In the industry i work in i have the opportunity to encounter a large number of people every day, and in this industry i get to spend a lot of time one on one with people listening to their stories and their complaints and just general conversation about whatever may be the hot topic of the day! lately most people are talking about the coming election in 2012. Now i hear a lot of people bitching about the economy and how it has affected their daily lives, and in fact! in the industry i work in we are directly effected by either a booming economy or a crumbling one, the latter of which is under way right now. that being said these same people who engage me on this topic while complaining about how bad it is getting, how high food prices have increased or how much their energy bills have increased. i make no bones about being a conservative to everyone i encounter if the subject comes up. which the subject of our current political juggernaut we the people find ourselves in.
I find it most amazing the complacency i encounter on a daily basis regarding this country and where we currently are as a nation and as a people. it baffles me that so many people are angry and frustrated over the things our government is doing (or not doing) yet when i ask them who they are considering backing in the coming election, some. no a lot of them will say things like, "well i don't see any reason to vote. its not like my vote counts" which as those of you who know me may know can cause my head to explode. these people make me want to slap the living crap out of them because they are the problem! Complacency is the main reason in my opinion that America is where it is today! if you don't like something do you continue to just accept it! no, you get off your ass and do something about it, Right? well i guess not here in America! we have become so disconnected with our rights as Americans that our so called leaders have become the proverbial wolf at the door! they are thriving on our disenfranchisement to the point where they think since the majority of the citizenry never complains or stands up for themselves that said citizenry must want us to do everything for them. in experiencing this blaten complacency with the people i have contact with i have set out to do what i can to awaken them. to encourage them, and to educate them on just how important their voice is
I don't believe that either major party in our political system are who they were 20-30 years ago. maybe they are! i don;t even want to address the left but to say that i think John F. Kennedy would probably slap the living shit out of all of you for what you have done to this political affiliation! as for the right! someone need to throw a rope around you and pull you as far away from the middle as can possibly be done. over the past 3 0r 4 decades you have retreated from what you stand for so much that you are hard to tell apart from a liberal.(not a progressive, a liberal) there is no wiggle room on the core beliefs of the right!
i just want to end by saying this. in my industry they tell you never to talk about religion or politics to which i say PSHAW! last time i checked we live in a free country and until that changes each and every one of us should exercise our constitutional rights both proudly and loudly! if we remain as complacent as we have found ourselves to become then the United States of America will surely Parish as a nation and a sovereign people. i for one refuse to allow this to happen so at risk of offending a few in order to enlighten many i will now and forever be outspoken on the importance of speaking out about and against the tyrannicide progression of our federal government until which time as said government begins the process of regressing back into its proper place as a voice of the people, by the people, for the people!
It doesn't matter which party is in control of the White House, the Senate or the House of Representatives its OK to have different opinions and philosophical ideologies. what we need are men and women of Honor and Integrity who hold Americas best interests at heart, who have an existing income so as not to abuse the office they are elected to for personal financial gain, representatives who have the courage to REFUSE to engage in any way with Washington lobbyists seeking favors! Patriots who will listen to what We the People want, engage in a dialogue with us and enact the legislation WE deem appropriate to ensure that we and future generations continue to enjoy the unalienable rights granted us by our creator, and to forever stand as the one true Bastian of freedom in the world...
so i say to you all. don't just accept what is will always be! you and all of us have the power to change the destructive course this great nation is traveling. you just need to put up, or shut up!
god bless you, and god bless the United States of America!
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Who Caused the Economic Crisis?
With the announcement of the Retirement of Barney Frank co-author of the Dodd/Frank legislation and who proclaimed that the housing market was on solid ground just prior to its collapse i have found some information i thought would be fun to share with you all...
just passing info on..... enjoy!
A MoveOn.org Political Action ad plays the partisan blame game with the economic crisis, charging that John McCain’s friend and former economic adviser Phil Gramm “stripped safeguards that would have protected us.” The claim is bogus. Gramm’s legislation had broad bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Clinton. Moreover, the bill had nothing to do with causing the crisis, and economists – not to mention President Clinton – praise it for having softened the crisis.
