For better or for worse, nearly all of us determine how our lives are going to turn out in the fullness of time by decisions we make when we are teenagers. These life altering decisions are almost never influenced for the positive by adults, since nearly all teenagers are convinced that all the adults they know are dumber than a bag of hammers. Some teenagers listen to their dumb ol' parents and thrive, but many don't.
Since teenagers know it all by the time they reach 15 or so, input into their decision process is never sought, nor appreciated from us grown up dullards who went through the same processes that these braniac teenagers did. Accordingly, many of their decisions are unforgiving and irrevocable in the long run, and formulate who these kids turn out to be in their later years. The TOP FIVE mistakes that these brilliants kids of ours make have to be the following:
5.Start smoking cigarettes as a teenager. Back in the day, it was exceptionally cool to be seen with a fag in your mouth (yes, they used to call cigarettes 'fags' back before the term took on a different meaning. Look it up). "Rebel Without a Cause" star James Dean was almost never seen without a cigarette dangling from his mouth, and what self respecting teen didn't want to emulate James Dean? Fast forward many decades and see what that nasty habit got you: stained teeth, a several hundred dollar a month expense, smelly clothes and apartments/houses, and bad health. Once you decide to quit (and cigarette smokers all do at some point in their lives, voluntarily or involuntarily), since smoking is primarily an oral habit, a massive weight gain is in store for that 'cool' teen as they substitute banana cream pies for cigarettes. This mistake is a bad one, one that nearly nobody recovers from in the long run.
4. Drop out of high school/college. After 10 long years in elementary, middle and high school, many teenagers figure that they know plenty enough to get by in the world, since they are already smarter that their knuckle dragging parents. And in the short run, these drop outs will find jobs in automotive garages, assembly plants and other endeavors where an education is not really a prerequisite for employment. Once their paychecks start rolling in, they will be flush with dough that their studious peers who stayed in school will be lacking. These big rollers will be the ones with the cars, the rad digs and big roll of cash in their pockets (mostly one's, with a $20 note on the outside, that little trick fools everybody, trust these teens when they say this). As time marches on, these under educated 'high rollers' will be left behind their more studious peers in the earnings department, never to catch up. Sure, you can point to Steve Jobs and Bill Gates as dropping out of college as your examples as to why an education does not matter. But for each Jobs or Gates, there are about a million other not so talented teens that end up on the wrong side of the tracks as a result of this terrible mistake.
3. Alter your long term plans to chase after a teen girl/boyfriend. This mistake is a hard one not to make. Usually your first 'love' happens in high school, and many of us marry our high school sweethearts, and believe that we will live happily ever after. Not so much. This almost is NEVER the case, although it does happen on rare occasion. The first guy/gal we have feelings for is almost never a viable long term partner, since we as teenagers are far from developed in our personalities, and what seems like a good idea at the time is almost never a good idea in the long run. Way more often than not, however, when little Johnnie chases cute little prom date Joanie from hometown of Dubuque, Iowa across the country to the UCLA campus just to be with her, bad things are in store for naive but love stricken little Johnnie. Cute little Joanie will be the one enrolled and taking classes with COLLEGE boys, while little Johnnie will be waiting outside of Calculus class for Joanie to finish up, and soon little Johnie will see Joanie hanging off of Biff the stud halfback's arm, leaving little Johnnie feeling like a stupid schmuck, which he was (is). And there sits Johnnie, 1500 miles from Dubuque, heart broke and penniless. Affairs of the teenage heart are the stuff that no amount of logic or reasoning can affect. Still, a pretty bad mistake to make as a teenager.
2. Start drinking/doing drugs. Really bad mistake here. Once a teenager starts down that path, it is one that is almost guaranteed to end up badly. Needless to say, a drunk kid never finishes high school or college (see #4 above), which is not good. And a primary reason for avoiding this behavior is due to one fact: teenagers can't wait to get their hands on a set of car keys. Cars allow for freedom that they have never had before, and once they get used to it, things will never be the same. Now as the old adage goes: mix teenagers, car keys and bottles of whiskey, and you have yourself a recipe for disaster, namely in the form of dead and broken teenagers. Kids, listen to dumb ol' grown up Fredd when he tells you to stay away from these things. But they won't. Fredd is dumber than a crowbar, you know. Just ask any teenager.
