Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Observations of the Presidents and First Ladies





 
These are from Secret Service agent Ronald Kessler's book about his observations of the Presidents and First Ladies are pretty much the image they projected while in office but some or very interesting.  I especially like the last one about Gen. McChrystal’s response to Obama. Scroll down to read what Kessler thinks of the presidents he served. Interesting, but not surprising!
  


JOHN & JACQUELINE KENNEDY
*A philanderer of the highest order.*
*She ordered the kitchen help to save all the left-over wine
from State dinners, mixed it with fresh wine and served again
during the next White House occasion.*
 
LYNDON & LADYBIRD JOHNSON
*Another philanderer of the highest order. In addition, LBJ was as crude as the day is long. Both JFK and LBJ kept a lot of women in the White House for extramarital affairs and both had set up early warning systems to  alert them if/when their wives were nearby. Both were promiscuous and oversexed men.*
*She was either naive or just pretended to not know about her husband's many liaisons.*


RICHARD & PAT NIXON
*A "moral" man but very odd, weird, paranoid.
He had a horrible relationship with his family
and was almost a recluse.* She was quiet most of  the time.*

   
SPIRO  AGNEW
*Nice, decent man. Everyone in the Secret Service was surprised by his downfall.*


GERALD & BETTY FORD
*A true gentlemen who treated the Secret Service with respect and dignity.
He had a great sense of humor.  *She drank a lot!*


JIMMY & ROSALYN CARTER
*A complete phony who would  portray one picture of himself to public and very different in private e.g. would be shown carrying his own luggage but the suitcases were  always empty. He kept empty ones just for photo ops. He wanted people to see him as pious and a non-drinker but he and his family drank alcohol a lot! He had disdain for the Secret Service and was very irresponsible with the "football" with nuclear codes. He didn't think it was a big deal and would keep military aides at a great distance. Often did not acknowledge the presence of Secret Service personnel assigned to serve him.*
*She mostly did her own thing.*


RONALD & NANCY REAGAN
*The real deal, moral, honest, respectful and dignified. They treated Secret Service and everyone else with respect and honor, thanked everyone all the time. He took the time to know everyone on a personal level. One favorite story was early in  his Presidency when he came out of his room with a pistol tucked on his hip. The agent in charge asked: "Why the pistol, Mr. President?" He replied, "In case you boys can't get the job done, I can help." It was common for him to carry a pistol. When he met with Gorbachev, he had a pistol in his briefcase. 
*She was very nice but very protective of the President and the Secret Service was often caught in the middle. She tried hard to control what he ate. He would say to the agent, "Come on, you gotta help me out." The Reagan's drank wine during State dinners and special occasions only otherwise they shunned alcohol. The Secret Service could count on one hand the times they were served wine during family dinner. For all the fake bluster of the Carters, the Reagan's were the ones who lived life as genuinely moral people.*


GEORGE H. & BARBARA BUSH
*Extremely kind and considerate, always  respectful. Took great care in making sure the agents' comforts were taken care of. They even brought them meals. One time she brought warm clothes to agents standing outside at Kennebunkport. One was given a warm hat and, when he tried to say "no thanks" even though he was obviously freezing, the President said "Son, don't argue with the First Lady. Put the hat on." He was the most prompt of the Presidents. He ran the White House like a well-oiled machine.*
*She ruled the house and spoke her mind.*


BILL & HILLARY CLINTON
*Presidency was one giant party. Not trustworthy. He was nice mainly because he wanted everyone to like him but to him life is just one big game and party. Everyone knows about his sexuality.*
*She is another phony. Her personality would change the instant cameras were near. She hated, with open disdain the military and Secret Service. She was another who felt people were there to serve her. She was always trying to keep tabs on Bill Clinton.*


ALBERT  GORE
*An egotistical ass who was once overheard by his Secret Service detail lecturing his son that he needed to do better in school or he would end up like these guys, pointing to the agents.*

 
GEORGE W. & LAURA BUSH
*The Secret Service loved him and Laura Bush. He was also the most physically in shape who had a very strict workout regimen. The Bushes made sure their entire administrative and household staff understood that they were to respect and be considerate of the Secret Service.*
*She was one of the nicest First Ladies, if not the nicest. She never had any harsh word to say about anyone.*


*BARACK & MICHELLE OBAMA
*Clinton all over again - hates the military and looks down on the Secret Service. He is egotistical and cunning. He looks you in the eye and appears to agree with you but  turns around and does the opposite. He has temper tantrums.*
*She is a complete bitch who basically hates anybody who is not black, hates the military and looks at the Secret Service as servants.*

A TRUE STORY ABOUT General McChrystal's resignation in Obama's office from General McChrystal's book  NEVER STAND IN LINE AGAIN:

Some men carry and handle their diplomacy better than  others. When former U.S. Military commander in  Afghanistan, General McChrystal, was called into the Oval Office by Barack Obama, he knew things weren't going to go well when the President accused him of not supporting him in his political role as President.

