If you go left or right all day, you just go in circles. A little to the left, a little to the right, ok tack back and forth until we get where we are going. This is great, it allows us to zero in on a solution one step at a time. So, the real question is, where are we headed, what is the end goal?

Senator Mary Landrieu’s (democrat, Louisiana) services don’t come cheap.  Harry Reid (d-NV) needed her “services” to keep his Frankenstein monster health care bill alive, and she started bidding up the price on her “trick.”  Ultimately it cost Reid, excuse me, it cost the taxpayers $300 million dollars to secure her “favors.”

On top of the $2 TRILLION that this bill is likely to cost, we have yet to factor in all of the pork and bribes that are going into keeping this bill alive.  What did the other democrats get in return for their votes?  You know without a doubt that many of them got something in exchange for the political suicide they were asked to commit.

America, please wake up and realize that if these communists aren’t stopped NOW, by the time November 2010 rolls around there won’t be much of our country, freedom, or liberty left to save.  Find out what process needs to be followed for your state and start the process to remove or recall your senators and congressmen from office.  If I find out what that process is, I’ll pass it along.

I think that I’m gonna keep a running tally of the crap that’s going on in California.  It is possible, very likely, that the State is going to have to go bankrupt or beg for and receive a bailout from the Federal Government.

Part I:

California is known for its car culture. But it turns out those wheels are rolling over some of the worst roads in the nation. A recent study ranked California 49th out of the 50 states for the quality of its pavement. New Jersey came in last. But California has the distinction of having the nation’s worst roads in urban areas.

I should be happy that NPR is saying anything negative on the darling of the left.  But then again, not one single reference as to why the roads are so bad.  Not one mention as to the shrinking revenues, the mounting debt and the tendency of California to drive out both business and the wealthy.

A guy can dream?

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the moderates who voted for Barack Obama in 2008?

Answer: They won’t make the same mistake twice.

There are MANY reasons why individuals will think twice about voting for Obama again in 2012, but here are the top 5 reasons according to PJ TV:

It’s taken almost 11 months, but voters now know that propositions 1-5 are now refuted or irrelevant:

1)   Bush is history. Like Truman, in time he will begin to look better not worse. More importantly, Bush’s sins that bothered voters— too much big government and big deficits—were simply trumped by Obama’s gargantuan deficits and federalization of health care, banking, and the auto industry. “Bush did it” doesn’t work any more. “Obama did it even more” is the new worry.

2)   The panic that we would lose all our 401(k’s) and home equity has passed. What we are left with in its wake is a sinking feeling that badgering small business and the Chamber of Commerce, as if they are Goldman Sachs grandees, isn’t working. Raising income, payroll, and surcharge taxes at a time state, local, and sales taxes are surging, is, well, a good way to turn a recession into a depression—or at least a stagflating, weak recovery. Sometime around next March, “Bush’s did it” will transmogrify into Obama’s recession. Obama can’t run against the economy, but must fix it—or take the blame. His best hope is that the Republicans don’t run a demagogic figure such as he himself acted in 2007-8.

3)   Obama’s smoothness is getting old. All of us can almost write the next Obama speech: a) “some” say/do, but “I” say/do… The bad straw man is set up, followed by the contrast of the annointed “I” and “me” ad nauseum. b) then comes the apology for the sins of the rest of us—mitigated somewhat by the election of , yes, Barack Obama, the first black President; c) third is the impossible: spending more on health care saves more; cap and trade massive taxes will result in economies;  no more lobbyists means gads of them, Bush shredded the Constitution equates into I’m copying his anti-terror protocols; d) an end with hope and change ruffles and flourishes. Bottom line: the oratory is old and trite, given the lack of commensurate accomplishments.

3)   Obama’s smoothness is getting old. All of us can almost write the next Obama speech: a) “some” say/do, but “I” say/do… The bad straw man is set up, followed by the contrast of the annointed “I” and “me” ad nauseum. b) then comes the apology for the sins of the rest of us—mitigated somewhat by the election of , yes, Barack Obama, the first black President; c) third is the impossible: spending more on health care saves more; cap and trade massive taxes will result in economies;  no more lobbyists means gads of them, Bush shredded the Constitution equates into I’m copying his anti-terror protocols; d) an end with hope and change ruffles and flourishes. Bottom line: the oratory is old and trite, given the lack of commensurate accomplishments.

5)   We know now that the campaign was a centrist deception. Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright make logical the presence of the Truther Van Jones and Anita Dunn (cf. her encomium to Mao). His most partisan Senate record presages his near suicidal effort to ram through statist health care, tax hikes, and partisan appointments, in addition to polarizing rhetoric. His campaign promises to meet with Ahmadinejad were not only met, but again trumped by serial apologies, selling out the Poles and Czechs and outreach to Chavez and Castro. In other words, the so-called right-wing nuts who tried to scare the hell out of voters are proving to be Nostradamuses of sorts.

Agreed.

Since Sarah Palin was announced by old man river as the Vice Presidential candidate, the media has had a love affair with hating on her. While I could sit here and write an 8,000 word article on the instances when the media has hated on her, I will only site one (right now) of a recent article that caught my eye and disdain.

Enter Sally Quinn, a self professed atheist who coincidentally co-writes a crappy column for the Washington Post called On Faith. Sure, it makes a lot of sense that an avowed atheist with an obvious lack of knowledge on religion writes an article about religion. That would be like me penning a weekly article about how to run a large company that sells farm supplies and automobile transmissions.

Quinn, became an atheist at the ripe age of 13 says that Jon Meacham (who?) told her that religion is not something to be “dismissed or disdained.”

So why is it that Quinn devotes an entire article judging and dismissing Palin’s Christian face? As a self-taught Apologist, I find it especially irking and annoying when someone who has no knowledge whatsoever about religion, fancies themselves experts. It is especially hard to find an atheist who can tell you anything at all about Christianity. I am not saying that all atheists are ignorant on things pertaining to religion, but they are certainly not authorities on the matter.

However, this is none to surprising as the MSM has always had it in for Christianity and Palin so it seems fitting that an idiot such as Quinn would write a blog about both.

Quinn starts off by mentioning when Palin came to salvation in Christ:

In her new book Sarah Palin writes that one summer at Bible Camp she “put my life in my creator’s hands and trust Him as I sought my life’s path.” For Palin, this grand divine plan was “a natural progression.” She writes. And later, “I don’t believe in coincidences.”

