown hair, green eyes, and has a scar on his right cheek. The cops then go out and start questioning men who are over 40, over 6', blonde or graying hair, with blue eyes and no scar. Does this make sense? But, they can't question the men who fit the description of the rapist, it's not PC. It might hurt someone's feelings. In the meantime, the rapist is still out there.
We have got to get away from this PC nonsense. I don't want to give up my personal freedoms by any stretch of the imagination, but I also don't want to be searching old women in wheelchairs and eight-year-old children until there is a reason to suspect that something is being hidden by Grannie or Junior.
Search everyone or search those who fit the descriptions of the 9/11 hijackers. If I fit the profile and got screened every time I turned around, I'd be royally ticked off at those doing the searches, but especially at those who caused it in the first place.
Let's not ever forget what brought this on in the first place.
Won't see it here
I've decided to make a list of things I won't write about. It's short at the moment, but I'll most likely be adding to it from time to time.
1. Michael Moore
2. Madonna
My reasons? I won't waste my time commenting on Maddona (she's so over) and I've found working with dogs and juveniles you don't reward bad behavior with attention.
'Nuff said about those two.
I've decided to make a list of things I won't write about. It's short at the moment, but I'll most likely be adding to it from time to time.
1. Michael Moore
2. Madonna
My reasons? I won't waste my time commenting on Maddona (she's so over) and I've found working with dogs and juveniles you don't reward bad behavior with attention.
'Nuff said about those two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)