"It's not my job to support you as a politician, Mr. President, it's my job to support you as Commander-in-Chief," McChrystal replied, and he handed Obama his resignation.
 
Not satisfied with accepting McChrystal's resignation, the President made a cheap parting shot. "I bet when I die  you'll be happy to pee on my grave."
 
The General saluted and said, "Mr. President, I always told myself after leaving the Army I'd never stand in line again."








Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Why I have always like this man

What a class act Mr. Selleck is. View the video and see how a conservative man can address a liberal woman with respect. He is just a class act, listen! 


Tuesday, November 26, 2013

UN Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns


Take a look at this video and then pass this blog site to all your friends!
This information is crazy because it is so well documented and backed up with interviews.



Is this why so many high ranking military leaders are being ran off by the Obama administration? 

Friday, November 1, 2013

OBAMA DOJ CLAIMS INTERNATIONAL TREATIES TRUMP THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

OBAMA DOJ CLAIMS INTERNATIONAL TREATIES 

TRUMP THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

Posted 10.31.13 by Greg Campbell, TPNN Political Analyst
UN
As Americans argue over Obamacare, illegal immigration and a variety of other important issues, the very real threat of Second Amendment infringements continues to creep as anti-gun rights advocates seek to approve the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).
The United Nations General Assembly approved the ATT earlier this year, which has been designed to regulate the traffic and possession of weapons between countries. The treaty has been signed by Secretary of State John Kerry, however the international treaty must be approved by the Senate in order to be recognized.
While Kerry and others try to gain support for the treaty, Tea Party Senator Ted Cruz warns that the Obama Administration is already making the argument that an international treaty supersedes the rights outlined in the Constitution.
Infringe sticker
Justice Department attorneys are arguing before the Supreme Court a position that undermines American sovereignty. Obama’s Department of Justice is arguing that a law that abides by an international treaty adopted by the U.S. would allow the federal government to prosecute a case that would otherwise be handled by state or local authorities.
The case in question is Bond v. United States, where a woman allegedly used chemical agents for revenge against a woman with whom her husband had an affair. While the use of a weapon would normally fall under the state’s jurisdiction to prosecute, the federal government has gotten involved and seeks to undermine state sovereignty by claiming that the woman is in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, the international agreement that Syrian dictator Bashar Assad has been accused of violating.
While the woman’s actions may be heinous, the DOJ’s position, if affirmed, would place the federal government in a position to use international treaties to prosecute American citizens.
“The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers,” Cruz told said in an interview. “The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty.”
Bond’s lawyer similarly agrees, stating,
“The problem here is precisely that Congress, rather than implementing the treaty consistent with our constitutional system of federalism, enacted a statute that, if construed to apply to petitioner’s conduct, would violate basic structural guarantees and exceed Congress’s enumerated powers.”
The issue is much larger than who gets to prosecute the defendant. If this position is allowed to stand, then the federal government is in a position to invoke treaties that run contrary to our constitiuional protections.
If anti-gun rights supporters can garner the necessary votes in the Senate to pass the ATT, then the ATT can be used to restrict American Second Amendment liberties under the authority of the international treaty.
The treaty calls for regulation of firearms and while it’s supporters have claimed that the treaty does not violate our Constitutional rights, the very nature of the treaty’s enforcement suggests otherwise as a registry would be necessary to enforce the provisions of the treaty to crack down on gun trafficking. As the U.N. is largely concerned with where the firearms ultimately end up, it would be impossible to track firearm usage without noting who bought each firearm and when.
Further, the treaty would afford the international community greater powers to regulate arms imports and exports, conceivably allowing for the barring of import or export of certain classes of firearms to and from the U.S. that “endanger women and children.”
With such broad, overreaching outlines as to what the treaty does and does not do, it quite naturally has gun rights advocates worried. The international community is largely unfriendly to the uniquely American concept that firearm ownership is a right and that government is not only allowed to permit such a right, it is duty-bound to uphold and protect that right.
“The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “This treaty threatens individual firearm ownership with an invasive registration scheme. The NRA will continue working with the United States Senate to oppose ratification of the ATT.”