1. Having children as a teenager. Primarily owing to unprotected sex, this one is bad for everybody involved, to include the mother, father, child, and at times grand parents. Either out of wedlock or married, this one is a game changer. You now have a little crumb cruncher to deal with in raising, nurturing and protecting. Something that the average teenager is completely ill equipped to do. This will interrupt any schooling the teenager had in mind, as it is now time to hit the streets and get a job to support the family. If things don't work out, then moving in with the parents or grand parents is a fall back position that changes the lives of everyone involved. This now fairly common mistake is one of the worst that a teenager can make, since it not only affects their own lives, but lots of lives around them.
Now that I have warned all teenagers everywhere not to make these FIVE HUGE MISTAKES, the world will be a better place, right? Nope, since nobody who is between the ages of 13 and 19 believes a word that us idiot grown ups have to say, since we are out of it and don't even know the words to any popular songs. If we don't know the lyrics of the latest Taylor Swift tune, how could we know anything?
As will be the case with ALL 'preppers', Nancy Lanza's assault rifle which she purchased to insure her chances of survival after society collapsed for whatever reason, was used by others, not her.
Preppers, those who are arduously preparing for the end of days with stocked bomb shelters, loads of ammo and guns, gas masks, Geiger counters, and a whole array of 'day after' supplies, are fooling themselves if they think that going through all of these motions will increase their chances of survival after the apocalypse wipes out our civilization. If they give just a moment's thought as to what they are trying to do, they will realize the foolishness of their endeavors.
The irony of the whole 'prepper' mentality is that all of the things they think will assist THEM in the post apocalypse will most assuredly be used by people OTHER THAN THEM. Virtually Guaranteed.
Think about it, you preppers: you buy up as much ammunition and guns as your budget allows, and truly think that this will enable you to protect your assets from marauding desperate mobs fleeing the urban areas seeking food, guns, water, etc. All of these things will soon disappear from the cities once trade halts, electricity stops flowing, gasoline and diesel fuel disappear, and people are left to their own devices to survive.
Imagine now, you well armed preppers, that these formerly urban folks will not accept their fate and sit where they are and simply fade away. This is not what people do. They will do whatever is necessary to survive. When their current situation becomes unsustainable, they will move on to take up residence in greener pastures. And when those greener pastures happen to be YOURS, you can't do anything about it. Sure, you can pick off an invader, two, ten, twenty or more, fine. What about the countless others surely to come your way?
Defending your property against marauders is a noisy business. Shouting threats, posting signs warning people to keep off your property, even gunfire will attract attention from the mobs heading your way. You preppers are well stocked, well armed and prepared, and the mobs KNOW THIS. Accordingly, you make yourself a TARGET!
When mobs are in search of goodies to take, they will certainly notice resistance to their approach in the form of barbed wire, gunfire, warning signs, etc. Mobs are not entirely stupid, you preppers. All of that points to the sure thing that you are protecting something that is worthy of protection. Namely, food stocks, water, gasoline, weapons, ammunition, generators, all good stuff that any self respecting mob covets.
You can't go forever without sleep, you preppers. You must maintain a constant vigil against mobs who want to seize your assets, and if you are at the front door, who is watching the back door? If Uncle Moe is watching the back door, who is watching the side windows? OK, let's say you have your entire clan watching all egress points. How long do you think it will be before your security is breached by a few hundred, or maybe five hundred hungry people? Or more?
You can't stay awake forever, you know. The mobs will get your stuff that you thought would see your through difficult times. All of that survival equipment that you bought for you and yours will almost certainly and ironically be guaranteed to be consumed by people you do not know.
Also, you preppers, please note that the probability that a mob of perhaps 7,000 desperate people will very, very likely be packing more firepower than you have. As a prepper, you just may as well put up a sign that says, "WELCOME ALL MOBS! I HAVE STOCKPILES OF FOOD AND GUNS. HELP YOURSELVES TO IT ALL."
The stuff you buy for 'the day after' will be used by everybody else except you. Just like Nancy Lanza's Bushmaster .223 AR15 assault rifle. And all of her other guns.
There is no argument anywhere that suggests that Newtown, CT mass murderer Adam Lanza was anything other than a monster. A monster that was raised among the peaceful population of a pretty normal American small town.
But to say that we had no idea that this horrible massacre was possible, that nobody could have predicted that such a disaster could have occurred given everything we knew, I am not so sure that argument is a solid one.
Adam Lanza, as unpopular and politically incorrect as it may now seem, was what kids once called a 'sped', or special education student. He was an 'MR', or mental retarded kid. Or the short version, what Rahm Emanuel now knows as a 'retard.'