Then Quinn continues by asking rhetorical and asinine questions that show just how arrogant and unapprised she is.

What does she believe is God’s plan for her? Does she have any free will or is everything preordained. Can she see something coming and change her mind despite God’s plans for her?

Can Quinn be any dumber? Is Quinn trying desperately to fill in space in an article devoid of intelligence or substance? Does Quinn expect her readers to believe that she is an authoritative source on Christianity or any religion for that matter? Will the Longhorns lose, thusly allowing TCU to go to the national title game they so richly deserve?

Pictured: Sally Quinn no doubt giving a speech about something she has no knowledge of.

If Quinn truly knew anything about Christianity, these questions she asked are questions she could have answered herself.  She continues:

Did God plan for her to become Governor of Alaska. If so, did God plan for her to step down. Did God plan for her to run for Vice President? If so why did she and McCain lose?

Let me answer these questions. Yes, yes, yes and ask McCain.

You would think that God would ask of her to live her life as an example to others of a compassionate loving, caring person.

I guess Quinn skipped the part in the Bible where G-d said “My ways are not your ways, my thoughts are not your thought”

“You would think that God…”

Is she really that dumb? Those 5 words show what little knowledge she truly as. Even in Quinn’s min-bio she states

“I don’t have any idea who or what God is. But the closest explanation I’ve heard … is … ‘When two people relate to each other authentically and humanly, God is that electricity that surges between them.’”

That would almost be poetic if it wasn’t obvious that’s exactly what she was aiming for. But the important part in this is “I don’t have any idea who or what God is.”

In saying this, she tells us that she has no room to judge Sarah Palin when it comes to theology because she as admitting her lack of knowledge.

So is Quinn attacking Palin because of her theological beliefs or her conservative ideals? I think it’s painfully obvious that Quinn dislikes Palin and is simply reaching to find something to complain about when it comes to her. She is just reaching and searching for something to condemn Palin about.  This article she wrote won’t have any intelligent person shouting at their computer screen “Yep, you’re right about that Quinn! Yep, you go girl!” because everyone who reads this will come away with a bad taste in their mouth. Quinn comes off as an arrogant, contemptuous, despicable, hate-filled idiot with nothing better to do than write a fundamentally-flawed article about something she knows nothing about!

The North American Idiot in its natural habitat

David Limbaugh said something about Sarah Palin that I can’t help but to agree with because it oozes of truth.

“You can’t watch Sarah Palin in action or in interviews without recognizing her genuineness, her graciousness, her kindness and her authentic Christian spirit.”

I don’t think any unbiased individual can watch Palin and not agree with that statement.

Thanks for reading, make sure to friend my awesomeness on facebook by searching for “Von Paxton” so you may get updates when I post a new blog. Please feel free to comment and help a brother out and spread the word. Thanks again!

Love,

Uncle Von

Christians talking about love

Protestent christians expressed their love by the rampant killing of native americans, who were called not humans, but ‘red indians’, and usurping their lands and destroying their livelihood. This was quite in line with the way Catholic christians in Europe called native cultures ‘pagan’ and killed the natives, who were again, not called humans, but ‘heathens’. Catholic christians also expressed their universal love through Inquisitions in Europe, South America and in other former colonies such as in Goa. They burned women on stakes, calling them not humans, but, witches. Thus they demonstrated that it is very easy to love people without feeling remorse when labelled with an alternate term instead of calling them humans.

Christians also expressed their love in Africa by enslaving the natives, shipping them off to plantations to be made to work like animals, calling them, not humans, but ‘negros’ or ‘niggers’ .

They loved the natives of Australia and New Zealand so much that they killed them, displaced them, enslaved them, took away their small children and de-cultured them, calling them, not humans, but ‘aboriginals’.

Christian love for India was expressed in the rampant plunder of this country. They not only enslaved the indians, plundered the wealth, they also appropriated the scientific advancements made by the indians, used that to develop their industries and economy and called it ‘industrial revolution’. Concurrently, so much love christians had, that they destroyed the education system that produced that scientific knowledge, destroyed the culture that produced that scientific knowledge, deracinated the indians, shipped them off to far off Carribeans and Africas as bonded labourers calling them ‘hindoos’.

Christians loved the Jews and the Gypsies in Europe throughout the centuries so much that christian Nazis, continuing with such love, starved them to skeletons and incinerated them in gas chambers in millions.

Despite all these accomplishments, christians consider themselves full of love of the only true God and want to convert the remaining adherents of native cultures to this version of love. They call it God’s work. They also call such expressions of love as civilising the natives.

If the past is any indicator, how godly is this christian God ? how merciful ? how benevolent ? how loving is this entity ?
To some of the above victims, the entity God may appear indistinguishable from the other entity these christians bandy about, called Satan.

Muslims talking about peace

Since the death of Khadija, the aggrandizing instinct of muslims have been unleashed unbridled upon the world in such a violent manner that it matches that of christian inquisitions, at times even surpassing that. So ‘peaceful’ were the muslims that they enslaved and killed people following native customs calling them ‘kaffirs’, not humans. In the name of their merciful ‘Allah’, these people have been waging ‘jihad’ over a millennium upon human beings. These peaceful people have mercilessly butchered women and children and enslaved them brutally. Their peaceful acts still continue unabated, in India, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, in Bangladesh, in Indonesia, in Malaysia, in Sudan, in Palestine, in Libya.

To the victims of muslim’s peace campaigns throughout the centuries, the entity ‘Allah’ may seem anything but peaceful or merciful.

Communists talking about liberating the masses

If Cuba and China, let alone Stalinist Russia and Cambodia, are examples of liberating the masses, what would be imprisonment ?

The condition of the states of West Bengal and Kerala, that have repeatedly elected communists to power- the impoverishment, material as well as ethical and cultural, people having to work for capitalists outside those states and send money back home, the violence that underlies these societies becoming a fertile ground for exploitation by subversive ideologues -are indicators of how communists ‘liberate’ the masses in a democracy.

To the beneficiaries of such liberation, liberty may seem indistinguisable from incarceration.