Thursday, May 30, 2013

United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

The Statement of Purpose from the bill read:
To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 of our senators were willing to give away our constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI); Baucus (D-MT); Bennet (D-CO); Blumenthal (D-CT); Boxer (D-CA); Brown (D-OH); Cantwell (D-WA); Cardin (D-MD); Carper (D-DE); Casey (D-PA); Coons (D-DE); Cowan (D-MA); Durbin (D-IL); Feinstein (D-CA); Franken (D-MN); Gillibrand (D-NY); Harkin (D-IA); Hirono (D-HI); Johnson (D-SD); Kaine (D-VA); King (I-ME); Klobuchar (D-MN); Landrieu (D-LA); Leahy (D-VT); Levin (D-MI); McCaskill (D-MO); Menendez (D-NJ); Merkley (D-OR); Mikulski (D-MD); Murphy (D-CT); Murray (D-WA); Nelson (D-FL); Reed (D-RI); Reid (D-NV); Rockefeller (D-WV); Sanders (I-VT); Schatz (D-HI); Schumer (D-NY); Shaheen (D-NH); Stabenow (D-MI); Udall (D-CO); Udall (D-NM); Warner (D-VA); Warren (D-MA); Whitehouse (D-RI); Wyden (D-OR).

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Thomas Jefferson and History


Thomas Jefferson 
This is amazing. There are two parts. Be sure to read the 2nd part (in RED).
 Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped.

At 5, began studying under his cousin's tutor.

At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.

At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages. 

At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.

At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.

At 23, started his own law practice.

At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.

At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America ? And retired from his law practice.

At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.

At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence .

At 33, took three years to revise Virginia 's legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.

At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.

At 40, served in Congress for two years.

At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.

At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.

At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.

At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.

At 57, was elected the third president of the United States .

At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation's size.

At 61, was elected to a second term as President.  

At 65, retired to Monticello .

At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.

At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.

At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams.

Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:

John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe ."
-- Thomas Jefferson


"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
-- Thomas Jefferson


"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
-- Thomas Jefferson


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson


"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Sunday, March 3, 2013

And Colorado attacks shotgun owners!


A popular hunting shotgun could be banned under one of the bills moving through the state Capitol. A pump or semi-automatic shotgun is the gun most hunters in Colorado use. It’s a gun state Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, says could be banned under a bill that’s already passed the House and Gov. John Hickenlooper says he’ll sign.
“They’re coming after the standard shotgun,” Brophy told CBS4 Political Specialist Shaun Boyd.
Brophy says if Democrats succeed in passing a bill limiting large capacity magazines in Colorado, they’ll outlaw the most popular selling firearm for hunting.
The shotgun ban would not only restrict hunters but also sportsmen, who use pump action and semi-automatic shotguns on occasion. The avid skeet-shooter President Obama would be devastated if he couldn’t shoot clay pigeons with certain shotguns in Colorado, right?

Friday, February 1, 2013

Face book has now censored me. Why, because I speak the truth!


Face book has now censored me. Why, because I speak the truth!

I recently became involved in an discussion with a man that attended the same high school I did, at about the same time.

Let me set this up for you because it may be hard to follow but I still think you will find it very interesting read and I really would like your comment on it. It does not matter who you feel is in the right; I just want to hear what you have to say. Please feel free to forward this to your friends and I welcome their input. 
I am conservative, and I openly say so. I’m not sure what Marks call himself. We had some good back and forth posts and were in agreement most of the time and then came GUN CONTROL. I have to admit that I no longer have tolerance for the Liberal talking points. I find them illogical, contrary to the facts and spurred on by a need to show compassion and react in some manner, just to show they care. I really believe that they just want to hold the opposite view of Republicans.

Marks post about guns started including conspiracy’s and voter redistricting, you have to take my word on this, it was very one sided, full of anger and attacks on people like the tea party members. He then he attacked a friend of mine, I had a belly full of it and replied very forcibly below; (My words in reply will be in red and his posted words in black. My friend posted my reply because I had un-friended Mark) 

