Follow Me On Twitter!

Friday, October 30, 2009

Sometimes You Have to Deal With Difficult Subjects

Yesterday I knew I was going to have to write about this. It is not something I wanted to do. In fact, it is not something I ever thought I'd have to do. But since I have publicly declared my affections for Mr. Andre Agassi before, on this very blog, I have to deal with the confession he recently made in releasing excerpts from his autobiography, Open.

As I stated in that previous post, (click here for a link: http://lonewolfarcher.blogspot.com/2006/09/thank-you-andre.html) I always admired Agassi. Immensely. I even named a pet hamster "Andre" in his honor. I wasn't so much a tennis fan as I was an Agassi fan. I haven't watched a single match since his retirement at the end of 2006. I still miss watching him play.

Then came the news a couple of days ago: Andre Agassi was a "meth-head". In our society it is not uncommon, in fact it is almost a rule, that young people will be faced with the temptation of drugs. The problem I have is not that Andre tried a drug, but that he tried a drug like crystal meth. That is a destructive, powerful, and addictive drug that destroys lives. How could he risk everything like that?

When it comes to Agassi I have always drawn parallels to my own life. After all, people always dismissed me athletically due to my size, just like Andre. Just like Andre I often proved that despite being thin I could hold my own. I had long hair like Andre, and then like Andre watched myself go bald. I even embraced the fact that my hair was thinning by shaving my head, just a few months before Andre started shaving his head!

But crystal meth, or any hard drug like that, is something I cannot relate to. Twice in the late 80s and early 90s I had someone confront me with a line of cocaine. "You know you want to try it!" Both times I refused to partake. Drugs were not something to be toyed with, and I knew, thanks to Nancy Reagan, that I had the power to "Just Say No". The fact that Agassi didn't use that power himself is disappointing.

I do give Agassi credit for coming clean. Not so much about his drug use, but about the fact that he lied to the ATP about it after a failed drug test. Just like with anything sinful, his drug use led to other sins. Not only did he put something in his body he shouldn't have, he then lied to cover his tracks. He should have known that the drug testing would find him out anyway.

Agassi's biggest mistake was that he allowed the wrong element into his life. He was introduced to the drug by his assistant Slim. Slim, obviously, was not the influence Agassi needed in his life. Just like the people that tried to get me to do cocaine were not the influences I needed in mine. In Agassi's case he allowed those influences to best him. In my case I refused to allow those influences to best me, and then I removed those influences from my life. I only wish I could say that about every bad influence I've had in my life.

Who we choose to trust with the privilege of taking up our time has a huge impact on the choices we make in life. Unfortunately most people come to this realization too late to prevent their own destructive behavior. If Agassi had realized sooner that Slim was a bad influence maybe he could have avoided his drug use. Then he wouldn't have lied to the ATP. Then he wouldn't have had to come clean all these years later.

The Bible puts it thusly: Be not deceived: Evil companionships corrupt good morals. 1 Corinthians 15:33 (ASV)

Make sure your companionships are not evil.

Rick Reilly of ESPN has a great article on Agassi's new book. You can read that article at this link: Rick Reilly -- Andre Agassi once lived enough lives for five men

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Men That Stare At Goats

Every once in a while Hollywood releases a movie that looks so stupid just from the previews that i can't even fathom spending one red cent to see it. Here are a few:

Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd
Blades of Glory
I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry
-Anything with Jack Black-

Now comes a new such movie: Men That Stare At Goats.

Sometimes Hollywood doesn't even try. They take as many "stars" as they can, throw them into a film vehicle, and hope for box office success. Goats looks like just such an effort.

It stars George Looney (did I forget the C??), Ewan McGregor, Jeff Bridges, and Kevin Spacey. Immediately I am less interested because of Clooney and Spacey. I've always admired Bridges, but he alone isn't enough to pique my interest.

Here is the imdb synopsis: A reporter, trying to lose himself in the romance of war after his marriage fails, gets more than he bargains for when he meets a special forces agent who reveals the existence of a secret, psychic military unit whose goal is to end war as we know it. The founder of the unit has gone missing and the trail leads to another psychic soldier who has distorted the mission to serve his own ends. Written by Rob Harris

Eh. Okay. Now I know the unwritten rule that you shouldn't pan or herald a film without ever having seen it, but, as I said, the previews alone make this one dubious. After all, movie tickets are running at around $11 each, no way do I spend that kind of coin on a stupid film like this.

