Morality101.net

The adversity we face today is NOT like other adversities we have overcome. This adversity is one that has the potential of nastiness the likes of which no native American has experienced before. Freedoms are under dire threat with this man in office - and no one with authority seems to have a clue what to do about it. Our founders KNEW and stated that our form of government could only work as long as we elected honest people of integrity. How many of our elected officials have fit that description in the past 30 years? Precious few, if any.

America at one time WAS a strong nation but over the years has soiled itself irreparably with political correctness, sissification, open self degradation, court rulings that have no basis in the constitution, degradation of the language, degradation of morals, and the socialism that has been edging its way into our government, quietly, quietly until they felt they had sufficient numbers to do what they wanted regardless what the voting public wanted.

And suddenly out of nowhere, an empty suit with no resume, no experience, no friends except thugs and terrorists, this person, Obama, showed up as a Presidential candidate. That in itself should have alerted all Americans, but it didn't. He was elected despite refusing to adhere to the customs all previous Presidents had done, who refuses to release any records that may support his bio. He has spent millions to keep them secret. Now, why would anyone do that? Any normal American? He says he attended Harvard - could be. I've seen no proof. He says he studied Constitutional law. Do we have any proof of that - and if we do, how do we explain his disdain for the Constitution? I maintain that IF he has studied it at all, his purpose was to learn how to dismantle it. And why was the MSM so supportive of his gross disdain for openness re his personal life?

Does it seem at all plausable that Obama is a usurper, placed into the Presidency - not because he is so wonderful, but because there are very powerful people who want to see the US overthrown and brought to her knees? Sound like a mystery novel? Not all mysteries are novel - some are factual. To break this once strong nation, one must;

1. Gain as much support as possible by any means you can think of

2. Rely on a populace that is uninformed, disinterested in national and world affairs, and one that relies primarily on its central government.
3. Obtain that legitimate office, and rule as you believe a President would appear to rule, while in secret you are planning your next move to debilitate the nation

4. To overthrow a country is easier if the economy is in the tank, and one must slowly, slowly start taking over private enterprise, making it now centralized enterprise. It is much easier if you have a propaganda machine. Barry had the MSM to help him gain power.
5. I'd hazard a guess that people wanting to overthrow a nation are by definition sociopaths, if not phychopths. Have we seen any strange behavior or comments from Barry that make you wonder about his mental condition?
6. To overthrow a country one must not be firmly connected to that country else sentiment MAY be a stumbling block. Remember Barry won't salute the flag, doesn't know how many states are in the union, doesn't know how to pronounce corps, as in Marine Corps. I don't believe he has any interest in this country except what he can get for himself. I've seen no proof he is an American.
7. Eventually a usurper must come out of the closet. In this case, that would be before an upcoming Presidential election. Obama has been thumbing his nose at his family, his minister, the MSM who were largely responsible for putting him into office, private enterprise, the American people,and even the people whose votes he needs........of course, maybe he knows something we don't know. Could be he KNOWS he doesn't need those voters. Could be he will declare "No more elections". Who or what agency would stop him from suddenly becoming king? Please name one. Has anyone seen an excess of valor in the Congress or the Supreme Court? And why don't we have people in DC who know how to get at the meat of this mytery. Oh, we do, but they must be on the side of the usurper.

8. It seems logical that any person who overthrows a nation would eliminate the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some people say Obama should be impeached. I disagree. The Senate would NOT convict - and if it did, I have a strong suspicion Obama would tell them to cram it and continue right along doing as he pleases.
Some have said we can take back the Congress. If the above happens, there will be no Congress.
Some have said how we must pay off the debts, raise taxes, lower taxes, etc. If by any chance the above scenario turns out to be the case, what we think or want will be totally irrelevant. We've been living in a democratic republic (mre or less) under ELECTED officials - one cannot expect better with a dictator in the capital. We have become fat and lazy and reliant on government, and this may very well be the time we pay the piper.

I hope our nation can be saved, even if it is hopelessly divided.