A McCain-Palin ad, in turn, blames Democrats for the mess. The ad says that the crisis “didn’t have to happen,” because legislation McCain cosponsored would have tightened regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But, the ad says, Obama "was notably silent" while Democrats killed the bill. That’s oversimplified. Republicans, who controlled the Senate at the time, did not bring the bill forward for a vote. And it’s unclear how much the legislation would have helped, as McCain signed on just two months before the housing bubble popped.
In fact, there’s ample blame to go around. Experts have cited everyone from home buyers to Wall Street, mortgage brokers to Alan Greenspan.
Analysis:
As Congress wrestled with a $700 billion rescue for Wall Street’s financial crisis, partisans on both sides got busy – pointing fingers. MoveOn.org Political Action on Sept. 25 released a 60-second TV ad called "My Friends’ Mess," blaming Sen. John McCain and Republican allies who supported banking deregulation. The McCain-Palin campaign released its own 30-second TV spot Sept. 30, saying "Obama was notably silent" while Democrats blocked reforms leaving taxpayers "on the hook for billions." Both ads were to run nationally
That claim is bunk. When we contacted MoveOn.org spokesman Trevor Fitzgibbons to ask just what "safeguards" the ad was talking about, he came up with not one single example. The only support offered for the ad’s claim is one line in one newspaper article that reported the bill "is now being blamed" for the crisis, without saying who is doing the blaming or on what grounds.
The bill in question is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which was passed in 1999 and repealed portions of the Glass-Steagall Act, a piece of legislation from the era of the Great Depression that imposed a number of regulations on financial institutions. It’s true that Gramm authored the act, but what became law was a widely accepted bipartisan compromise. The measure passed the House 362 - 57, with 155 Democrats voting for the bill. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 90 – 8. Among the Democrats voting for the bill: Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton, a Democrat. If this bill really had "stripped the safeguards that would have protected us," then both parties share the blame, not just "John McCain’s friend."
The truth is, however, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act had little if anything to do with the current crisis. In fact, economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been.
Last year the liberal writer Robert Kuttner, in a piece in The American Prospect, argued that "this old-fashioned panic is a child of deregulation." But even he didn’t lay the blame primarily on Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Instead, he described "serial bouts of financial deregulation" going back to the 1970s. And he laid blame on policies of the Federal Reserve Board under Alan Greenspan, saying "the Fed has become the chief enabler of a dangerously speculative economy."
What Gramm-Leach-Bliley did was to allow commercial banks to get into investment banking. Commercial banks are the type that accept deposits and make loans such as mortgages; investment banks accept money for investment into stocks and commodities. In 1998, regulators had allowed Citicorp, a commercial bank, to acquire Traveler’s Group, an insurance company that was partly involved in investment banking, to form Citigroup. That was seen as a signal that Glass-Steagall was a dead letter as a practical matter, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley made its repeal formal. But it had little to do with mortgages.
Actually, deregulated banks were not the major culprits in the current debacle. Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan Chase have weathered the financial crisis in reasonably good shape, while Bear Stearns collapsed and Lehman Brothers has entered bankruptcy, to name but two of the investment banks which had remained independent despite the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Observers as diverse as former Clinton Treasury official and current Berkeley economist Brad DeLong and George Mason University’s Tyler Cowen, a libertarian, have praised Gramm-Leach-Bliley has having softened the crisis. The deregulation allowed Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase to acquire Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns. And Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have now converted themselves into unified banks to better ride out the storm. That idea is also endorsed by former President Clinton himself, who, in an interview with Maria Bartiromo published in the Sept. 24 issue of Business Week, said he had no regrets about signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall:
Bill Clinton is qouted here as saying " Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn’t signed that bill. …You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can’t possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I’d be glad to look at the evidence. But I can’t blame [the Republicans]. This wasn’t something they forced me into."
It’s true that key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie – a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report. Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), 2003 and 2004, saying of the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was "overblown." Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities "ill-advised."
But saying that Democrats killed the 2005 bill "while Mr. Obama was notably silent" oversimplifies things considerably. The bill made it out of committee in the Senate but was never brought up for consideration. At that time, Republicans had a majority in the Senate and controlled the agenda. Democrats never got the chance to vote against it or to mount a filibuster to block it.