Capitalists talking about environment

The way in which capitalists have rampantly and remorselessly looted the earth and destroyed her sustainability over the past few centuries, causing changes in climate and on the native flora and fauna, all to feed their aggrandizing drive, their new found concerns for environment and their pious endeavours towards ‘reducing carbon emissons’ and bringing in ‘green technology’ without discarding the unbridled greed that caused the damage in the first place, without recognizing that Nature is to be sustained for its own sake, not merely for continuation of human’s consumption levels, belie their claim and their intention.

To people living with Nature in a mutually nurturing way, the capitalists’ effort at greening the planet may seem mere continuation of the selfish project of grabbing yet another opportunity to increase bank balance at the cost of environment and ethics.

Indian liberals talking secularism

Secularism of the indian liberals is to demonstrate cronic intolerance towards bharatiya samskriti and to excessively indulge the relentless attack on indian psyche by the four groups- christians, muslims, communists and capitalists.

To the practitioners of bharatiya samskriti, such liberals may seem like puppets dancing to the tune of western imperialism that sprouts four heads- christianity, islam, communism and capitalism.

Maya

Despite the blatant inconsistencies, majority of people today end up buying the lemon sold by the four headed western imperialism.

maya

I came across a blog that was about a topic of endless controversy: American Health Care.  The long and short of it seems to be this:

1. Folks who want socialized health care want equal health care options for everyone (struggle for a Utopian society).
2. Folks who want privatized health care want the best health system possible for as many people as possible (short wait times, freedom to see whomever you want, etc).

To me, this boils down to the classic Churchill quote – “Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.”  A Utopia (like perfection) is impossible.  People who want socialized medicine do have their heart in the right place but unfortunately their brains are not.

For me, the bottom line is this:  Only about 13% of Americans are without health care – TOPS.  Within that 13% there are people who CHOOSE not to have it, but could if they wanted to.  A friend of mine for example does not justify the $160 a month for health care, but does justify about that amount of money for their iPhone…

That means that 87% have health care.  Folks on the left think that socialized medicine is better because it will serve ‘everyone.’  They do however admit that it will be a step down from what the private sector is currently able to provide (wait times, treatments, types of medicine, etc).

In other words, the left is willing to (at least partially) destroy health care for 87% of Americans to attempt to get it for 13% of Americans – some of whom have decided not to have it in the first place (remember my old roommate).

Let’s cut it up a different way.  According to an article written by Steve Bierfeldt, after you subtract illegal aliens and people who could afford health care if they made responsible life choices, the amount of people who can’t get health care is down to 2.6%.  That means the left would want to destroy a health care system that works for 97.4% of legal Americans to try and help a 2.6% who don’t have it.

This argument boils down to responsibility.  It is irresponsible for a government to destry what works for the overwhelming majority of Americans.  The obvious answer is to find a way to help the 2.6%-13% of unisured citizens find private health care so that they can enjoy the benefits that 97.4%-87% who do have organized, working, and in fact luxurious health care.

The current proposals for reform are cloaked as big changes, but as it turns out, they are actually more of the same. They can be summed up in this way: turn more control over to the government and insurance companies while politicians and special interests jockey for credit and work behind the scenes to benefit — at the expense of individual Americans. – David McKalip, M.D.

In closing, let me put it like this.  Think of the Post Office… then FedEx Kinkos or UPS.  Now think of the DMV… then AAA.  Do you really want your health care run like the DMV or the Post office?  No thank you.

-First Response
(for more information, please read this: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=33 and this: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=45)

Everyone agrees that this is going to be an absolute circus and the ONLY thing that I see as the reason that they are being given this platform is:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2392345/posts

 so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday

…

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2392345/posts

I found a written statement that they made together on an abc news blog and if this is what they want to listen to, then frankly, this is not worth the time or money or rehashing  of peoples lives:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/gitmo-detainees-intend-to-plead-not-guilty-in-us-court.html

We were arrested in 2003 and we spent three years moving around between the black sites in the “Dark Ages” [TN: "Dark Ages" also written in English] of Bush, then we were transferred to the island of oppression, tortured and terror, Guantanamo, in 2006;  and we only received the list of charges in 2008, then, the lying Barack, the new American President was elected, an we entered the black ages of Barack, and here he is, the liar, moving us from continuance to continuance, and we say to him, to the military commission and to the criminal American people who pays the taxes out of its own pocket to the oppressing Government, which converts these monies into bombs, military planes, military ships, aircraft carriers, and unmanned planes to kill millions of people, women, children, elders, and civilians and it destroys their homes just like what Israel did in the massacre of Gaza, and finally just like what the American Army does in Iraq and Afghanistan, we say to them all just like what Allah the Almighty said in the Holy Quran: “Say nothing shall ever happen to us except what Allah has ordained for us.  He is our protector.  And in Allah, let the believers put their trust, say: “Do you wait for us (anything) except one of the two best things (martyrdom or victory);  while we await for you either that Allah will afflict you with punishment from himself or at our hands.  SO WAIT, WE TOO ARE WAITING WITH YOU” Quran 9:51-52

And at the end, we greet the Islamic world in general and the Mujahideen in particular and the renewer of the 21st century, especially Sheikh Osama Bin Laden and his deputy, the voice of the truth and Jihad, Doctor Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and we shall not forget the hero of Islam, the commander of the faithful, Mullah Omar, and all the Mujahideen all over the world.  We send our greetings to them on the occasion of the anniversary of 8 years past on the most noble victory known to history over the forces of oppression and tyranny in the Washington and Manhattan attack; and we say to the liar, Barrack, the United States of America not only will not achieve any victory in Afghanistan but also will not be able to economically, politically and militarily recover after 9/11 and it’s repercussions until a camel enters [TN: Illegible word, can not be read] the tailor.

“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than the USA to prosper post 9/11/”

 If that is not chilling then I don’t know what is.  Imagine that this is what the families are going to hear.  It makes me upset that this is what they will be subjected to

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/11/911-muslim-terrorists-to-plead-not-guilty-in-nyc-civilian-court.html

The White House is certainly not on our side. This is awful. Not  two months ago, these Islamic killers were pleading guilty. This was an act of war. WAR. Obama should be impeached.

 

I tend to agree!

I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by Mathews conduct of this interview and it brings up an important trend: the proud and willful rejection of any reference to facts and rationality in preference for stridently reactionary emotionalism.