I feel sorry for Mark, he has gone completely blind with his agenda and hate fills his sprite in a feeble attempt to cast blame on everyone else. He talks about conspiracy theories and attacks the right for all those and yet in his next breath, makes up his own about how the Republicans are trying to steal voter districts. Now he is off again on a new conspiracy about how those who stand by principle will be the destruction of the country. It is sad and very upsetting to see how one’s mind can be so corrupted and filled with hate and resentment to the point of lashing out at everyone and everything around him. He must feel as many Obama supporters feel, that they know what people need and what they do not need. Just as he states, “cling to weapons even unnecessary weapons” Who gave him or them the right to force their views on America? Yet, when people object to this invasion on our rights, Mr. Mark and those like him, verbally attack the patriotism of those in disagreement with him. Then he twists words and makes untrue statements about how the right wants to abandoned the sick, the old, the poor all for the sake of a dollar. All the facts point to conservatives giving more of their time and money than liberals. The main difference being that the right wants to control how and where they help (stop fraud and waste)  and the left wants the government to control how the money is spent. No sane man can point to a government program that is run efficiently as private programs, that is just a fact of bureaucracy! Liberals will not accept this fact.  Marks statement that “They believe it is okay to confiscate property from the poor if they are unable to pay for their medical bills.” Is a bold faced lie! He goes on to lie by telling what the right wing believes in, but his view could not be further from the truth. This is very disturbing. I think I sent him off on this tirade when I suggested that voters should own property or pay taxes to vote. The point I was trying to get across is that politicians are getting elected by people who are not contributing to the government but instead are benefiting from the social programs. A Liberal reads into this that I want all old and sick people to die! How does that happen? How can it be so twisted, because that is not what I believe or promote and yet, Mark takes it and runs as far left with it as he can. I have un-friended Mark on FB because I can’t stand to hear a mind that thinks like what he writes below;
“They include people like Bruce Clark, and Trace Turpin. They do not believe the right to vote is an inherent right given to all citizens regardless of race, color, creed, or religion. They do everything they can to stop citizens of this country from registering to vote or allowing them to vote, by creating long lines and illegally purging voting records, and enacting voter registration laws that unfairly tax the poor, the needy, and the helpless. They even claim that those poor should not be allowed to vote as they don’t own “property.” They believe in only registering Republicans, and discarding the registrations of Democrats.” My word!!! Did you read this? His statement is, for the lack of a better word, CRAZY! I refuse to be drawn into defending his lies against me and others. It would make no difference, his mind is closed and dark, his views are unwavering. This is so hypercritical as he writes how the right is “driven by extremists who believe absolutism is a substitute for principles who cling to their absolutes even to the destruction of the country.”  And yet there seems to be an “absolute” on his part and that is apparent when you read his writings. No one is putting words in his mouth or forcing him to converse in this manner. 
Mark lies again when is writes, “I’m afraid they are taking it back the days of slavery and child labor” perhaps that is not a lie…because he believes it. But who in their right mind would believe such a view? It is beyond silly but at the same time, very disturbing. 
“I fear if we do not speak up this is how democracy will end” Mark, is this you making up your own conspiracy or just the view of a paranoid mind? 
Mark is not on the same playing field when he attacks Allen about “the anger in the comment that resorts to denigration” My word, does he not read his own words??? Then he twists words and tries to paint Allen as what? Allen pointed to a poll that supports his view but that is attacked by Mark because Allen has said before that he does not trust polls. So? dang, nothing wrong there. Mark is the exact same way! He does not trust Allens poll but quotes one of his own. Do Liberals not take the time to think? How…oh…never mind, it’s like beating a dead horse.
I leave Mark with a note on his last attack on Allen; “And the last part of this post once again is a great example of a conspiracy that only exists in the minds of the extremist like Rush Limbaugh, And I guess Alan”
Allens words where; “The rights to free speech has been trampled on not by the Republicans, but by the Democrats that have been trying to get shows off the air for speaking out against injustice.” I don’t know why Mark calls it a conspiracy. There are attacks on both sides, the right dislikes the liberal media and the left dislikes the right sided talk shows and news like FOX. The president has even attacked both in the last couple of days so Mr. Mark, it’s not a conspiracy, it’s just a fact!

I leave Mark with his own words about himself; 

“It is his belief, that in a world of hate and violence it is only a love that is true, unprejudiced, unbiased, unjudgmental, and all accepting that can prevail.” This is on his FB description of himself 

Shame he does not live by his own words.
End of post

I really don’t care that I was attacked like I was, I’m sure that my reply to Marks post brought it on and indeed it was meant to get a rise out of him. Still, I had no idea that he would respond with such aggression and lies. It seems that when I pointing out where and how he lied in his reply really upset him.

Well, I saw the post I spoke of above on Allens time line and that is what I replied to. As I had un-friended Mark for the reason I just did not wish to see his posts anymore, I asked Allen to post my reply above to the comments on the subject, I felt the need to defend my friend Allen, he sure did not go over any line or personally attack Mark in any manner and in my modest opinion, Mark needed slapped down for his off the wall attacks on us both.