In fact, I'll go one further, anyone willing to spend money to see this film is a fool. Before you get upset with me for name calling, remember the saying: "a fool and his money are soon parted". Part with $11 for idiocy like this film and you fit that description perfectly.

Monday, October 26, 2009

The Silent Majority

Liberals have scoffed at the notion of the conservative "silent" majority for years. They just can't fathom that the overwhelming majority of Americans don't see the world the way they do.

Well, the fact is that most people are conservative. Conservatives tend to be less politically active, less outspoken, and less "in-your-face" about their beliefs. They are content to listen to talk radio and live their conservative lives: nuclear families that go to church and believe in conservative principles.

The latest Gallup poll on that matter once again confirmed this: Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group

Here is a chart showing the results:

Now if we could just get this group motivated! Oh wait, Obama is doing that. Thanks Barack.

Disappointing, But Not Surprising

I am not surprised that these lunatics have an event like this. But I am disappointed in some of the attendees. As time goes on, more and more Hollywood actors, directors and producers are showing themselves to be far left-wing whackos.

For a list (in pictures) of these whackos, go here: The 2009 EMA Gala

This is all you need to know about the Environmental Media Association.

Now, 20 years later, the group counts the Endangered Species Coalition, the Alaska Rainforest Campaign, the Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Fund among its partners.


Even taking into account the typical, left-wing celubtards, like Chevy Chase, there were some attendees that disappointed me. Like Harrison Ford and Ginnifer Goodwin. Mildly disappointing was Alanis Morissette, but she can't help being a commie pinko. She's Canadian.

I guess this makes them feel good about themselves. Of course, they all went back to their 5,000+ square foot mansions that consume more electricity than small towns. But hey, they went to the EMA awards so they are humanitarians.

Idiots.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Shout Out For theblogprof!!

I have to give props to theblogprof for a truly inspirational post over at his blog.

Click here: News you can use: parents of disabled children feel enriched

Wow, those videos will make even the manliest tough-guy tear up. Incredible. That kind of post does wonders for the pro-life movement. There is absolutely no reason to abort a child for any reason. They are all blessings from God.

And thanks be to God for such a think as a parent's love for their children.

The Missing Link Is....Well....Still Missing!

Remember about 6 months ago the news was proclaimed?

THE MISSING LINK HAS BEEN FOUND!

I wrote about it on this very blog:

They Found The Missing Link? Well, No, Not Really.

Well guess what? The missing link was......NOT the missing link. Oops.

Controversial fossil not missing link

Absolutely too funny. You know it killed them to have to admit that this fossil was not the missing link. They so badly want to find one in order to prove their little theory.

It is also interesting to note the difference between how this was covered compared to how the original "discovery" was covered. There wasn't a news source that didn't trumpet the finding of the missing link. I had to do asearch for news of the announcement that this fossil wasn't the missing link after hearing a rumor to that effect.

In May they had a documentary on cable TV about the discovery. Will they have one showing why it isn't the missing link? I doubt it. When science starts to realize that they know about 1% of what there is to know about the earth, and the inhabitants therein, they'll be much better off.

And I still say the missing link is Ben Stiller!

Thursday, October 22, 2009

When The Book Claims Something They Don't Like, They Ban It!

The left always claims the moral high-ground when it comes to open-mindedness. Those of us on the right are painted as closed-minded and intolerant. That was the whole point of yesterday's blog post related to the pro-abortionists shouting down the pro-life speaker.

Click here: Gay Reversal Advocates Say School Libraries Banning Their 'Ex-Gay' Books

Now what possible motivation would someone have for banning books that claim people have turned 'ungay'? It is simple really: it flies in the face of the whole "you are born gay" argument.

For a couple of decades now, gay groups have been trying to win acceptance by proclaiming that homosexuality is something you are born with. (Don't dare claim it is a birth defect though!) They've even gone as far as funding studies to 'prove' that homosexuality is genetic.

Having former gays claim that they are now straight kind of shoots holes in that theory. So the left does what they are best at. They circle the wagons and shut down the opposing viewpoint. Thus, books claiming this get banned.

What a wonderful era of hope and change.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

What Would Neidermeyer Say To Barack Obama?