 

 

Who Is Compassionate? Like everyone else I have been thinking a lot about the health insurance problem in America - how so many apparently don't have coverage, how so many are dropped from insurance roles, how the government should step in and with tax dollars cover 'everybody', how our economy is in the tank, how so many are unemployed, how unfair people are, how cruel some are, how compassionate some are, how government takeover of healthcare is a either a terrible idea or the only solution. I may have a non-governmental solution.  One person commenting on Propeller told me the issue is too big for individuals to solve and that it should be given to government to solve.   Another told me how heartless I was to have NO compassion for the poor, the needy, the insured, etc.  I will credit these people with giving me the inspiration for this article. All of us know that virtually none of us is heartless, without compassion.  So what would be the answer for: 1) the needy,  2) the liberals, and 3) the conservatives? Answer:  Private coverage.  Private assistance. Insurance is expensive.  Let's work on lowering it.  In the meanwhile, each of us who can afford to might like to "adopt" a family who simply cannot afford health insurance.  Those of us who cannot afford it alone could go into the "adoption" with other people helping with the expense. I have great faith in the American people, much more so than in the federal government. This could also be done with the truly poor, with poor starving children which I am told exist in America - though I don't really believe it, with the unemployed, etc.  It would be completely voluntary.  If we can adopt a mile of highway for maintenance, why can't we adopt a family?  No government involvement whatsoever.  Hence, no tax dollars going to these social programs that we cannot afford any longer. People helping people.  Not a new concept.  But for all the talk about compassion, how compassionate are we really?  We can solve all of the aforementioned problem in this manner to everyone's satisfaction.  Are we truly compassionate? Or do we prefer a socialist government?  If we must argue, let's argue about the actual arguing point, not "compassion". If you disagree, that's O.K., but please do not do it on the basis of "it can't be done" because I do not understand those words - they are not in my vocabulary and I will not argue them.  Nor will I give them any credence.

I have been posting articles and comments on Propeller.  It is a great site for communicating, but it does have some flaws that I really wish they would work out.  As I see it, it is partly Propeller regs and partly its members. Recently there have been several articles grounded, which I am told is automatic, within the software, and set to algorithms, and if so, that's understandable.  However, in one way this is a disincentive to debates.  I, or some other conservative will post a comment or submit an article.  Immediately that article is swarmed with people who proceed to immediately bury it.  So far, so good.  No particular complaints so far.  However, this is not right.  Things need to be changed to ENCOURAGE debate, not cut it off. I recommend Propeller do this: 1.  Re-set algorithms to NOT ground before 12 hours are up to enable more people to read and comment on articles - some people work at jobs to pay taxes and have ideas about various topics, yet are disallowed to comment on an article if it is grounded within an hour or so of posting. 2.  Do not allow any drops from individuals who have not read the article.  This is becoming more a popularity contest than a discussion and news resource.  Who can get the most votes?  Who can say the most outrageous thing?  But primarily who can ground a story before it is read is particularly insidious and distasteful.  This is a juvenile display of ....... I don't know what to call it.  I've never known this type of behavior before. This is would allow no one any special rights, and no one's rights would be infringed upon.  But some of us don't care for the game of "ground the other guy" and don't have the amount of time to "neg" as do some others.  I would like to see Propeller make these two changes, please.  What do others think?

It's wonderful to be able to address a group of people who are conservative thinkers! This group can accomplish a lot if we don't hang ourselves. One thing I love about conservatives is that they know what they think and aren't wishy-washy. That said, if we want to succeed in pursuing the agenda of taking back America, we must take tender care of each other. With conservatives that shouldn't be difficult. Not all conservatives agree on everything, and it is those areas that can, if we allow it to, stand in the way of unity.

RELIGION I would suggest we keep it toned down a bit. Those of us who believe cannot be harmed by those who do not, and we are not about to harm others. Religion is NOT an issue we must all agree on, even in a candidate. ABORTION Related to religion. Some see it as evil. Some see it as a privacy issue. Some see it as amoral and/or murder. Some see no harm in it. If you are like me, your feelings are strong and you won't give up those feelings. BUT we must not allow our differences in this issue to separate us from our goal. We each retain our beliefs, but we don't really need to attack each other, right? WAR Another area of disagreement. Not every candidate is going to satisfy all of us - can we not agree that if we see the candidate as a decent, honest person with integrity, we can tolerate him as an official? Vote the way you wish, but maybe we can refrain from bashing each other in the head as we go along? ;-) MIDDLE EAST Ditto the above FREEDOM, LIBERTY Do we all agree on the definitions? Do we not all want total freedom? We have to be careful on this one if one looks at abortion. The "my body is mine" thing? Some feel the unborn baby's body is his, not his mother's. For me personally this one is a really sticky one as I understand where the other side comes from, but disagree. We must think about HOW we disagree publicly and still maintain unity. I am sure there are other hot button issues you can, and hopefully will provide. My suggestions are just that - suggestions. I am open to everyone's suggestions. I write this because I am pretty sure that's how we lose honest elections: we allow single issues to rule our senses, whereas we possibly would all be better off if we CONSERVATIVES could coalesce instead of divide ourselves. Please let me know what you think?