By the time McCain signed on to the legislation, it was too late to prevent the crisis anyway. McCain added his name on May 25, 2006, when the housing bubble had already nearly peaked. Standard & Poor’s Case-Schiller Home Price Index, which measures residential housing prices in 20 metropolitan regions and then constructs a composite index for the entire United States, shows that housing prices began falling in July 2006, barely two months later.
There’s plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn’t fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn’t do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility … with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here’s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:
sorces: factcheck.org
The American Economist
the Congressional Budget Office
just passing info on..... enjoy!
A MoveOn.org Political Action ad plays the partisan blame game with the economic crisis, charging that John McCain’s friend and former economic adviser Phil Gramm “stripped safeguards that would have protected us.” The claim is bogus. Gramm’s legislation had broad bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Clinton. Moreover, the bill had nothing to do with causing the crisis, and economists – not to mention President Clinton – praise it for having softened the crisis.
A McCain-Palin ad, in turn, blames Democrats for the mess. The ad says that the crisis “didn’t have to happen,” because legislation McCain cosponsored would have tightened regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But, the ad says, Obama "was notably silent" while Democrats killed the bill. That’s oversimplified. Republicans, who controlled the Senate at the time, did not bring the bill forward for a vote. And it’s unclear how much the legislation would have helped, as McCain signed on just two months before the housing bubble popped.
In fact, there’s ample blame to go around. Experts have cited everyone from home buyers to Wall Street, mortgage brokers to Alan Greenspan.
Analysis:
As Congress wrestled with a $700 billion rescue for Wall Street’s financial crisis, partisans on both sides got busy – pointing fingers. MoveOn.org Political Action on Sept. 25 released a 60-second TV ad called "My Friends’ Mess," blaming Sen. John McCain and Republican allies who supported banking deregulation. The McCain-Palin campaign released its own 30-second TV spot Sept. 30, saying "Obama was notably silent" while Democrats blocked reforms leaving taxpayers "on the hook for billions." Both ads were to run nationally
Blame the Republicans!
The MoveOn.org Political Action ad blames a banking deregulation bill sponsored by former Sen. Phil Gramm, a friend and one-time adviser to McCain’s campaign. It claims the bill "stripped safeguards that would have protected us."That claim is bunk. When we contacted MoveOn.org spokesman Trevor Fitzgibbons to ask just what "safeguards" the ad was talking about, he came up with not one single example. The only support offered for the ad’s claim is one line in one newspaper article that reported the bill "is now being blamed" for the crisis, without saying who is doing the blaming or on what grounds.
The bill in question is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which was passed in 1999 and repealed portions of the Glass-Steagall Act, a piece of legislation from the era of the Great Depression that imposed a number of regulations on financial institutions. It’s true that Gramm authored the act, but what became law was a widely accepted bipartisan compromise. The measure passed the House 362 - 57, with 155 Democrats voting for the bill. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 90 – 8. Among the Democrats voting for the bill: Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton, a Democrat. If this bill really had "stripped the safeguards that would have protected us," then both parties share the blame, not just "John McCain’s friend."
The truth is, however, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act had little if anything to do with the current crisis. In fact, economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been.
Last year the liberal writer Robert Kuttner, in a piece in The American Prospect, argued that "this old-fashioned panic is a child of deregulation." But even he didn’t lay the blame primarily on Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Instead, he described "serial bouts of financial deregulation" going back to the 1970s. And he laid blame on policies of the Federal Reserve Board under Alan Greenspan, saying "the Fed has become the chief enabler of a dangerously speculative economy."
What Gramm-Leach-Bliley did was to allow commercial banks to get into investment banking. Commercial banks are the type that accept deposits and make loans such as mortgages; investment banks accept money for investment into stocks and commodities. In 1998, regulators had allowed Citicorp, a commercial bank, to acquire Traveler’s Group, an insurance company that was partly involved in investment banking, to form Citigroup. That was seen as a signal that Glass-Steagall was a dead letter as a practical matter, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley made its repeal formal. But it had little to do with mortgages.