Back in the day, speds, MR's, retards, whatever we called them, were not integrated into our public and private classrooms like they are today. They were segregated for very good reasons. One very good reason for segregating kids like Adam Lanza from the normal kids was that retards like Adam Lanza would require lots and lots of special attention from the teacher, thus taking away attention from the rest of the class. Back in the day, kids like Adam Lanza were removed from the general classroom environment, and put into special education classes, or simply kept at home.
Back in the day, if retards or speds were even temporarily introduced to a 'normal' classroom environment, the normal kids would ascertain immediately the status of the retard, and almost simultaneously pronounce the kid a sped or retard. And then the feeding frenzy would begin, and the retard such as Adam Lanza would be ridiculed, made fun of, beat up, and subjected to every other form of bullying that 7 year old kids are known to do.
Little kids are mean. Sometimes they are as mean and nasty as snakes to other little kids that are different. They always have been, and always will be, and accordingly we used to segregate these speds from the normal kids to limit this kind of behavior.
But unfortunately, we don't segregate the speds and retards anymore, thanks to the progressive thinking of our public school phD chancellors and top tier educators. These over-educated braniacs have determined that society will be better off if we dump these retards into the general classroom environment, and hope for the best. And guess what happened to the retard Adam Lanza when he was at age 6 or 7 let loose into the general population of classroom kids? He of course was labeled a dope, a retard, a sped, and so it went for the rest of Adam Lanza's educational experience.
But add to this unfortunate miscalculation by our all-knowing public education system, a mother who teaches her retard, sped MR son how to lock and load, aim and fire a deadly military style assault rifle. Talk about a recipe for "instant monster", I can't tell you what kind of thinking was going on in that house, but it was not optimal.
The mother had been led to believe that her son was just another boy in town, since he attended public school along with everybody else, and was subjected to some bullying, no big deal. She'll teach him how to load 30 round banana clips, show him where she keeps her Bush Master .223 AR-15 assault rifle, and things will be just fine.
The sped, retard, MR or whatever you want to label Adam Lanza, remembers the taunting and bullying from the normal kids back in Sandy Hook, and now is armed to the teeth and ready to take revenge.
Since 51% of the voting public does not understand the first thing about how our nation's economy functions based on the results of the past election, I would like the other 49% who actually understand how things work to know how these 51% low information voters view life in America.
These simple folk look at America like children view fairy tales. These fairy tales that their mommies and daddies read to them when they were little tykes, they all have a similar theme: everything works out in the end, the good king or queen who ruled in a mean and evil manner would in time see the errors of their ways and change their wicked ways and become benevolent and generous with the royal treasury. Everybody in these fairy tales lived happily ever after.
In fairy tales, nobody is expected to toil and sweat producing anything that people need. This is all done with fairy dust, you see. Money comes from simply asking fairies for a handout. And the fairies always come through in fairy tales, everyone knows this. Where do these low information voters think that wealth and prosperity comes from?
They are so low on information, they don't even know how to formulate an answer for that one. Like the ignorant woman in line in Detroit several years ago waiting to fill out a form to receive some Obama money was asked where it came from, she replied "Obama's stash."
She and the 51% of the voting public are truly unaware of how wealth is created, and in fact are actually suspicious of wealthy people. They think these rich guys stole their money from them. Of course they never take a moment to think about where this money was that was taken from them by these rich SOB's, since they were broke before, are broke now and will forever be broke.
Recent polls suggest a majority of low information voters fear one thing above all others: that their entitlements will be reduced. The fact that we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar the U.S. spends and accordingly wracking up and crushing national debt to fund their entitlement checks does not concern them in the least.
Like children who believe in fairy tales, they just know that their check is in the mail box every other Friday, and do not think about the future when it just might not be there. Where does this money come from? They do not believe that it comes from their neighbors' taxes. They believe it comes from a never ending pile of money in Obama's stash. When a grown up tries to explain that Obama's stash was taken from their neighbors via taxes, they cover their ears, shut their eyes and refuse to listen or understand this concept.
It doesn't fit into the fairy tale that they truly believe is reality.
Insurance companies are rotten to the bone. Obama has based his entire health plan on this basic premise, and I wholeheartedly agree with him on this: insurance companies are not on your side or mine, they are out for themselves. It's not even arguable.
Now, Obama's remedy to temper abuses by insurance companies is not one I agree with, but that's an argument for another day.
The fact that we have over time allowed insurance companies to dictate how we manage our own health care is lamentable. These companies don't give a whit as to what is best for your health care or mine. Their primary and overriding concern is to their bottom line, and this concern is at odds with your health care interests.