Below is Marks response to my reply that Allen posted for me; (I will make comments within his post and leave you to your own conclusions) 

Mark Barger
14 hours ago near Joplin, MO
Recently we had an unprofessional and inappropriate comment made on one of our posts that you may have seen from Bruce Clark. It was posted on our Facebook by Alan Nebeker. Both Alan Nebeker and Bruce Clark are radical right wing TEA Party supporters. (well, I do support the T Party but I am not a member) In typical right wing TEA Party fascism, (he should look up the definition of the words he uses)  instead of supporting their positions or pointing out their perceived flaws in the post in a polite manne...r, (or better yet making their points on their own Facebook), they chose to attack character on ours. Alas due to their inappropriate, disrespectful, and hateful behaviors on our Facebook they have been banned from further conversations on our posts by Facebook. (Yes, he got me... I can no longer post what I did above, I have been censored by facebook but Mark is allowed his posts…go figure, seems a little one sided in my view) It should have been unnecessary but due to their apparent childishness and lack of proper Facebook etiquette it was probably a foreseeable consequence. (well, he apparently complained to FB about my reply calling him a liar from his words here)  Frankly they appear to just be bullies that never quite grew up, never matured, have little respect for others, and are still living in that high school world where they peaked in life. (Dang, he forgot to add the toys in the sand box part... I think I may be scared for life for what he says about me) They appear to have one standard for others and another for themselves. (ever heard the expression, “I think thou protests to much”) It seems they are attracted to extremism and violence because it gives them an outlet to continue their hateful behavior, rather than maturing and becoming a valued contributing member of society. Sadly this is the type of behavior I often see from these TEA Party extremists. (Dang, he sure says a mouthful there huh? I never really knew how bad a person and citizen I was until I read this account of me) I remember once during the healthcare debate a man in a wheelchair was showing support for the Affordable Healthcare Act. I remember one of the TEA Party members walking up to him, screaming in his face that he would decide who and what to pay for other’s healthcare not the government, and threw a dollar bill in the man’s face. It showed a serious lack of compassion and a strong hatred for the sick, the suffering, and the handicap. (I don’t know if that was true or not, or what the circumstances were, but on face value, I sure do not support that kind of abuse and I take offence to anyone that would insinuate that I would) Bruce Clark, supported by Alan Nebeker, made the exact same remark in his last post saying that he wanted to decide what to pay and who to pay, and not have the government decide. (No, that is not true. We were talking about taking care of the needy and who donates time and money. I said that conservatives would rather give to a cause and know how the money is being spent than donate to the government and have no say in how our money is spent. VERY BIG difference. Why must people twist words and plain out and out lie?) Typically this behavior is driven by greed and selfishness and I suspect the same is true of Bruce Clark and Alan Nebeker who have all been banned from comments on our posts by Facebook due to their hate-filled vicious comments. (I have been banned for hate filled comments? Yet Mark is free in his writings? He sure is proud of his accomplishment as this is the second time he has made this statement)  Bruce mentioned that the government doesn’t run things as well as private enterprise therefore the government shouldn’t run social programs that help the poor and the needy and that this should be left to private enterprise. (NO, I never said that. Mark injects this to make me seem very radical and uncaring)  Really? I agree the government is not overly efficient most of the time, but they are also not “For Profit.” (so, so what is wrong with “for profit, why is that considered evil and wrong?”) For profit organizations often cost more than government run programs, (the government doesn’t need to make a profit). (Well Mark, I would like to know where you get your numbers. How can you state that "profit organizations often cost more than government run programs”. How do you back this up?) Even if private enterprise is able to run it more effectively and cheaper, here’s the question I have for these TEA Party folk, what’s stopping more private enterprises from running programs that help the needy and the poor right now? (Nothing Mark, who said there was? Many people and organizations are doing great works, you just don't hear about them in the media) Nothing except it’s not profitable. (Mark, how many charitable organizations are out there that are private, having nothing to do with tax payer funding and yet are serving everyday. I think we all could name a dozen or more) So where are all the private enterprises that are taking over so the government does not have to? In society it has never worked, which is why the government must step in and provide the safety net for its society. (well, I agree in part I guess, the government can and does provide a safety net, and I support that. I would only like to stop the abuse so the needy get help and the lazy get none. I would also point out thosecounties that are failing because of their bloated social programs. Greece and Italy come to mind ) The Nazi Party was a lot like the TEA party in some respects. (O-MY WORD, now he is gone