Remember Mr. Neidermeyer from Animal House? He also did the intro for two Twisted Sister videos back in the 80s. Those videos were classic, mostly for the intros! I can remember kids in school and my buddies reciting those intros, verbatim, at the slightest whim.

I recently wondered what Neidermeyer would say in a meeting with Barack Obama. I have a pretty good feeling that it would probably go something like this.

"Alright mister, what do you think you're doing? You call this an administration? This is a socialist pig sty. I want you to straighten up in this area, NOW! YOU ARE A DISGUSTING SLOB!

STAND UP STRAIGHT! TUCK IN THAT SHIRT! ADJUST THAT BELT BUCKLE! TIE THOSE SHOES!

Universal healthcare? What is that?

Wipe that smile off your face. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

What is that? A HOPE AND CHANGE PIN!??! ON YOUR UNIFORM!?!? What kind of a man are you? You're worthless and weak. You do nothing. You are nothing. You sit around the Oval Office all day and play on that sick, repulsive, electric cellphone!

I CARRIED AN M-16 AND YOU CARRY THAT, THAT, THAT iPhone!

WHO ARE YOU!?!? WHERE DO YOU COME FROM!?!? ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME??! WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO WITH YOUR PRESIDENCY!?!?"

(For point of reference, here is the original from the Twisted Sister video "We're Not Gonna Take It"

Are College Kids Brainwashed?

It seems decidedly so. You see, our university students can't seem to handle opposing viewpoints. It isn't just about disagreeing, it is about shutting down those you disagree with.

First, check this out over at Eternity Matters. Click here: (Unhinged) Birds of a feather

This happened north of the border in Canada. But it gets worse. Here is what happened recently at Saint Mary's University, also in Canada:

Hat Tip to Wintery Knight.

This is higher education? Where dissenting thought is to be shouted down and not allowed to be spoken? I might not like certain things said about Christianity, but unfortunately people have the right to say them.

Of course this is Canada, this would never happen in America right? Wrong. Apparently anti-Islam speech needs to be shut down as well. Unbelievably, after reading and watching this stuff in Canada first thing this morning, I open foxnews.com and find this story.

Click here: Anti-Islamic Dutch Lawmaker Event at University Cut Short as Crowd Turns Nasty

Somehow I don't see the same thing occurring to an anti-Christian speaker on our college campuses. This is the result of our allowing a liberal stranglehold on our public school system, both primary and secondary.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Jennifer Granholm = Snake Oil Sales Woman

To hear Michigan Governor Jenny Granholm talk you'd think she was the most selfless, apolitical, and bipartisan person in the world. Please.

UPDATE: Click here for audio of Jenny Granholm on Paul W. Smith's show: Jenny G. on WJR spreading her lies

She was on the Paul W. Smith Show on WJR 760AM here in the Detroit area again this morning. She again defended the 3% tax on doctors she has proposed. She again pledged support for the housing of Gitmo detainees in a prison in Standish, MI. And she defended this little bit of news that came out:

Click here: Granholm cuts school funding through signing and vetoing of bills

Note this part of the article:
The governor vetoed $51.5 million for 51 eligible districts -- including some of the highest spending in the state -- that have received payments since Proposal A reform was approved 16 years ago. Proposal A aimed to eliminate property taxes as the source of funding for school districts and replaced it with basic foundation grants.
This is a complex issue, but this is socialism at it's finest. You see, Michigan school districts have been allowed over the years to have their residents vote on local millages to increase school funding in their districts. Some of the higher income areas of the state spend up to $11,000 per student in their district due to this increase in local property taxes.

Of course, to hear Jenny Granholm talk about this veto, which is essentially socialism (share the wealth!) brought to public schools, it is an altruistic thing to do. However, here is the crux of the issue:
Every school district will see a cut of $165 per student, but even that reduced spending depends on an additional $100 million in revenue, which hasn't been passed by the full Legislature.
The state senate has not passed that additional $100 million in revenue. The senate is controlled by the Republicans. Democrat Granholm, of course, backs the Democrat-controlled house's version of the budget bill.
The House and Senate have approved contrasting revenue bills. The Republican-controlled Senate passed legislation that calls for a one-year delay in a scheduled increase in a tax credit for low wage-earners and a reduction in a tax break for movie makers. But they're linked to a permanent business tax cut.