Actually, deregulated banks were not the major culprits in the current debacle. Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan Chase have weathered the financial crisis in reasonably good shape, while Bear Stearns collapsed and Lehman Brothers has entered bankruptcy, to name but two of the investment banks which had remained independent despite the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Observers as diverse as former Clinton Treasury official and current Berkeley economist Brad DeLong and George Mason University’s Tyler Cowen, a libertarian, have praised Gramm-Leach-Bliley has having softened the crisis. The deregulation allowed Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase to acquire Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns. And Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have now converted themselves into unified banks to better ride out the storm. That idea is also endorsed by former President Clinton himself, who, in an interview with Maria Bartiromo published in the Sept. 24 issue of Business Week, said he had no regrets about signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall:
Bill Clinton is qouted here as saying " Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn’t signed that bill. …You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can’t possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I’d be glad to look at the evidence. But I can’t blame [the Republicans]. This wasn’t something they forced me into."
No, Blame the Democrats!
The McCain-Palin campaign fired back with an ad laying blame on Democrats and Obama. Titled "Rein," it highlights McCain’s 2006 attempt to "rein in Fannie and Freddie." The ad accurately quotes the Washington Post as saying "Washington failed to rein in" the two government-sponsored entities, the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac"), both of which ran into trouble by underwriting too many risky home mortgages to buyers who have been unable to repay them. The ad then blames Democrats for blocking McCain’s reforms. As evidence, it even offers a snippet of an interview in which former President Clinton agrees that "the responsibility that the Democrats have" might lie in resisting his own efforts to "tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." We’re then told that the crisis "didn’t have to happen."It’s true that key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie – a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report. Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), 2003 and 2004, saying of the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was "overblown." Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities "ill-advised."
But saying that Democrats killed the 2005 bill "while Mr. Obama was notably silent" oversimplifies things considerably. The bill made it out of committee in the Senate but was never brought up for consideration. At that time, Republicans had a majority in the Senate and controlled the agenda. Democrats never got the chance to vote against it or to mount a filibuster to block it.
By the time McCain signed on to the legislation, it was too late to prevent the crisis anyway. McCain added his name on May 25, 2006, when the housing bubble had already nearly peaked. Standard & Poor’s Case-Schiller Home Price Index, which measures residential housing prices in 20 metropolitan regions and then constructs a composite index for the entire United States, shows that housing prices began falling in July 2006, barely two months later.
So who is to blame?
There’s plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn’t fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn’t do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility … with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here’s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:
- The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
- Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
- Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
- Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
- The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
- Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
- Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
- Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
- The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
- An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
- Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
sorces: factcheck.org
The American Economist
the Congressional Budget Office
Friday, November 25, 2011
President Obamas Deceptive American Jobs Act Bill
President Obama exaggerates when he claims “independent economists” say his jobs bill “would create nearly 2 million jobs.” The median estimate in a survey of 34 economists showed 288,000 jobs could be saved or created over two years under the president’s plan.
Obama also claimed one economist said the Republican jobs plan “could actually cost us jobs.” That economist said he did not have enough information to provide a jobs estimate, although he added that focusing on cutting spending “could be harmful in the short run.”
As he has on other occasions, Obama suggested in a speech on October 18th 20011 in North Carolina that there is a general consensus among “independent economists” that his bill The American Jobs Act would create 2 million jobs if passed by Congress.
When asked for the names of the independent experts, the White House gave the names of two economists: Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics and Joel Prakken of Macroeconomics Advisers. But only one of them came close to the “nearly 2 million jobs” figure touted by Obama. Zandi estimated the bill would add 1.9 million jobs. Prakken estimated 1.3 million additional jobs next year. (In an email exchange, Prakken said those 1.3 million new jobs would drop to 800,000 in 2013.)
+
So, only one of the two economists cited by the White House actually claims that the president’s bill could create “nearly 2 million jobs.”
More importantly, both are at the high end of job-creation estimates. Bloomberg News surveyed 34 economists to gauge the impact of the president’s jobs bill. Of those, 28 economists estimated how many jobs would be created by the bill. The median estimate was 275,000 jobs in 2012 and 13,000 jobs in 2013 for a total of 288,000 jobs — far fewer than the 2 million claimed by the president.
So i say to you, Why in this age of instant information and with the curiosity of the American people to seek the truth and exploit the facts in an attempt to keep the truth in the light and to do away with dishonesty, would anyone anywhere speak any untruth in an attempt to further his or her own agenda. we will find you out! especially when you are arguably the most singularly incompetent and blatantly pro-socialist president in American history and will forever be the most scrutinized individual in American politics.