Insurance companies got their foot in the health care door when during World War II, prices and wages were frozen to aid in the war effort at the time. In order to do an end around on these restrictions, companies rather than offer higher wages to attract workers, offered non-monetary benefits in the form of health care insurance. The Jeanie was let out of the bottle, and we have not been the same since, where prior to the insurance beast that was unleashed to ravage us, we simply paid for medical services as we received them.
Ah, the good ol' days.....
No use in pining away for them anymore, they are probably gone forever, payment for services rendered. But insurance company abuses may be the stuff of days gone by as well, now that a single payer system controlled by the government is on the rise.
Are we going to miss those rotten insurance companies when they are gone from our health care system? That depends, and we will see how things go.
Insurance companies are simply a mob of greedy lawyers, who write up an agreement with their prey, uh, er, I mean customers (called a policy). In this agreement, the customer agrees to give money in the form of premiums to the insurance company in exchange for coverage upon occurrence of an insured episode that might be covered within the policy.
Sounds good on the surface, right? No so fast, there, Kimosabe. Remember, these policies were written by lawyers employed by the insurance company, not by you. Who do you think these policies favor when a claim is filed?
Not you, buddy. Just a quick look at the process tells you that you are probably on the losing end in the event that you ever have to file a claim with these rotten sum bitches. If something happens to you, the first thing the policy holder does is file a 'claim.' This is not a withdrawal slip. Not even close. The claim is simply a request from you to the rotten insurance company that they owe you.
And who do you think verifies whether they owe you anything or not? THEY DO. Of course, their knee jerk reaction to any claim whatsoever is to deny it, without even looking into the claim. They let YOU do all of the work in verifying its validity. So off you go, writing letters, getting affidavits, gathering evidence and documents, and so it goes. You submit your findings to back up your 'claim.'
And who is the arbiter of determining whether your back up information has merit? THEY DO. Are we all starting to get the picture here?
The fact that Obama hates insurance companies because of this has been the underlying motivation for him to change all of that. I agree that insurance companies are not the solution to our health care system. Both Barack Obama and I are in complete and joyous agreement on that.
But Obama's solution to put government in charge of our health care in place of insurance companies is akin to putting sumo wrestlers in charge of Weight Watchers or Jenny Craig: we will go from an unpalatable system to one that is absolutely and totally miserable.
We've just voted ourselves another four years of wild and crazy drunken sailor deficit spending with the re-election of this spendthrift president.
The federal government is already spending a TRILLION dollars PER YEAR more than the U.S. treasury receives in taxes. A trillion dollars. That's $1,000,000,000,000.00 - that's a thousand billion for you Obama voters out there, a number almost too big to comprehend, or at least as far as you are concerned. Of course, this can be financed in the short term by borrowing and the most common form of this method of beggaring our grandchildren is by issuing debt in the form of U.S. treasury bonds. And of course, this short term economy can only sustain itself if we have willing purchasers of these bonds. China and Japan are our largest customers for these bonds, and they are starting to indicate that they are not inclined to purchase these bonds in perpetuity (that means forever, for you Obama voters out there).
In other words (meaning, in simpler terms for you Obama voters out there), our current economy based on annual borrowing patterns is unsustainable. It can't go on. An economist in the Nixon administration (a time long, long ago for you Obama voters out there) Herbert Stein once quipped, "If somethingcannotgo on forever, it will stop," or put in a way that Obama voters might understand (but I am not guaranteeing that), a trend that can't continue, won't continue. "Stein's Law."
And once our economy collapses (when, not if, if the Obama voters keep cretins like Barack Obama in power), how will things look? You know, when a hundred dollar bill can't buy a loaf of bread? Don't laugh or scoff, this wild economic collapse occurred in recent history, with the government in Germany during post World War I Europe (the Wiemar Republic) experiencing 1000% inflation, to the point that it took one million Deutsch Marks to purchase a gallon of kerosene. The government just started printing money with absolutely no faith that any of these bills in 100,000 DM denominations were worth anything.
As soon as our government can no longer borrow (or issue bonds) to finance their deficit spending, will they stop sending checks to welfare recipients? No. There would be riots. Will they stop paying the military, or sending checks to Social Security recipients? No, there would be a coup by the military, and the geezers would rise up into some sort of ugly mob of one form or another.
No, none of these things will be how the hapless spendthrift federal government will handle things. They will just fire up the printing presses and start printing U.S. dollars as fast as they can run the printing presses. Which will cause much more paper dollars chasing the same available products, making the prices rise dramatically.