The Democrat-dominated House has passed bills that would place a 3 percent tax on doctors' gross receipts and halt an inflationary increase in the personal exemption from the state income tax.
Nope, no partisanship here. Granholm's socialism for public schools is an effort to force the Republicans to play ball and go along with the house version of the bill. In the meantime she is going on her media blitz spreading her lies and fabrications to justify her tax increase (which she claims will result in higher profits for doctors!!). Snake oil anyone?

Oh, and watch this video and try to tell me that Jenny G. is not a Democrat partisan hack!

Jenny Granholm guest on Fox Sunday, spreading lies

The woman is either delusional, crazy, or flat-out lying. I think it might be a combination of the three.

Also, on the Paul W. Smith show I love how she starts out talking about how important education is, and then goes on to defend her veto that is going to cost 51 school districts in Michigan even more money. Yeah, she is quite compassionate.

I am so thankful this is her last term in office, thanks to term limits. Next year we'll be able to vote in a new governor. If the Republican candidate is smart they will paint the Democratic candidate as the equivalent of Granholm. Using that tactic even a trained monkey should be able to win running as a Republican.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Excellent Article Related To Economic Liberty

Dealing With A Robin Hood Government


Dr. Walter Williams, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, wrote an excellent piece for Hillsdale College's Imprimis monthly publication.

Click here for the article: Future Prospects for Economic Liberty

Here are some highlights from the article:

So while I am not saying that we should pay no taxes, I am saying that they should be much lower—as they would be, if the government abided by the Constitution and allowed the free market system to flourish.
What a great statement. It amazes me how many people that I talk to about taxes who will complain about how much we are forced to pay. When I start mentioning things the government funds, that it really has no business funding, these same people will then give justifications as to why the government should be funding those things. Sorry people, you can't have it both ways. You can't have the government babysit you, provide a safety net for every aspect of life, and still have low taxes. Speaking of which:
Ironically, the free market system is threatened today not because of its failure, but because of its success. Capitalism has done so well in eliminating the traditional problems of mankind—disease, pestilence, gross hunger, and poverty—that other human problems seem to us unacceptable.
Here is the crux of the issue I just mentioned. Americans think that we should be able to live completely stress free, with no worries. The result is they are willing to let government act to try to prevent every potential pitfall that we face as humans. Something the government is incapable of doing.

So what do I mean by a Robin Hood government? Dr. Williams explains:
Again, the primary justification for increasing the size and scale of government at the expense of liberty is that government can achieve what it perceives as good. But government has no resources of its own with which to do so. Congressmen and senators don't reach into their own pockets to pay for a government program. They reach into yours and mine. Absent Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, the only way government can give one American a dollar in the name of this or that good thing is by taking it from some other American by force. If a private person did the same thing, no matter how admirable the motive, he would be arrested and tried as a thief. That is why I like to call what Congress does, more often than not, "legal theft." The question we have to ask ourselves is whether there is a moral basis for forcibly taking the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it does not belong. I cannot think of one. Charity is noble and good when it involves reaching into your own pocket. But reaching into someone else's pocket is wrong.
Very well said! There is no morality in stealing. Even if the motive is noble. My daughter quoted Robin Hood a few weeks ago. She is 6 and she said something about stealing from the rich to give to the poor. I explained to her that stealing is wrong, period. And that there is nothing that justifies it, even giving the spoils to the poor. That is a lesson more of our nation's youth needs to hear.

But isn't big business the enemy of the common people? No it isn't, as Dr. Williams continues:
Another common argument is that we need big government to protect the little guy from corporate giants. But a corporation can't pick a consumer's pocket. The consumer must voluntarily pay money for the corporation's product. It is big government, not corporations, that have the power to take our money by force. ... It is big government that the little guy needs protection against, not big business. And the only protection available is in the Constitution and the ballot box.
Ah, now we are getting to the root of the problem. As Ronald Reagan said: "Government is not the solution, government is the problem." The mainstream media has hammered on big business for so long that our society at large has aligned them mentally with Satan. However, big government is a much bigger threat to our liberty than big business ever was.

The problem is that our politicians get hedged in by special interests:
This reminds me of a lunch I had a number of years ago with my friend Jesse Helms, the late Senator from North Carolina. He knew that I was critical of farm subsidies, and he said he agreed with me 100 percent. But he wondered how a Senator from North Carolina could possibly vote against them. If he did so, his fellow North Carolinians would dump him and elect somebody worse in his place.
As Dr. Williams goes on, even principled politicians find themselves in the position of voting for big government initiatives that they know are not in the nation's best interest. Think about that in relation to the current big government proposal for health care reform and you quickly realize how precarious our economic liberty has become.