This began as a response to a fellow commenter on Propeller, but it got longer than I had anticipated, so decided to do it this way.  The question he had posed to me was "What would you do to make America better and stronger?" Below is my answer, but always open to improvement and additions. I am a citizen of America, one who staunchly defends it (not its government always).  I admire the independence on which our country was founded.  It disturbs me we (individuals and government) no longer depict that independence.  Our forefathers' big concern was "freedom", and they warned against a government that became too strong, too large, too threatening.  They knew the nature of man and vice. That said, what would I do to make America better and stronger? I would start with removing bunches of the laws we now exist under.  Many are in fact unconstitutional, or so I believe.  Many are impossible to adhere to in any meaningful way.  Most are a waste of the trees cut down to provide the paper they are written on.  Our Congress is totally and completely incompetent. I would push for term limits.  I would push for actual vetting of all candidates and that vetting would be displayed in advance of elections for all to see before they have to vote on a person.  I am not just talking about Obama.  I am talking about everyone who wants to hold public office and write our laws.  They should be squeaky clean, and we know for a fact they are not.  I would weed out duplicate programs.  We don't need multiple agencies fiddling with everything.  I would eliminate all agencies that are not constitutional.  I would eliminate the word and effect of "czars", a term begun years ago and which gets more bizarre as time goes on.  I would push for community unity, NOT party unity. I would eliminate income taxes.  I would put out a lean and mean annual budget and advise the people that that which  isn't paid for will not be done - asking for donations.  Make your donations however and whenever you choose, in any amount you choose and signify where you want each dollar to go.  If it is for environment, say so.  If it is for welfare, say so.  If it is for military, say so.  And I would audit that agency collecting the money monthly - and every infraction would land someone on an unemployment line.  All vat's would be eliminated.  All sales taxes would be eliminated. Support of the "national need" would be totally and completely voluntary.  Elected officials and the bureaucracy would be paid along the same lines as private industry = and the people would expect the same level of competence. I would expel the UN from American soil and I would discontinue supporting them with tax dollars.  People who want their tax dollars to go there, could send it directly there. There would be a totally free and open market and anyone could trade with anyone.  I would call off the drug war which everyone should have known could not be won before it was even passed.  Let any adult buy any drug he chooses whenever he wants it.  It would get drug dealers off the street, it would eliminate a lot of violent crime, and probably would be no more harmful than alcohol.  I would fire the first federal employee approaching people and telling them how to live.  It is NONE of government's business. I would bring home all military people and (I owe this statement to poster, slate) task them with routing out terrorists who are currently in the United States.  I would want a fine missile system in lieu of spies and/or military in foreign countries. I would quit advising other countries what to do, what not to do.  I'd let them do as they pleased, but it would be without our dollars, and if America became threatened, we would deal with it in a fashion costly to them. There would be no Medicaid or Medicare programs.  People could buy health insurance or not, and if needing help to offset catastrophic illness or injury costs, provide it - case by case.  And I would have to see if the claim was truly legitimate. There would be no "welfare" programs.  Many new businesses could be formed to keep tabs on jobs available and notify those needing jobs.  Turn a job related to your field down 3 times and you receive no welfare.  Until a job is found, person would be entitled to a monthly stipend that would be sufficient to live on, and in exchange for that, he would perform meaningful public service. There's a lot more that I could find to do,  but time and space prevent my putting all of it down.  I, too, contact my representative and senators on a fairly regular basis.  Mostly that seems to be a waste of time, but who knows?  One of them may one day listen. I am sure you will find some of my thinking too draconian for today's world, and given so many have gotten so soft and weak, it probably is, but it's fiscally sound, it gets the job done, and it makes people independent, NOT dependent on government.