Sources:
http://www.factcheck.org
http://www.youtube.com
Obama also claimed one economist said the Republican jobs plan “could actually cost us jobs.” That economist said he did not have enough information to provide a jobs estimate, although he added that focusing on cutting spending “could be harmful in the short run.”
As he has on other occasions, Obama suggested in a speech on October 18th 20011 in North Carolina that there is a general consensus among “independent economists” that his bill The American Jobs Act would create 2 million jobs if passed by Congress.
When asked for the names of the independent experts, the White House gave the names of two economists: Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics and Joel Prakken of Macroeconomics Advisers. But only one of them came close to the “nearly 2 million jobs” figure touted by Obama. Zandi estimated the bill would add 1.9 million jobs. Prakken estimated 1.3 million additional jobs next year. (In an email exchange, Prakken said those 1.3 million new jobs would drop to 800,000 in 2013.)
+
So, only one of the two economists cited by the White House actually claims that the president’s bill could create “nearly 2 million jobs.”
More importantly, both are at the high end of job-creation estimates. Bloomberg News surveyed 34 economists to gauge the impact of the president’s jobs bill. Of those, 28 economists estimated how many jobs would be created by the bill. The median estimate was 275,000 jobs in 2012 and 13,000 jobs in 2013 for a total of 288,000 jobs — far fewer than the 2 million claimed by the president.
So i say to you, Why in this age of instant information and with the curiosity of the American people to seek the truth and exploit the facts in an attempt to keep the truth in the light and to do away with dishonesty, would anyone anywhere speak any untruth in an attempt to further his or her own agenda. we will find you out! especially when you are arguably the most singularly incompetent and blatantly pro-socialist president in American history and will forever be the most scrutinized individual in American politics.
Sources:
http://www.factcheck.org
http://www.youtube.com
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Liberation: a play for pay proposition!
This is just going to be an opinion rant on my part in regards to the U.S Military roll as what i refer to as the Worlds Police..An ALL volunteer force consisting of Americas finest young men and women from all walks of life sent off to do battle against the evils of the world. although i do not always agree with the deployment of these brave souls, i do believe this is one area in the federal budget that should not be cut, i believe there are areas that could be streamlined in order to make our fighting force more financially efficient eg. make all purchases from privatized business instead of government contractors who charge triple what any given items actual value! but I'm getting sidetracked from my thought here... i believe that if the United States military is going to be called upon to help liberate foreign nations from the grips of tyranny and oppression than we need to lay out some parameters and some limitations prior to engagement of our services. yes i say we approach this from now on like a business, draw up contracts for services rendered and all parties involved in the acquisition of our liberating organization known as the Armed services of the United states of America.
Whereas the President and a legal and financial team sit down with the leader of the country/and or peoples seeking liberation from the oppressive or controlling regime or from the terror organization of which they seek to be liberated from and work out the estimate of cost for services and inventory needed to successfully complete and provide the desired result of requested engagement. upon agreement of the engagement details and the end game details then the financial terms can be discussed whereas the contractee pays the contractor a retainers fee of no less than half of the estimated cost up front, and the remaining cost and any and all unexpected cost increase at the successful outcome of the mission! with this approach to our military engagements throughout the world the United States is guaranteed to recover most if not all financial cost of fighting for the freedoms of nations that through fault of there own do not have the capability to protect themselves from an oppressive government or an aggressive foreign force intent on invading and conquering. this in turn would also greatly alleviate the financial Burden of the American taxpayers to fund foreign conflicts. so in closing i would say to the rest of the world, if you want or need the United States military to come and save your ASS from tyranny... just sign here on the dotted line and pay up and then get the hell out of the way till we are done!and once we have saved your butts and restored order to your lives, don't turn around and bitch about the collateral damage caused by your wanting your freedom returned to you!