Dr. Williams makes some excellent points in this article. If we are to restore our economic liberty in this nation we need to get rid of big government. That is a daunting task, but one that is crucial to our remaining the greatest nation on God's green earth.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Is Obama A Closet Homosexual?

Okay, I know the guy isn't gay. However, the first time I saw him speak on the news (about 3 years ago) I had no idea who he was, and my first thought was that he was gay. He just has an effeminate way about him. I have often said, since his election, that he is the first black woman to be elected president.

Now we have this:

Click here: Obama tells gays that he will end "Don't ask don't tell" in the military

This was one of his campaign promises. Which is probably one of the reasons that John McCain carried nearly 70% of the military vote. Military service members do not want gays in the military. They at least don't want to know who is gay in the military. Yet Obama is bent on doing this. I really think the guy (or gal) hates the military.

Why not leave this up to the military commanders? Didn't Obama spend a lot of time during the campaign insisting that he'd defer to the commanders on military issues? Of course, his promise to end "don't ask don't tell", as well as granting a mere 15,000 of General McCrystal's requested 40,000 additional troops for Afghanistan, is not quite "deferring to military commanders".

Then again, what Obama says and what Obama does are often two different things.

Fun With Obama Supporters!

I frequent a few different political discussion boards. Recently on one of them a poster posted the following:

Obama Bashers!!

I will start by saying that I am happy, that finally someone other than the stereotype typical white male won the seat of President of the U.S.
I believe it has served a purpose by showing our youth and the rest of the world that when we say "If you work hard, study, and dedicate yourself to something you can obtain your dreams here in America"

That being said, I make no bones about being happy with what I see happening here in America, and believe that it would have happened no matter who was elected. An incoming President inherits the former headaches of the person that is replaced. Obama did not create the problems with the housing industry, he did not create the problems of AIG, he did not create the problems of the auto industry, and he has not created the problems of the wars we now fight. He inherited them. These problems started many years before he became President, and was caused by both parties over time.

Now my question to all those that come on AT and tell us why he is no good is this,
WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY AND HOW, now I'm not looking for opinions here I'm looking for facts since I have read many threads here stating so called facts against this President.

Some of the questions I would like answers to are as follows

Would you have let the American auto industry here fail and if so what would you have done about the possible millions of people who would have lost jobs that are affected by this industry? and what would you have done to replace those jobs and how would you have done this.

Now AIG is tied up in just about everything we do here in America from the auto industry, the insurance industry, and the banking industry, as well as the manufacturing industry of this country, would you have let them fail as well, and again what what would you do for the homeowners and the layoff?

Now what would you do about the health care industry, it is proved that many Americans can't afford it, so it has become a drain on out taxes, what would you do to fix the problem and still let sick people be care for,

these are but a few of the complaints that I have seen here on AT from the political threads, but I have seen no valid solutions proffered.

Personally from a capitalistic perspective and one of being held accountable for your own actions I would have let them all fail, however at the same time there would be many innocent everyday workers who would have suffered due to the greed or mis management of funds, and therein lies the real problem faced by the President, no matter what color or what party one might be.

I have no answers myself and can't begin to understand the pressure a Sitting President must have everyday they are in office and the people one must appease in order to get anything done to be considered a productive President.

I will proffer this though, That any US CITIZEN that has worked and paid taxes their whole life for the GNP of this country, in my opinion should be ENTITLED to the best medical care we have to offer, and not a run down version because they don't have enough coverage, or monies to cover the cost. however at the same time I can not offer a solution as to how this would be provided, as I"m not one of the privileged few who actually has available to them the numbers needed to make an intelligent assessment of the facts, yet I see everyday here on AT that there seems to be a select few that in their opinions are capable of making such decisions and I await for their informed answers and solutions.
bobbyh


Here was my response:


Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyh View Post
I will start by saying that I am happy, that finally someone other than the stereotype typical white male won the seat of President of the U.S.