I am always in favor of helping anyone who needs help.  I am in favor of supporting them until they can get on their feet.  I would prefer this were done privately whereby it would be voluntary giving out of love rather than by force of law.  But even I, a person who opposes big government, have no problem with the NEEDY receiving the help they need, from whatever source until they are able to make it on their own.  And they must be allowed to try to make it on their own. I have been accused of being cold-hearted, mean-spirited, selfish, self-centered, spiteful, heartless because I call for the government to clean itself up and fly right.  The issue in question last time I was accused related to the welfare programs, the feel good programs. I find myself hard-pressed to explain a concept that is so natural for me to someone who has never thought along the same lines, but I do it anyway, albeit rather poorly. Our government has been explanding, probably since time for it began, but has exploded in scope in the last 50 years to the extent it bears little resemblence to my younger days.  Some of that expansion may have been good, but I perceive most of it as bad. I contend that many people who initially get on welfare do so illegally - I've had social workers say they've had mothers borrow children from a neighbor to show how many kids she had, I've known some who have scammed the system, and I know it is done regularly.  I have no reason to think government actually tries to get anyone off welfare because to do so loses a certain degree of control it will then have over that person.  Welfare is a two headed monster.  It serves both the recipient and the politician.  The victim will, if he votes at all, definitely vote and defend the politician who promised him the moon, especially if he delivers on the promise.  The politician will always promise the moon in order to get the votes.   I've heard others tell about when bird food is made available, the birds flock around, and once the bird food is gone, the birds leave too.  As long as it's there, the birds will stay and eat rather than look for more. There are people who milk the system, and some believe that is rare.  I don't. I think  it is horribly abused - and I correctly translate that into abuse of the taxpayer who provides the money to take care of those people.  It isn't just the "welfare system" - it is all the other "feel good" programs designed to create dependency on government, such as subsidized transit, meals on wheels, senior citizen discounts, Medicare, Medicaid, free clinics, etc. One example.  I once was director for the senior citizen centers, meals on wheels, and transit for my county.  One woman had been having meals delivered to her home at taxpayer expense for months and one day ran into the center to tell me not to have that day's meal delivered because she was "going shopping with the girls".  She ran up the 5 steps to the front door rather than take the ramp.  I stopped her delivered meals that same day as she was obviously not qualified to receive home delivered meals.   She was scamming the system, and everyone who knew it was helping her scam the system.  She is one example of many, many I could list.  If the government could bring itself to actually clean house and straighten out things once in a while I would not be so antagonistic, but that has never been done and will never be done.  Someone somewhere must draw the line - otherwise the scammers and cheaters will destroy the system and people who champiion these government handouts will be sorely upset. I have to ask myself, as possibly you do, how needy is a person who walks around with ipods and cell phones?  How needy is a person who swills booze all day?  How needy is a person who always seems to have cigarettes?  How needy is a person who drives an expensive car?  How needy is a person who goes to the shop for manicures?  How needy is a person who takes illegal drugs?  How needy is a person who uses the money to have her ears (and other parts) pierced, to have fake nails put on, etc?  How needy is a person who has 3 TVs in their home?  How needy is a person who is so important that they wear a pager?  How needy is a person who wears designer jeans?  How needy is a person who gets free medical care, but ignores the medical advice? I don't blame the poor person nearly as much as I blame the government.  Maybe not all citizens, but certainly legislators should understand that tax dollars are finite.  What is so hard to understand about one family going without something so that the their taxes will pay for the exact same thing for some other family?  Do people not understand that when a person works and earns a day's pay, that pay is HIS, NOT the government's, and not anyone else's.  If it is HIS money, how does government have the legal right to FORCE him to give whatever percentage of it the government deems necessary?  This constitutes neither caring nor compassion - this constitutes force to steal from one to give to another, primarily for votes. Our government is becoming increasingly socialist, to the point that some even ask what is so bad about socialism.  Our government schools aren't doing such a hot job with education if civics and real history are no longer being taught.  Maybe they are still being taught, but slow students get a passing grade so as to not be made to feel badly. To those who question conservative's compassion and caring, I tell them the truth about what I do - hours and hours of volunteering at nursing homes and churches for senior citizens, fund raising for Child Protective Services, financially support 4-H, the high school band, food baskets for Christmas, donations to local charities, churches, and schools.  Perhaps this doesn't impress the critics, but it isn't meant to.  Do they assume if there was no government help and I found a family in need that I would cheerfully watch it starve to death?  What goes on in these people's minds?  Anything? Am I perfect?  Goodness, NO, I am NOT.  Is the critic perfect?  NO, he is not. I feel I am compassionate.  Stupid, I am NOT.  Wasteful, I am NOT.  Naive, I am NOT. I will do anything, go to almost any limit to help someone help himself, but when he expects me to do it all for him, I assume I am being scammed.