off the wall. These types of statements are what raise the hair on the back of my neck, they are fighting words. Hmmm, but face book condones his attacks but censors me? Maybe I am supposed to complain to them like he must have. No, not my style) They didn’t want to take care of the poor, the sick, the disabled, or the elderly so they euthanized them. (WHAT???? What in the world…tell me where the tea party favors this? This is where a Liberal just lose their mind and it shows when they not only say stuff like this but write it down!) Saves money right? Well we know from history how that turned out. I believe the biggest reason enterprise is not adequately filling the gap is due to greed. Look at your billionaires and multimillionaires, the money they have alone, (that they are not using), (not using Mark? What in the world! How do you know what they do with their money and why is it your concern? If you wish them to donate more of their time and money then work towards that end and not attempt to steal it from them though taxes) would be more than enough to take care of the poor, the sick, the needy, and those less fortunate. (There is it my friends, no matter what you were thinking before. Mark now states the rich are greedy and don’t need all that money. So without putting words in his mouth, I believe he wants the government to take that money and give it to those that Mark feels needs it.)    In fact if they all just paid a decent wage to their workers, (who help them become successful), it would relieve much of the suffering of the poor. (Now, now he want everyone to believe that all the rich guys don’t pay their poor employees anything but bread and water…my word. This is not correct and is CLASS WARFARE and does nothing to help anyone. It just exposes a socialist attitude) I remember one person saying, it’s their money, so they should be able to do what they want with it. (Yes Mark, if you earn it, you should have the right to spend it how you see fit. This is still America.) Really? They made the “widgets” themselves? I don’t think so, they got there on the backs of their workers for which they should be grateful. When their workers are not able to make it on the wages paid while the CEOs and owners have a billion times what they need to make it, that’s not gratitude. (Say that is all true, even if it’s horribly wrong, what would Marks answer to the issue be?) One only needs to look at who supports the TEA Party to see that it is backed by these same wealthy people. (Hmmm at all the rally's I saw on TV, I only saw plain hard working folks out there. Moms, Dads, Grandmas and Grandpas and all the kids playing around. Nothing like the liberal Occupy Wall Street protests that had drugs, people urinating in public, trash, open sex, violation of laws and all supported by the liberal media and Democrat leaders including Obama) If they complain about taxes, can there be any real expectation that they would provide for the poor, the sick and the needy? Not that I can see. (That is where a liberal has problems with a conservative. A liberal can’t see anyone helping others just to help them. Liberals believe you have to be forced to help someone and that is where government and taxes come in.) The real reason, I believe, that mr. Bruce probably identifies with these groups is also greed. It appears Bruce and Alan don’t want people touching their money, government or otherwise, (again greed). (NO Mark, it called being responsible for and in control of your own earnings. But he is correct, I don't want anyone stealing my money. I will use it, spend it and donate it as I see fit because by the grace of God, I earned it! I don't want the government spending it on abortions or wasting it by making healthy people dependent on government programs) What people like mr Bruce seem to forget is that most people are not born into money nor marry into money. (What??? I forget what???, This guy sure know a lot about me huh?) They work all their lives to scrape out a living, provide for their family, put food on the table a roof over their heads, pay their medical bills and have little or nothing left over for savings, and must rely on Social Security, food stamps and Medicare for their retirement. (Then if that is true something is very messed up Mark, and the Government is not going to fix it. SS is earned by all those who have worked and paid into it. If people choose to buy big TVs, eat out and spend their money instead of saving, that is their choice. Do not blame someone else because they won't save or invest money throughout their lives. No working person has to rely on food stamps for retirement, that is just over board and a kin to starving old people and babies comments. ) When they discover these social programs are not adequate it leaves them begging for the necessities of life. (MY WORD, NOW IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYONE HAS TO BEG TO STAY ALIVE IN AMERICA) Not that I would expect Bruce Clark or Alan Nebeker to have compassion on these people but they should be ashamed along with the rest of America for not doing a better job of social governance of the needy. (Well, the man is simply lost to reality. Without listing what I do, I will mention that, as everyone should know, I donate time with Special Olympics and take care of developmentally disabled young adults, one of whom is in a wheel chair. I help DD adults that have had their funding cut 6% because of the financial condition the government is in. I would love to see the needy get all the help we can give them and more, it is money well spent! but to do that we must get rid of the fraud and abuse of the system that robs funds from the needy and gives to the lazy. So when Marks attacks me as greedy and