Why does this matter? I don't care if the president is black, white, male, female, etc. As long as they are willing to uphold the constitution and do what is best for America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyh View Post
I believe it has served a purpose by showing our youth and the rest of the world that when we say "If you work hard, study, and dedicate yourself to something you can obtain your dreams here in America"

Again, not sure why this couldn't be the case even if McCain, Hillary, or Ron Paul had been elected. -shrug-

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyh View Post
That being said, I make no bones about being happy with what I see happening here in America, and believe that it would have happened no matter who was elected. An incoming President inherits the former headaches of the person that is replaced. Obama did not create the problems with the housing industry, he did not create the problems of AIG, he did not create the problems of the auto industry, and he has not created the problems of the wars we now fight. He inherited them. These problems started many years before he became President, and was caused by both parties over time.

Ahhh, now the crux of bobby's argument: Bush did it. ROFL Yeah, this is a brand new line of thinking. NOT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyh View Post
Now my question to all those that come on AT and tell us why he is no good is this,
WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY AND HOW, now I'm not looking for opinions here I'm looking for facts since I have read many threads here stating so called facts against this President.

Some of the questions I would like answers to are as follows

So far you haven't stated one fact, just the typical Democrat talking points do defend an out of touch president that has no answers, and has accomplished nothing, himself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyh View Post
Would you have let the American auto industry here fail and if so what would you have done about the possible millions of people who would have lost jobs that are affected by this industry? and what would you have done to replace those jobs and how would you have done this.

First, Obama did not bail out the auto industry. He "bailed out" GM and Chrysler. Ford has taken no Obama money and are doing fine. In fact, they are stronger now than they were before.

What Obama did was not save GM and Chrysler, it was to delay the inevitable. If Chrysler and GM were going to fail, they still will fail. You can't force people to spend money for cars they don't want. What was done was a bandaid was put on a severed limb. Fiat/Chrysler will not be solvent unless they make products people want, that are affordable. Same with Government Motors. Obama was no savior here despite your spin.

Gm and Chrysler should have been allowed to fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyh View Post
Now AIG is tied up in just about everything we do here in America from the auto industry, the insurance industry, and the banking industry, as well as the manufacturing industry of this country, would you have let them fail as well, and again what what would you do for the homeowners and the layoff?

I think you grossly overstate AIG's importance. It should have been allowed to fail. The SEC should have overseen the selling of AIG's business to more stable insurance companies. And with the amount of business involved you would have had companies falling over themselves to bid on that business. AIG's main problem was the fraud caused by government involvement to begin with it. Government is the problem, NOT the solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyh View Post
Now what would you do about the health care industry, it is proved that many Americans can't afford it, so it has become a drain on out taxes, what would you do to fix the problem and still let sick people be care for,

Nothing. The fact that "many" Americans can't afford it is grossly overstated. No one is denied emergency medical care already. Most of the legal Americans that don't have coverage don't have it by choice. I would do nothing except make it easier for private charities to help those that are really in need through further tax incentives for charitable giving. Believe it or not we already have a pretty good system in place, the government needs to get out and stay out of the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyh View Post
these are but a few of the complaints that I have seen here on AT from the political threads, but I have seen no valid solutions proffered.

Personally from a capitalistic perspective and one of being held accountable for your own actions I would have let them all fail, however at the same time there would be many innocent everyday workers who would have suffered due to the greed or mis management of funds, and therein lies the real problem faced by the President, no matter what color or what party one might be.

I have no answers myself and can't begin to understand the pressure a Sitting President must have everyday they are in office and the people one must appease in order to get anything done to be considered a productive President.

I will proffer this though, That any US CITIZEN that has worked and paid taxes their whole life for the GNP of this country, in my opinion should be ENTITLED to the best medical care we have to offer, and not a run down version because they don't have enough coverage, or monies to cover the cost. however at the same time I can not offer a solution as to how this would be provided, as I"m not one of the privileged few who actually has available to them the numbers needed to make an intelligent assessment of the facts, yet I see everyday here on AT that there seems to be a select few that in their opinions are capable of making such decisions and I await for their informed answers and solutions.
bobbyh

This last part did nothing but make your post confusing. You start out defending Obama. You then say you would do the exact opposite of what Obama has done or tried to do. Then you finish by saying you think every American should have free health care but provide no solution to pay for it.