Dear All 535 voting members of the Legislature. It is now official: The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to get it right; *it is broke. * Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it right;* it is broke. * Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it right; *it is broke. * War on Poverty started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; *it hasn't worked. * Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you've had 44 years to get it right; *they're broke. * Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it right;* it is broke. * Trillions of dollars in the massive political payoff called the TARP bill of 2009 *shows NO sign of working. * And finally to set a new record: "Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and *went broke* in 2009! It took good dependable cars (that were the best some people could afford) replaced them with high priced (people who couldn't afford them are now making payments) mostly Japanese models so a good percentage of the profits from the sales, went out of the country. And lastly, the American taxpayers are now going to be dinged with paying for yet 3 Tillion more dollars of our governments experiments to make our wallets even thinner. So, with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that "services" you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system? 15% of our economy? *Are you crazy? * Truly, the inmates are running the asylum! And what does this say about voters who put such pond scum in office? Let others in on this brilliant record before 2010, just vote against incumbents,* all of them.* (original author unknown)

I received this in an email and found some food for thought. I think others may too. BODY OF EMAIL TEXT

The numbers I checked out are okay except I can't verify the $1 Billion to run the program. I suspect that is way off base. There was an article that said there were 3 agencies involved in the program but the government does not specify if these were existing employees or new hires or a combination of both but that 79 employees were brought in to assist in the program. If only 80 employees were involved I estimated their wages at $91,000 annually (with 30% fringe benefits) or $45,500 for six months for a total cost $3.6 million. If you throw congress and their staff into the equation you are talking, for three months, about $27 million.

Sorry about the lengthy follow up. I just wanted to be sure I was comfortable with the numbers.

What is clear is we are throwing money at a problem without reasonable numbers to determine the game plan results.

A good example of how our Federal Government uses your tax dollars to fund one of their money/earth saving programs and then announces how successful it was!!!!

· A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.

· A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.

· So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons a year.

· They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that’s 224 million gallons a year.

· That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

· 5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day’s US oil consumption.

· And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $375 million dollars at $75/bbl.

· So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.

. I billion of the package was for the Dept. of Transportation to administer the program.

. You don't need to provide citizenship information, SS# etc. to qualify and Canadians and Mexicans can cross the border to cash in.

Edmonds (a highly thought of on line auto retailer, auto comparison web site.

Edmunds.com estimates that the average cost to the taxpayer will be about $20,000 per vehicle.

If all buyers have qualified for the higher $4,500 rebate, the "cash for clunkers" program will mean a marginal increase in car sales of 22,000 this quarter. $1 billion divided by 22,000 means a net cost to the government of $45,354 per car. (This is a cost estimate for the first $1 billion and does not consider the additional $2 billion.)

. Some clunker deals are being rejected by the government because they don't meet all of the program's specifications. For example, the trade-in must have been continuously insured for the 12 months prior to the clunkers transaction.

Car & Driver

. if you’re trading in a car that’s worth $3000, your net gain is only $500. Although if your car is worth $100, CFC couldn’t come at a better time.

people driving cheap old beaters are probably doing so because they can’t afford a new car. And $3500 doesn’t go far when the average transaction price of new cars hovers around $24K. The vouchers don’t apply toward the purchase of used cars, for which the majority of old beaters are traded in.

However, we hope these legislators don’t expect it to meaningfully help the domestic automakers. Many of the automobiles with fuel-economy ratings high enough to qualify for the vouchers come from Japan and Korea

Washington Post

Cash for clunkers' effect on pollution? A blip (The article has been pulled from the post. This was the the title of the article.)

Wall Street Journal-Auto Repair Association comments.

The automotive after-market, a $250 billion industry that employs about 4.6 million people, could be among the biggest losers in the clunkers program, said Kathleen Schmatz, head of the Automotive After-market Industry Association: "It's everybody from the Fortune 500 parts manufacturer all the way through the supply chain to the independent repair shop.

On the other hand, this is crackpot economics. The subsidy won’t add to net national wealth, since it merely transfers money to one taxpayer’s pocket from someone else’s, and merely pays that taxpayer to destroy a perfectly serviceable asset in return for something he might have bought anyway. By this logic, everyone should burn the sofa and dining room set and refurnish the homestead every couple of years.

U.S. News and World Report

Cash for Clunkers may have cut our oil consumption by less than 0.2 percent per year. It didn't even save us a day's worth of gas. (The numbers in this report are a little different

than the numbers I received in red above but are very close).

What's more, some analysts wonder if Cash for Clunkers really created any new sales at all. It's possible that the program simply caused some people to buy cars earlier than they otherwise would have. What good comes from adding to August sales if we subtract from future sales to do it?

Even if it brought in new buyers, that scenario might create its own economic problems. The program led hundreds of thousands of Americans, for instance, to take on new debt in the midst of a recession and an uncertain job market.

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened." –Joe Biden, apparently unaware that FDR wasn't president when the stock market crashed in 1929 and that only experimental TV sets were in use at that time, interview with Katie Couric, Sept. 22, 2008