Chris Mathews actually came down pretty hard on Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence Rhode Island over his refusal to allow Rep Kennedy to take communion. Mathews asked him if abortion is murder, what should the penalties be and Tobin dodged the question.

Mathews said Tobin must either make specific recommendations or stay out of “law making,” which the Bishop has “transgressed” into. Pretty strong stuff about separation of church and state, saying the church needs to stick to moral suasion.

Mathews notes that, although he shares the Bishop’s views on abortion, Tobin is reluctant to advise “even a minute in jail” for women and girls who have abortions because Americans, Catholics and others, don’t view abortion as a crime.

The piece began with a clip of JFK, still a presidential candidate in Houston, seeking to allay fears that he would be beholden to the Pope as President:

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish. Where no public official, either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of churches or any other ecclesiastical source. Where no religious body seeks to impose its will, directly or indirectly, upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.

Mathews repeated the quote, asking Tobin what he thinks of it. Tobin replies that JFK was talking about “establishing a national religion.” Incredulous, Mathews asked how he can assert such a transparently untrue assertion.

You think he meant something different from what he said?

The short answer is yes, he probably does. Although he could be cynically manipulating the faithful, it’s also entirely likely that the good bishop has deluded himself enough that he can purposely accept a ridiculous interpretation of Kennedy’s meaning.

It happens so often that it can become hard to notice. Here is just a short selection from today’s toobnetz:

• New Left Media (via HuffPo) has a great video showing the vacuousness of Palin autograph seekers:
  
• Via TPM, the RNC thinks they lost the last two elections because they were just too leftist, so they think it’s a good idea to implement a purity test.
• Via Think Progress, teabaggers think it’s just a hoot to jeer a woman whose uninsured pregnant daughter in law died.
  
• Via Crooks and Liars, Tucker Carlson, in all seriousness, asserts that Palin is “as smart as” Al Gore and “more experienced than” Obama.
• Via Plumline, Cheney slams Obama for bowing the the Japanese Emperor despite serving two presidents who did exactly the same thing.
• Via TPM, Crist spells it out:

  “It’s hard to be more conservative than I am on issues — though there are different ways stylistically to communicate that — I’m pro-life, I’m pro-gun, I’m pro-family, and I”m anti tax.” … “I don’t know what else you’re supposed to be, except maybe angry too.” [Emphasis added]

• And last, via Political Animal at The Washington Monthly, Steve Benin, addressing the issue, quotes Isaac Chotiner at TNR

  The first problem with this argument is that … Palin is unlikely to become a policy wonk because she is not very smart. What’s more, Douthat’s argument is tautological. Sure, it would be nice for the GOP if Palin and Huckabee were interested in policy. But if they were interested in policy, then they would not be so appealing to the GOP base.

  In other words, the problem is that a large part of the right has no interest in a policy wonk, and sneers at intellectuals and elites and the types of people Douthat would like to see running the party. A candidate who was interested in learning the ins and outs of the welfare state and health care policy is unlikely to ever achieve Palin/Huckabee levels of popularity with the grassroots.

These examples illustrate the views and psyches of a fairly large segment of our society. Recent polls estimate this group to comprise around 20 to 25 percent of the general populace.

That means, assuming you live in an average place, demographically speaking, and you’re in a room or on a bus with 19 other people, four or five of them believe things that are demonstrably untrue and act on those beliefs politically and socially.

In some areas the percentage of your 20 busmates or roomates will be lower; but in other areas, it will be higher — and in some of those areas, very, very much higher.

The web, along with older media like talk radio and Fox News, help fan the flames of such irrationality. But, like printing presses and cans of spray paint, this specific technology is still neutral. Barring further corporate intrusion, it is not in and of itself responsible for the ignorance spread through its reaches.

It just as readily carries counter arguments and refutations. But to do so, it must be peopled with those who are ready and willing to counter the ignorance. Thankfully, it is.

And after coming of age doing so much to fight the spread of misinformation during eight years of rightwing Republican misrule under Bush and Cheney et al, progressives and liberals on the web are well positioned to keep banging on the outside walls of the rightwing echo chamber.

[This post has been changed since original publication to correct the wording of the final paragraph and to acknowledge that emphasis was added to the Crist quote from TPM.]

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the birthday gifts of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA)?

Answer: $300 million for being on the fence for Obama-Care!

Sing along with me now: Happy birthday to you… Happy birthday to you… Happy birthday, dear Senator Mary Landrieu… Happy birthday to you!

That’s right folks, today (November 23rd) is Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-LA) birthday and she is getting $300 million of our tax dollars for falling off the fence and landing on the side that supports Obama-Care. Fortunately for her, the 2,000+ page House and Senate bills probably broke her fall. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) inserted a provision in the health care reform plan that gave Louisana $100 million exclusively. Or so we thought… Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to what has been dubbed as “The Louisiana Purchase“:

Then, in a statement sure to be repeated by Republicans endlessly over the coming weeks of Senate health care debate, the senator flaunted the inclusion of the provision.  “I will correct something. It’s not $100 million, it’s $300 million, and I’m proud of it and will keep fighting for it,” Landrieu told reporters after her floor speech. “But that is not why I started this health care debate; I started this health care debate for all the reasons I just mentioned in my statement” on the floor.

Transparency? Indeed. Bribery? Oh yeah! I sense some strong attack advertisements coming her way during her next election.

Unbelievable… I wonder what my liberal U.S. senators got for Michigan? Calling Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin!

Side-Note: Remember the actual Louisiana Purchase that added 800,000 square miles to the United States? Yeah… That little land purchase only cost $15 million. I’ll let you compare.

Here’s your birthday cake Ms. Landrieu:

Democracy be damned!  Europe is communist at last.  They have appointed a Communist (his sister is a communist) as the new leader of “democractic” nations?  These are no longer nations.  They are no longer independant.  Yet they have no bonds and no culture and nothing that will hold them together.  Easily devided.  Easily they will fall.  The MUSLIM invasion has already dimhified most of them, and the rest will follow.  This is just another step to take before their ultimate plan, which is to create one world government.  But first the dust will need to settle.  Give Europeans time to get acquainted and then sell the Americas on it.  After that, it’s easily topled.  Wake up people!  This is going to end badly.  Societies that stand for nothing will not last. 