uncaring, well, It just shows how misguided and blinded by his agenda  he really is. I', sorry for being so blunt but people that are on disability and taking funds away from the handicapped just because they are to fat to walk, disgusts me! They wheel into line with food stamps and twinkes, they take no responsibly for themselves, but expect that you and I should pay for their lifestyle choices  I don't buy into that and will not support them at the expense of the truly needy ) These two individuals don’t seem to understand that because of their own greed, individual hatred, or some other misguided impression of mankind they are becoming the very enemy of mankind to their own detriment. They also seem to not understand the plight of someone who has become injured or sick before they are eligible to collect Social Security, such that they cannot do the job they once did, making them rely on a reduced income or welfare. (I think Mark has a lot of pain and anger from somewhere, but that does not excuse his statements made above.) It appears from their rhetoric that they would kick these people off entitlement and welfare programs because they see them as deadbeats. Bruce Clark went so far as to say they should not be allowed to vote, and only those that contribute to society or own property should be allowed to make the rules for society. (Not true and explained in the first part of this letter, yet he will write his view for all to see and paint me as a monster because I disagree with him) They treasure their guns because they seem to envision a government that will one day take away their money, and if not the government then the poor and needy might steal from them just to get a meal, or clothes, and God forbid that should happen so they must be prepared to fend them off with deadly force. (OK, this is just WAY OUT THERE and I can’t say anything more about that) They appear to live in a fantasy world that moves from conspiracy to conspiracy, finding an enemy under every rock. From language and comments they have made it also appears they treasure their guns, especially assault rifles as they see these weapons as necessary to fight the government. Of course that might be treasonous talk or home grown militia terrorism. (OK, so I believe that the second Amendment protects the right to have an AR 15. A Rifle that I love for shoot varmints with. So in Marks view that makes me a terrorist) Well Bruce Clark, Alan Nebeker welcome to the Homeland security watch list. (Ha ha, been on it for a long time I am sure, so if you sent them a letter about me, I guess they just added it to the pile. But hey, thanks for caring and wanting to protect your country from blood thirsty crazy's like me!) They say they are Christians, but the fact is true Christians are held in the grip of the love of their God the Creator, and can stand tall with no need of weapons of self-defense, or drugs, alcohol or other chloroform masks of wealth, power, fame, or status to protect them from reality. (Whew, he sure has an opinion) True Christians are also good citizens. (Dang, somewhere the Bible also says something about judging others, O well…) The hypocrisy of their lives is simply this, should anyone point out that their behaviors and beliefs might just not be in the best interest of a civilized society, they revert to their draconianism and derisive behaviors attacking the character of the individuals who wish to make a difference in the lives of those who need it most. (Ha ha…I mean I would be offended if these statements where not so totally bizarre) They also don’t seem to understand the proper etiquette of Facebook. (Well dang, that upsets me, I didn't even know I did anything wrong...I feel...so... ashamed...) But, with all that said, we must keep in mind that like all bullies, the reactions of people like this are driven by fear, fear of those who are different, fear of loss of income, fear of the loss of control, fear of the unknown future, especially when that future does not look like anything they recognize. In a reaction to protect themselves, they surround themselves only with others who are just as radical and agree with their distorted view. People like this, who are radical absolutists feel they must vilify anyone who dares to see things differently. Sadly it closes their minds and escalates there pomposity. Their paradigms are locked like a laser on a singular point of focus creating a tunnel vision that blinds them to the universe that surrounds them causing them to destroy anything that gets in their way. We must remember, they are to be pitied, for theirs is a life of desperation and fear that is only half lived. (man, I just love the way he talks, has me convinced, he needs to write a book...dreams of my father!) We must also remember that they, above all, need our love, compassion and forgiveness. (Yep, Mark showers that on all of us right-wingers. I'm sure that was his whole point in this post on his time line, nothing but love and compassion for me the other right-wingers  We do not have to agree nor should we agree, we do not have to call their rants of hate “flowery colloquialisms.” We can and should hold them responsible and call it what is, we can and should point out the error of their ways, we can and should stand up for what is right, but we can and should always be willing to forgive while showing them the love and power of the Creator for they need it more than most.
(There it is, the end. Just a note for all who read this, Mark calls himself a preacher and has a congregation. I have no idea if that is true or not. Interesting comments, words and views from a man of the cloth. 
Please leave a comment below and let me know if my thoughts and words are way off base. Thanks!) 