I think in short what you are saying if you think those of us that dislike Obama's policies and effort should put up or shut-up. The problem with your whole premise is that I didn't run a 2 year campaign to get elected by pretending I had easy answers for all our "problems". (Most of which were not real problems to begin with.) So bobby, I would suggest you avoid forums like this if you don't like criticism of sitting presidents. I also wonder where your compassion for a president was the last 8 years.

I don't await your uninformed and media spun response to this because your entire post was based on untruths to begin with.


This is what we are dealing with folks. People don't care that they disagree with Obama on almost every point, they only know he is the first black president and therefore must be supported. That is B-O-L-O-G-N-A.

As stated, I don't care what demographic Obama falls into. I only care that his policies and beliefs are dangerous to the America I know and love. Someone like bobbyh may fall for the line that "in a crisis we must take unusual steps". But right-thinking folks realize that a crisis is no excuse to go against principles.

Principles that were right yesterday when the economy was booming, are right today when the economy is sagging. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. And you certainly do not give a free pass to a president just because he is the first black president, or because the job is tough.

As I said in my response to bobbyh, Obama campaigned on the idea that he had solutions (he doesn't), and he always had platitudes in answer to every question that was raised during his campaign (and that is all he still provides to questions). Now that he has the job he deserves whatever scrutiny is thrown his way since he promised to wave his hands and make it all better.

bobbyh may have fallen for that act, but I certainly did not.

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Jenny Granholm Reneges On Her Promises

Listening to Paul W. Smith's radio program this morning, Jenny Granholm made it clear that she is more concerned about keeping a promise to 94,000 college kids, than she is to millions of Michigan taxpayers.

Here is the interview, click here: Paul W. Smith Interviews Jenny Granholm

Granholm has failed this state. Repeatedly. And now she is going to break another promise: she promised no more new taxes. Yet to save the Promise Scholarship, which is $4,000 to 94,000 college students, she is willing to tax physicians 3% of their gross receipts.

Question: If you tax medical providers 3%, how do you think they will consume that? My guess is that they are going to raise medical fees by, you ready for this, 3%! And if the state makes that illegal, guess what? You will force doctors out of the state, or into retirement. How does that help anyone?

Jenny, keep your promise. Approve the cuts the Republican senate has proposed. We the people are tired of being squeezed from everything from the income we make, to the property we own, to the products we buy in the store. STOP IT JENNY! DO NOT RAISE TAXES! DO NOT CREATE NEW TAXES! DO NOT DISGUISE (as you did last time) THEM AS SERVICE FEE INCREASES!

Stop the lying Jenny, and do what this state elected you to do: to do right by the taxpayer. DO IT NOW.

UPDATE: For more analysis click here: theblogprof

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Hypocrite!

Neil over at http://4simpsons.wordpress.com posted an excellent analysis on Michael Moore's hypocrisy.

Click here: Fallacies ‘R Us — Michael Moore preaches about Jesus and economics

Great analysis on one of the biggest hypocrites of our time. For Moore to practice what he preaches he’d have to be donating 99% of his profits from his movies to charitable causes (specifically those that help the poor). Yet he doesn’t. Records show he is among one of the stingiest of Hollywood elites!

Also, he fails to point out some interesting facts. Things like Christ saying the poor would always be with us. Yes, it is fruitless to try to eradicate poverty. That doesn’t alleviate the necessity of helping the poor, but it does mean that we have to make sure our efforts are put into the right place.

Further, in the old law, crop holders were told to leave the corners of their fields for the poor to come in and be able to get food. (Leviticus 23:22) Notice God doesn’t condemn the crop grower for owning the crop, or for keeping the largest majority of his crop for his own purposes.

Also, notice, it didn’t say to harvest the crops and give it to the poor. It said to leave it there so the poor could come in to gather food. In fact the NT goes further and says if a man doesn’t work then he shouldn’t eat! (II Thessalonians 3:10)

Moore and his ilk never seem to point that kind of thing out when discussing this topic.

Monday, October 05, 2009

Dirty Old Letterman

Turns out that David Letterman is a dirty old man.

Click here for story: David Letterman Studio 'Love Nest'

So all this time Dave has been verbally harassing Sarah Palin, it turns out that he dislikes any woman that won't, uhhh, "have" him.

Disgusting. CBS should pull the plug on this bozo. And I am not the only one calling for this:

Click here: Dump depraved Dave now, CBS!

Besides all of this, his top 10 lists have grown stale. It is time for Dave to go.