Belgian PM ‘appointed EU president’

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hGMbB4ydzxoCbwxF3-iBWMzn8nZQ

(UKPA) – 4 days ago

Diplomats say EU leaders have opted for little-known compromise candidate Belgian Premier Herman Van Rompuy to become the bloc’s first full-time president.Envoys added that the 27 leaders have also agreed to appoint Britain’s EU commissioner Baroness Ashton as the bloc’s new foreign policy chief, replacing Spaniard Javier Solana. Baroness Ashton has been the EU’s trade commissioner since last year.The choice of Van Rompuy signalled the leaders were not eager to have a high-profile personality represent the EU abroad.

 

Belgian PM ‘appointed EU president’

(UKPA) – 4 days ago

Diplomats say EU leaders have opted for little-known compromise candidate Belgian Premier Herman Van Rompuy to become the bloc’s first full-time president.Envoys added that the 27 leaders have also agreed to appoint Britain’s EU commissioner Baroness Ashton as the bloc’s new foreign policy chief, replacing Spaniard Javier Solana. Baroness Ashton has been the EU’s trade commissioner since last year.The choice of Van Rompuy signalled the leaders were not eager to have a high-profile personality represent the EU abroad.The two new posts are meant to bolster the EU’s influence overseas. ……………

http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/11/meet-the-president-of-europe.php

Who will it be? Who will emerge as the President of Europe, le plus grand de tous les fromages, the man who gets to snap his fingers and drawl “Yo, Obama”?

One thing is clear: whoever it is, you won’t have had any say. Barack Obama got to be president of 300 million Americans after an exhaustive, and exhausting, series of primaries and ballots lasting over a year. By the end of that campaign, Americans knew exactly what they were getting. The man who will be president of 500 million Europeans, by contrast, will be selected at a private dinner in Brussels tonight.

In true EU style, the dinner will involve a lot of horse trading. Other jobs are in the frame, notably that of EU foreign minister. Balances must be struck: if one position goes to a large country, another will go to a small country. If Western Europe gets one prize, Eastern Europe will want another. If a Christian Democrat wins one plum, a Socialist can expect another.

And they are plums: quite apart from a largely tax-free salary of nearly quarter of a million pounds, you get 20 staff, a housing allowance, an entertainment allowance, a driver and a lifelong pension. No wonder that old freebiemeister Tony Blair was so interested – even if he is now out of the race.

In a sense, though, who gets the job matters less than the fact of its existence. When did you vote to create a President of Europe? When did you vote to give the EU a foreign minister, overseas embassies, a diplomatic corps? When did you vote to set up a pan-European system of criminal justice, complete with a European Public Prosecutor? All these things proposals are in the Lisbon Treaty, which comes into effect a week on Tuesday. Yet, despite the fact that all three British parties promised us a referendum on the treaty, we never got one.

How appropriate: an undemocratic appointment to an undemocratic post created by an undemocratic treaty.

The two new posts are meant to bolster the EU’s influence overseas.

 

It took me a long time to decide on a name for my blog.  After all, it provides you the reader with the first impression of who I am and will undoubtedly provide a whole host of pre-conceived notions about me.  Since this blog is about my exploration of my points of view on various subjects, I would encourage you to read through my text as I will invariably include a definition or two so that you are clear about the foundation from which I am exploring a particular point.

There are a lot of challenges facing our nation.  I am hoping for some good solid discussions and debates on the subjects about which I blog – it’s one of the reasons I’ve decided to do it. I’m very open to learning about views that differ from mine and I’ve got no problem with healthy discussions that are based on reliable documentation and logic. I’m hoping to discuss things a specific as line items in regulations to loftier philosophical concepts surrounding the development and current state of affairs not just in the United States but the world.  However, disrespectful and inflammatory content is not okay with me and you can be sure that I’ll let you know when I think you have stepped over the line and we need to get back to a controlled debate.

It’s probably best to start out with a few definitions as a basis for discussion.  These definitions were all found online in the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary.

 re·pub·lic:
1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president;
2 : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law;

 de·moc·ra·cy

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

 con·ser·va·tism: 

2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

 lib·er·al·ism:

b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties (freedom from arbitrary governmental interference (as with the right of free speech) specifically by denial of governmental power and in the United States especially as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights); specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class).

 Progressive:

b : one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action

I’ve got to say, based on these definitions I am a quasi-conservatively liberal republican – in other words, there are pieces of these definitions I would associate with, but there are also pieces with which I completely disagree.  For instance, under Liberalism, I’m good with the definition right up to the point where the definition identifies “government as a crucial instrument of amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class).”  I’m pretty much of the mind that government, as an entity for the last 100 years, has been the cause of much of the social inequities in the United States.  But more on that later.

Likewise, I’m also good with the conservatism definition right up to the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change”.  I don’t have a problem with change, but my comfort level and agreement with the change is entirely dependent on the nature of the change, the forethought and analysis that occurred to initiate the change, and the change control utilized to affect the change.

I am definitely in line with the definition of republic, and hence, I guess I can call myself a republican.  When it comes to government, I believe less is more.  I have some strong feelings about the role I believe that government should play, and I’m sure that I’ll get to a blog post sooner than later on what the role should be, but for now, it’s enough that I can identify myself as a republican under this definition.  The rub?  I don’t think that this definition is the one that is associated with Republicans nowadays. 

Likewise, I can’t disagree with the definition of democracy, although I think that the inclusion of the “absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges” is a tad naïve.  Class distinctions and privileges have been around for millions of years (if you believe the scientists, even cave men had hierarchies of command and control – probably the result of mimicking wildlife – and I challenge anyone to point me to a country, state, area, region, or other entity that encompasses more than 1 person and DOESN’T ACTUALLY have a hierarchy based on gender, race, or socioeconomic conditions).  It seems to me if we haven’t been able to breed it out of the human race by now, it’s not likely to happen.  Not that we haven’t tried – and tried hard here in the United States – but at this point, it’s just the definition of insanity.  Of course, I’ve got some thoughts on WHY there are still such disparities between classes and how they should be handled, but that’s another blog, too.

What I do find interesting is that the definitions of liberalism, conservatism, democracy, and republicanism are so close; all four revolve around the same core values of that the purpose of our government is not to run our lives for us, but to protect our freedoms and rights so that we can collectively create opportunity, sustain self-responsibility, and find our own brands of happiness.  You would think that since we are all so much alike, we could get along better.  But, power DOES corrupt, eh?