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

The latest Murder Statistics for the world:


From the World Health Organization:

The latest Murder Statistics for the world:

Murders per 100,000 citizens
Honduras 91.6
El Salvador 69.2
Cote d'lvoire 56.9
Jamaica 52.2
Venezuela 45.1
Belize 41.4
US Virgin Islands 39.2
Guatemala 38.5
Saint Kits and Nevis 38.2
Zambia 38.0
Uganda 36.3
Malawi 36.0
Lesotho 35.2
Trinidad and Tobago 35.2
Colombia 33.4
South Africa 31.8
Congo 30.8
Central African Republic 29.3
Bahamas 27.4
Puerto Rico 26.2
Saint Lucia 25.2
Dominican Republic 25.0
Tanzania 24.5
Sudan 24.2
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9
Ethiopia 22.5
Guinea 22.5
Dominica 22.1
Burundi 21.7
Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7
Panama 21.6
Brazil 21.0
Equatorial Guinea 20.7
Guinea-Bissau 20.2
Kenya 20.1
Kyrgyzstan 20.1
Cameroon 19.7
Montserrat 19.7
Greenland 19.2
Angola 19.0
Guyana 18.6
Burkina Faso 18.0
Eritrea 17.8
Namibia 17.2
Rwanda 17.1
Mexico 16.9
Chad 15.8
Ghana 15.7
Ecuador 15.2
North Korea 15.2
Benin 15.1
Sierra Leone 14.9
Mauritania 14.7
Botswana 14.5
Zimbabwe 14.3
Gabon 13.8
Nicaragua 13.6
French Guiana 13.3
Papua New Guinea 13.0
Swaziland 12.9
Bermuda 12.3
Comoros 12.2
Nigeria 12.2
Cape Verde 11.6
Grenada 11.5
Paraguay 11.5
Barbados 11.3
Togo 10.9
Gambia 10.8
Peru 10.8
Myanmar 10.2
Russia 10.2
Liberia 10.1
Costa Rica 10.0
Nauru 9.8
Bolivia 8.9
Mozambique 8.8
Kazakhstan 8.8
Senegal 8.7
Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7
Mongolia 8.7
British Virgin Islands 8.6
Cayman Islands 8.4
Seychelles 8.3
Madagascar 8.1
Indonesia 8.1
Mali 8.0
Pakistan 7.8
Moldova 7.5
Kiribati 7.3
Guadeloupe 7.0
Haiti 6.9
Timor-Leste 6.9
Anguilla 6.8
Antigua and Barbuda 6.8
Lithuania 6.6
Uruguay 5.9
Philippines 5.4
Ukraine 5.2
Estonia 5.2
Cuba 5.0
Belarus 4.9
Thailand 4.8
Suriname 4.6
Laos 4.6
Georgia 4.3
Martinique 4.2
And
The United States 4.2

ALL the countries above America have 100% gun bans

Obama and his liberal crones want to disarm America to make us safer??? Perhaps he has a plan we don't know of?



Tuesday, January 22, 2013

A Reminder in History; Fear the Biased Media



A REMINDER IN HISTORY

General VoNguyen Giap.

General Giap was a brilliant, highly respected leader of the North Vietnam military. The following quote is from his memoirs currently found in the Vietnam war memorial in Hanoi :
 'What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi . You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender!
It was the same at the battle of TET. You defeated us!
We knew it, and we thought you knew it.
But we were elated to notice your media was helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!'

General Giap has published his memoirs and confirmed what most Americans knew. The Vietnam war was not lost in Vietnam ??? it was lost at home.

The same slippery slope, sponsored by the U.S. media, is currently underway. It exposes the enormous power of a Biased Media to cut out the heart and will of the American public.

A truism worthy of note: . . .
Do not fear the enemy, for they can take only your life. Fear the media, for they will distort your grasp of reality and destroy your honor.



 Truer words have never been spoken!!!




Thursday, January 17, 2013

The Idiot leaders of the left are dangerous!


The Idiot leaders of the left are dangerous!

Mayor Bloomberg Says Cops Should Go On Strike Until Americans Give Up Their Guns!

WHAT? Do you hear and understand what this guy is calling for?

Do Liberals never stop to think anything through? Do they just run their mouths with no consideration of their words of actions?

Here is what the result if Mayor Bloomberg gets his wish;

1. Every cop would just stay home until all law abiding Americans gave up their guns
2. He never said criminals! I mean, just how is that going to happen? Ok bad guys, give up your guns or police officers will stay home until you do. What kind of fools are the left?
3. So he is only attacking the 2 second amendment and you and I, legal gun owners.
4. But the result of what he calls for would kill millions of innocent Americans.
5. Americans that legally own a firearms will not be willing to just give up their rights, so Bloomberg says to the cops, stay home until the crime is so out of control that people are willing to give up their rights.
6. So while the cops are staying home as the Mayor suggests, crime, murder, rape, burning buildings, stealing and all other crime would go unchecked in the Mayors plan to rid law abiding citizens of their constitutional rights.
7. People like you and I that own firearms would protect themselves as much as humanly possible but those who have the “gun free zone” sign on the front lawn would be easy targets for outlaws.
8. The dying screams would be coming from those without a firearm, perhaps the very same people who support Mayor Bloomberg.
9. The cries of their wives and daughters being raped and beaten would fill the streets.
10. The men would watch and beg for the gangs to stop the abuse and scream for help but there would be no response from the law officers until all Americans that legally own guns give them up…

Tell me, with no police protection and crime everywhere, who believes that a gun owner will be more willing to give up his or her firearm when Mayor Bloombergs strike takes place?

Not me!

Please send this link to everyone on your e-mail list. Show them how the left thinks!