Foriegn Aid
it just seems to me that if the United States of America is going to continue to send monies to foreign nations there should be a clear and precise message as to what we expect in return for our investment!and first and foremost if this is a nation such as Pakistan where we know for a fact that although we are giving them billions of dollars they continue to allow entities hostile to the US and her allies to not only exist within their borders but allow them to recruit and train to commit hostile terror acts against the united states. in my humble opinion the United States should not commit one more dime to Pakistan unless the Pakistani authorities are willing to step aside and allow a team of US special forces to clear and contain any and all persons considered to be aggressors towards the America and her allies such as Al Queda, Hezbollah, Hamas... if the federal government is going to send taxpayer dollars to a foreign nation, We the People have a right to know that OUR money is not going to a nation that harbors our enemies... below you'll find a link to an article showing how incompetent our government is in handling OUR money!
American Aid debacle in Pakistan
please share this with your friends if you agree that the United States should cease all foreign aid without guarantees from recipients that they are serving our interests and not those of terror organizations!
American Aid debacle in Pakistan
please share this with your friends if you agree that the United States should cease all foreign aid without guarantees from recipients that they are serving our interests and not those of terror organizations!
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Democrat By Default
In early 2006 I was a 23 year old democrat by default. I had no understanding of the term liberal, conservative, left-wing, right-wing, democrat or republican. That being said, somehow I had beliefs ingrained in my subconscious which had no origin I could remember. I was afraid to label myself as a Republican. I was reluctant to hear the opinions of conservative thinkers. I believed that liberals stood for freedom of choice and that republicans . . . well, were the opposite.
One day I realized these thoughts were not my own. Thus began my personal journey into the world of politics. AM talk radio saved my soul. (that and an hour and a half commute to work, which gave me time to listen, think and contemplate both sides of every argument) Radio was the only place I could get both sides of the story and It made the media bias of mainstream outlets blatantly obvious. You only need to hear a liberal and a conservative debate for a short while to realize that conservative ideals are based in historical fact while liberal ideals are based in emotion.
Emotion, especially empathy and compassion, are admirable and required traits in any good person but they cannot be allowed to blind us from the big picture which includes the future of our country and plainly, the future of our children. We as citizens are morally obligated to help our fellow man but forcing other Americans to support your causes by way of government mandates can only be defined as tyranny. Too may people believe that governments role is to support one person by taking from another. That is not the American Dream. Dreams are not guaranteed, they are goals to be relentlessly pursued. The pursuit of happiness is just that, a pursuit. No other person is to blame for your failures just as no one else deserves credit for your success.
I am no longer a liberal democrat by any stretch of the imagination. I proudly wear the banner of conservative republican. 235 years after our countries founding the American experiment is still fragile and must be defended. 99% of the people who came before us lived under ruthless dictatorship and the idea that man can govern themselves is still worth fighting for. Millions of service men and woman have fought and died for our right to live free. I will not allow their sacrifice to be in vein.
It is difficult to appreciate something that was not earned through hard work and struggle, I would argue that being born free is no different. It is easy to take for granted the freedoms we enjoy each day but achieving this freedom in the first place was no easy task. Take time to learn about the founding fathers, the constitution, publious and the federalist papers, the revolutionary war. In your research, take notice of how world history and the history of man is a story of a powerful few ruling the many.
We have been given the gift to control our own lives, country and government. An opportunity not afforded to most people who inhabited this beautiful world before us. Join us in our journey to preserve the republic and to save the country that is our children's future.
my Goal
it is my goal with this blog to inform, enlighten, encourage and maybe sometimes enrage my readers. i feel for far to long here in America that We the People have allowed ourselves to become more and more complacent in regards to our interaction with our governing bodies. my main focus here will be at the Federal level because i feel they are the greatest threat to the freedom and sovereignty of the American people and the land we call home.. i invite and expect open and honest input and debate. my hope is to get Americans engaged in conversation about current and future events that will determine the direction our great country is and will be headed for us and future generations! if we fail to act now to regain what is our inalienable rights as Americans as granted to us by our creator than we have no one to blame for their demise but ourselves! the question i have for those of you who will engage me in this forum is when the time comes and you are called upon to express your rights and stand up for the future generations who know not of the fine line of perilous footprints being left for them to tread within. will you have the courage of conviction to stand up for them or will you hide behind your shelter of complacency and watch as the greatest nation on the planet Earth whithers and dies? stand up, and wake up America! your nation needs you... your children need you.... your legacy demands this of you! are you with me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)