And progressivism?  I’m not in agreement with any of that.

So beware when judging my blogs – know under what definitions I am working.  Since it’s my blog, I’ll assume that when you use these words, you’ll do so utilizing the definitions I’ve outlined here or provide me with a new definition that is your basis.

For lack of a better title, that one will have to do. I know some people who hate the religious right. They hate conservatism and Christianity and Republicans and just about everything else I hold near and dear. That’s fine. They can hate, reject, criticize and ridicule whatever they want. Some of them are very educated, others not so. Some of them were religious at one time,others not so. Some of them are polite, others not so. Others are polite only in my “presence”, whether real or digital.

So wherein lies the incongruity, you ask? Herein. Non-religious people celebrate and participate in very religious holidays. At Thanksgiving you find them celebrating, although they might not exactly be giving thanks. At Christmas they’re all about presents and trees and lights, although they might not exactly believe in Jesus. St. Patrick’s Day finds them dressed in green, drinking green beer and whatever else goes along with the day, but they certainly don’t acknowledge that they are participating in something with the most obvious religious overtones. St. Valentine’s Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, St. Patrick’s Day, et. al, all have their very roots and nature in religion. Further, they all originated in the Christian religion, which in my observation, they deem to be the very worst of all religions, not excepting even Islam. Which brings me to another point.

These people are tolerant. To a degree. They can converse with a Wiccan about Wiccan things. They can carry on a dialogue with a Buddhist and commend the high and noble precepts of that particular religion. They can fellowship with New Agers and mystics and whatever other kind of half-baked religious creed or belief. Frequently, I hear or read, “Well, this is what works for me.” “This is what I believe.” Fine. So why the bitter rage against Christianity and conservatism and Republicans? They tolerate every imaginable absurdity, except Christianity. Suddenly, the enlightened and compassionate liberal becomes a drooling, raving maniac blinded by hatred and bitterness.

Further, some of these folks claim to adhere to the tenets of certain religions. However, I know for a fact that Buddhism frowns on smoking and drinking. I know for a fact that a true atheist would absolutely despise Christmas and other religious holidays. I’m quite certain that a true agnostic would reject the concepts of the New Age and mysticism outright. However, these folks can often be found conversing quite intelligently and companionably with adherents to almost any kind of faith or creed with the utmost respect and civility, until a Christian joins the group.

So, I find it incongruous. The long and the short of it is, I think they have personal, emotional motivations for their behavior. It certainly isn’t founded in logic and critical thinking. Otherwise, the bitter rejection would be even-handed. No, it’s a personal thing. Otherwise, ALL hypocrisy would receive equal criticism. But it doesn’t. Only Christian hypocrites are evil.

Incongruous, and quite telling, I say.

The Return of Depression Economics

Paul Krugman on “The Return of Depression Economics?”

Authors@Google: Paul Krugman

Krugman: Fixing Long-Term Deficits Not Hard Economically, But Politically Impossible

Inside Look – How Did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong? – Bloomberg

Krugman & Matalin Go Head-to-Head on AC360 Over Right-Wing Hate

Paul Krugman – Lecture Swedish kvalitetsmässan och politikerdagarna – Video 1

Paul Krugman – Lecture Swedish kvalitetsmässan och politikerdagarna – Video 2

Paul Krugman: $300B Job summit -Fresh Dialogues interview

Paul Krugman says “I’d blame Alan Greenspan and Phil Gramm”

Paul Krugman LRA Awards ‘09 Pt 1

Paul Krugman LRA Awards ‘09 Pt 2

All Your Decisions Are Belong to Us

News Hour – Dr. Paul Krugman & Diane Casey-Landry on new financial regulation

Paul Krugman Income Inequality and the Middle Class

News Hour – Paul Krugman & Donald Marron discuss Geithner’s plan, Part 1 of 2

News Hour – Paul Krugman & Donald Marron discuss Geithner’s plan, Part 2 of 2

Economic Expectations – New Toxic Asset Plan “Won’t Work” – Bloomberg

Krugman saddened by Obama economic moves-1/2

Clip of Tim Russert – Paul Krugman vs O’reilly

Paul Krugman: Getting out of the Financial Crisis

The Obama Depression: Lessons Learned–Deja Vu!

Background Articles and Videos

Paul Krugman

“…Paul Robin Krugman (pronounced /ˈkruːɡmən/;[3] born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, liberal columnist and author. He is Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[4][5] In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. He was voted sixth in Prospect Magazine’s 2005 global poll of the world’s top 100 intellectuals.[6]

The Nobel Prize Committee stated that Krugman’s main contribution had been to explain patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth by examining the impact of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.[7] Krugman’s work on international economics, including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance[8][9] has established him as one of the most influential economists in the world according to IDEAS/RePEc.[10] Krugman is also known in academia for his work on liquidity traps and on currency crises.

As of 2006, Krugman had written or edited more than 25 books, 40 scholarly articles and 750 columns at The New York Times dealing with current economic and political issues.[11] Krugman’s International Economics: Theory and Policy, co-authored with Maurice Obstfeld is a standard introductory textbook on international economics. He also writes on political and economic topics for the general public, as well as on topics ranging from income distribution to international economics. Krugman considers himself a liberal, calling one of his books and his New York Times blog: “The Conscience of a Liberal”.[12] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

Krugman: ‘Right-wing billionaires…manufactured’ tea parties

Paul Krugman Part 1

Paul Krugman Part 2

Krugman on the US housing bubble

Why You’ve Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920

A Recipe for the Next Great Depression

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Yaron Brook–Videos

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman on Education–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Murray Rothbard–Videos

Rothbard On Keynes–Videos

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Julian Simon–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Investors

Peter Schiff–Videos

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

Banking And The Federal Reserve System

The Coming Inflation and A New Money Supply Backed By Real Estate?–Free Enterprise To The Rescue?

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Banking–Videos

Creature from Jekyll Island: The Federal Reserve System–Videos

The Monopoly Men: The Federal Reserve Bank Cartel–Videos 

M3 Money Meteorite Moves–Deep Impact–The Coming Inflation Tidal Wave–Wage and Price Controls Will Signal Radical Socialist Obama’s Failure!

Bailouts and Deficit Spending

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Job Creating Businesses and CIT–Videos

The 12 Trillion–$12,000,000,000,000 Crime of The Century: The Decline and Fall of United States of America By Radical Socialist Spending–Look Before You Leap!

The Financial Crime of The Century: William K. Black On Massive Mortgage Fraud –Videos

Bailed Out Bank Trillion Dollar Derivative Exposure

The Mother of All Bailouts–2 to 3 Trillion Dollars–$2,000,000,000–$3,000,000,000!–Rewarding Greed, Arrogance and Stupidity–Pay for Play!

Federal Government Extortion Of Sound Banks–You Decide?–Take This TARP and Shove It!

Boycott Bailedout Businesses and Banks

Ban Bailouts–Stop Inflation Now (SIN)–Stop Socialism of Losses!

The United States is Broke!–Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Time For GM and Ford Is Now!

The Sovereign Wealth Fund Threat: Are Chinese Communists Behind Rush In Passing Bailout Bill?

Pelosi’s Porky Pigout Poison Package–Economy Wrecker and Job Destroyer–Have A Blue Christmas 2009!

Depressions and Recessions

Official Unemployment Rate Hits 10.2%–15,700,000 Unemployed American Citizens–Real Unemployment Rate Hits 17.5%– 26,950,000 Americans Seeking Full Time Jobs–Obama Depression Worse Than Great Depression

The Great Depression–Videos

The Obama Depression Continues–Official Unemployment Hits Rate 9.8% (15,142,000 Seek Full Time Job) and Real Unemployment Rate Hits 17.0% (26,181,000 Seek Full Time Job)!

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

The Big Economic Picture–Some Perspectives–Videos

United States Economic Depressions–The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly–Obama’s Depression–Over 15,000,000 Americans Seek Full Time Job!

The Triumph of Capitalism and The Power of Consumer Sovereignty Over Massive Government Failure–Bankruptcy of General Motors–Now Government Motors! 

BO’s Raw Deal: Obama’s Two Year Recession and Two Year Hyperinflation–Hopeless & Small Change!

It Is Official–The U.S. Economy Has Been In A Recession for 11 Months and Continuing!

Recession–Recession–Recession–Scaring People–Have A Hot Dog!

Rush Limbaugh: Obama is Destroying the Economy!–Videos

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the latest numbers from the Rasmussen Reports on health care reform?

Answer: The support for Obama-Care is at an all time low.

Hmm… So why is the House and Senate trying so desperately to force this down the American people’s throats?

Rasmussen’s latest:

Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.

Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.

It doesn’t help when the Democrat’s health-care reform bills keep getting larger and larger by the week. After all, Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) 2,074 page version of the bill was hardly out long enough for ANY normal American to read it. It just goes to show why the left needs to pass this monstrosity in the dead of night over the weekend… Something I find very unsettling.

Here is some more interesting numbers to soak in:

Only 16% now believe passage of the plan will lead to lower health care costs. Nearly four times as many (60%) believe the plan will increase health care costs. Most (54%) also believe passage of the plan will hurt the quality of care.

That’s funny… Why is the left preaching the exact opposite? But like most of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi’s loyal liberals, they are more elite and know what’s best for everyone else (not at all).

And how about these numbers:

Majorities of both men (61%) and women (52%) among likely voters now oppose ObamaCare.  Every age demographic except 18-29 year olds oppose it by majorities ranging from 58% to 65%. Every income demographic except the under-$20K group opposes it by a majority, even the heretofore sympathetic $100K+ demo, which opposes it 58/41 — with 50% strongly opposed.

Side-Note: We all better start working extra hard because if Obama-Care passes our money will be going towards poor people and college student’s prison sentences for not purchasing health-care. Yippy!

Oh yeah, did I ever mention that most college students are misinformed? Haha.

If you’ve never read about Maslow’s heirarchy of needs theory, you should.  There’s a certain aspect of undeniable truth to it, which is likely why it’s taught not only as a theory of human psychology, but as a valuable marketing tool.  It’s also become intertwined with the “trickle-up” theory of economics, and rightly so.  Maslow surmised that, unless an individual’s basic needs were secure, that a person could never achieve self-actualization.  Self-actualization essentially means realizing your full potential and purpose.  Likewise, if a person’s basic needs were not secure, that person would compensate by seeking to further fulfill other basic needs that are perhaps already being met.

This can be applied to the trickle-up effect by observing the spending habits of consumers whose psychological and safety needs, according to Maslow’s heirarchy, aren’t being met.  These people are often from lower-class, low-income households which tend to spend a higher percentage of their income than higher-earning households, who tend to save more.  If you give the low income earners a tax refund, they will be more likely to spend it in an attempt to satisfy their needs (thus stimulating the economy).  Give the high earners a tax refund, and they are likely to save it because their needs are already being met.

One thing in the trickle up theory that I don’t agree with is that securing everyone’s basic needs would result in a weaker economy and less spending. Eventually there would be an equilibrium of sorts, because a person can only own so much stuff, but such a balance could be introduced gradually through fundamental restructuring of the various market systems that make up our economy.  Consider that many people who have to make choices from month-to-month whether they’re going to pay for housing or groceries could conceivably be guaranteed affordable access to both at once.  They could see a financial shortfall turned into a surplus, and imagine the things they would spend that newfound “pocket money” on!  I’m talking about people who perhaps haven’t purchased new clothing or shoes for themselves in years, whose homes are in disrepair because they simply don’t have the money for maintenance or improvement, or those who don’t have a home at all (a setback that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to find employment in a good economy).  These are the people who would spend money, were it put into their hands, not squirrel it away in offshore (tax haven) accounts where it does nothing but earn interest for someone who is probably already  wealthy by any standards.

Anyway, I think everyone ought to be interested in politics because there isn’t a single issue being debated today that doesn’t have a profound effect on our future as a nation, and as individuals.  There are several factors we should all be aware of that influence people’s political ideology.  Two of the most important are income and education.  Lower income people are more likely to call themselves democrats or identify with the ideology of a democratic candidate, as do some of the more educated members of our society.  Yes, there is likely some overlap in those two demographics despite the fact that we are led to believe a college education always means you’ll earn more money than someone without a degree.  We only need to look to our nation’s public school teachers to see this is not the case.  When my own mother began teaching back in 1993, her starting salary was in the low $20,000 range.  I earned more than that as a restaurant/bar manager and as a pizza delivery driver, with no college degree.

So why do minorities and the lower-income element of our society vote democratic?  Some would say that it’s because they’re uneducated, but that isn’t true at all.  These are educated people who, despite their motivation and hard work, are simply having a hard time climbing to the top of the career ladder (or even getting their foot on the first rung, in some cases).  They vote based on their own experiences in life, which often give them firsthand insight into many of the social problems facing our nation that republicans just don’t offer realistic solutions to address.

I’ve been poor all my life and I consider myself something of an expert on living below the poverty line.   I also tend to agree with the “liberal” analysis of those problems and the “progressive” methods of solving them.  It really isn’t a matter of thinking “Oh, that sounds like a great humanitarian position for an elected representative to take”, but a matter of knowing, deep down what the issues are that face our nation’s poor – having lived those issues – and feeling that there are very specific ways that these issues could be addressed, realistically.  One thing that strikes me as particularly disconcerting about republicans is their willingness to ignore this class of people, as if by ignoring them they, and all their problems, will just magically disappear.  I also have a really hard time believing that giving money to the wealthy ever results in an improved disposition for the poor, especially in an economy like ours today – where everyone who has money seems to be hoarding it.  Again, I think it’s important to consider Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and how that translates into a “trickle up” effect, rather than the “trickle down” effect that hasn’t done much to put any wealth in the hands of the poor – and seems to have done more to widen the class divide than to narrow it.

SNL goes after Obama.

Wonder what you would find if you frisked Saturday Night Live’s portrayal of Chinese President Hu Jintao?

Answer: He sure doesn’t enjoy Obama’s spending spree.

HAHA!

Maybe Saturday Night Live is starting to get the hang of it? Lets hope so because we all know they could use some better ratings. The only thing that is missing right now is CNN’s fact check of a comedy skit, but than again… the day is not over with yet, haha.

Best quote from the skit:

I am noticing that each of your plans to save money involves spending even more money.

Yeah… It’s funny how that one works and I still find it quite baffling to this day, but I’m glad SNL pointed it out.

Rep. Pat Kennedy  (groan… will this legacy ever end???) has announced to the media that he is not allowed to take communion at his church because of his views on abortion. I was initially surprised to discover that he even was a Catholic at all considering almost every Kennedy has violated  every tenet of Catholicism. Lets see.. There is murder, rape, adultery, abuse of alcohol and drugs and women ,etc.. Sorry  I digress..Where was I ?. Abortion..Lets wrap this one up quickly… If you have firm beliefs about something and you want to join an organization but that organization doesnt allow one of your beliefs then…DONT JOIN THAT ORGANIZATION!!!! If you want to be a Catholic then dont rape ,murder , abort, drink to excess and ogle women.. Or do all of those things  and find a different religion. Also if you really want to find a way to gather popularity and votes Patty then try coming up with some original  ideas to help our ailing world rather then running  to the media with your  personal problems in the hopes that you can  be  seen and also gather votes from  both Catholics and liberals. You, like the long line of men in your legacy , want to have your cake and eat it too .Another mediocre politician panhandling for  popularity  and votes.. How very dull.

Michael Bennet (D-CO)

Wonder what you would find if you frisked Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO)?

Answer: He is willing to commit political suicide to pass Obama-Care.

Allahpundit from Hot Air probably summed up this moment in the simplest terms:

It’s not every day you see a politician extend a rhetorical middle finger to his constituents, so enjoy this.

Absolutely true.

Personally, I feel bad for most of his constituents that he is suppose to represent, but 2010’s election is quickly coming around the corner. The good news here: Michael Bennet’s numbers are pretty weak. So what about this whole political suicide thing? Oh yeah, it’s quite possible. Now all we need is a strong conservative who can face up to him.

Den sista dagen Folkpartiet liberalernas landsmöte var också fyllda med debatter med  började med att Nyamko Sabuni höll tal inför landsmötet såklart då om hennes främsta uppdrag som minister integration och jämställdhet var det som togs upp i talet. Av ren naturlighet så var det sen integration som debatterades, där den största diskussion blev medborgarkurs, där immigranter ska lära sig grundläggande fakta på samhällsområdet  som man lär sig i grundskolan, men diskussion handlade om den kurs ska vara obligatorisk för medborgarskap eller inte. Frågan skickades till beredningsskottet, man märkte också under hela landsmötet att skicka söker dit var populärt, sen när fråga kom tillbaka från utskottet så var obligatorisk kvar i förslaget, men landsmötet fattade med rösträkning beslut om att bifalla yrkande om att det ska erbjudas men inte vara obligatorisk för medborgarskap, detta var en seger för LUF som strid för detta med förbundsordförande Adam Cwejman i spetsen. En annan seger som för LUF var frågan om upphovsrätten under lördagen, då motion D35 gick igenom med obetydlig ändring, som redan skrivit om här.

Under dagen så avtackades också Karin Pilsäter och Ann-Cathrin André som både suttit i partistyrelsen sen 1993, men nu lämnar. Karin ställer heller inte upp till omval till Riksdagen där under har suttit sen 1991.

Man diskuterar också under dagen rättspolitik, där livstidsstraffet blev en stor fråga, där partistyrelsen vill avskaffa och utskottet på landsmötet behålla detta. Det blev en kompromiss där partistyrelsen gick med på ett behållande. Under samma förhandlingspass diskuterades civilrätt där civiläktenskap blev den mest  diskuterade frågan, en annan fråga var också att avskaffa laglotten för barn, att man alltså inte har rätt att testamentera bort sina barn, tyvärr så avslogs dem båda.

Läs alla landsmötesbeslut i sin helhet här

Läs även andra om landsmötet Runos blogg, Runos blogg2 100 STEG TILL, Sebastian Hallén, Dick Erixon, Jytte Guteland, Schlaug, Dagens Arenas Redaktionsblogg, Helle Klein , Linnéa Darrell, MXp, Alliansfritt Sverige, Tommys tankar, Anders Widén, Simon Hedlin Larsson, Christoffer Fagerberg, Christoffer Fagerberg2, Christoffer Fagerberg3, Christoffer Fagerberg4, Adam Cwejman, Lars Johansson, Lotta Edholm, Mathias Sundin

Intressant?