In short order, nobody will be accepting the U.S. dollar as a medium of exchange. Then the U.S. government will break open Fort Knox and start paying the most angry of federal workers in gold, right? And the military would likely be first in line, if I may be so bold as to guess who would be the biggest angry threat to our liberal government. No, payment will not be made in Fort Knox gold. There is a high likelihood that there is not a gram of gold in Fort Knox as we speak, as it was sold off to finance the government's malfeasance probably decades ago. There is only myth remaining in the Fort Knox vaults.
So what happens when nobody is getting paid? Obama will at the moment tell those who are starting to get a little anxious, 'let them eat Twinkies.' Of course Obama (or his successor, or his successor's successor) is so out of touch with reality that he doesn't even know that Twinkies are a thing of the past. In any event, visions of the French Revolution come to mind once the American public, to include the average obtuse Obama voter (or the average Obama successor voter), realizes that they have been sold a bill of goods, and the cupboards are bare.
Since the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia back in the early 20th century, there have been squabbles about all things oil and religion. Prior to then, a small nomadic population had quasi-settled there in mostly inhospitable desert areas and nobody cared whether anyone in that region lived or died.
But things change, as we all know. Oil is now the stuff that what we call modern civilization runs on, and we need it everywhere. A few wildly rich sheiks, imams, sultans and shahs control most of this middle eastern oil, and keep the remainder of the population in poverty and at bay by pointing at others as the bogeymen who keep their people down.
Once Israel was created out of a largely empty desert near the Sinai peninsula in 1948, a godless hell hole with only a handful of Jordanian and Egyptian nomads seen here and there at any one time, now this ground is considered Paradise on Earth by those Jordanians and Egyptians' parents and grand parents who lie to their clans and falsely lay claim on these lands that they never lived on, ever, but perhaps passed through these lands on the back of a camel a time or two.
But so it goes. And these misinformed 3rd generation Egyptians and Jordanians (now erroneously called Palestinians) are bound and determined to wipe any interloping and invading Jews (now correctly called Israelis) off the map, and no 'two nation' solution will do in the eyes of these misinformed souls. Ever.
There is only one solution to this conflict: and this solution will work perfectly for centuries to come: either the "Palestinians" (or more correctly, Jordanian and Egyptian malcontents) must defeat those who they despise, or the Israelis must inflict utter and total destruction and defeat on their enemies. The Palestinians must displace the entire population currently in Israel, or the Israelis must annihilate the Egyptian and Jordanian malcontents, along with the Iranian mullahs and their supporters, and throw in malcontents in Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and a few others just to make sure.
Seems simple enough. But there's always a rub: these Palestinians are weak, and have not the resources or technology to accomplish this goal. But the Israelis are strong, and can wipe these Arabs and other malcontents off the face of the earth if they so chose, but the Israelis are showing considerable restraint.
But the Israelis will not show never ending patience with those who seek their destruction. In time, their patience will come to an end, and some serious solutions will be in the works for one side or the other.
Nobody except dumb ol' Fredd remembers that the Reverend Jesse Jackson was embroiled several years ago in a scandal in which he was outed as the father of an illegitimate child, and labored to conceal this affair with hush money. This effort of course failed, as all blackmail schemes wind up, and the formerly esteemed Reverend Jesse Jackson had egg on his face, for maybe five or ten minutes in liberal circles.
Let an hour or two pass, and the Good Reverend Jesse Jackson was back in good graces with all things liberal, went off to secure the release of a hostage or two around the world from the grips of thug regimes, and everything was good. We all love Big Jesse bunches. And of course always will, even though he is a reprobate of the First Order.
And we all know that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Now little Jesse Jackson Jr, Big Jesse's cherubic little bundle of joy, just a few days ago who was a sitting congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives, 2nd District of Illinois, 17 years in office, has some issues with girl friends who were not his useless Chicago alderman wife. We all read about his funding of girl friend gifts (a $40K Rolex watch) with campaign donor money, attempting to buy a U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Hussein Obama with promises of $6 Million in campaign contributions to the disgraced and now imprisoned former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Il), and perhaps a few more felonies here and there, and we now have the Mayo Clinic render little Jesse a medical condition that holds the good congressman harmless from any wrong doing, since he has now been deemed 'sick.'
This sick sack of garbage is no sicker than I am. The only malady he suffers from is a lack of character, much like his sad sack of garbage father, Big Jesse. Like Tiger Woods, whose affairs with women other than his wife were the stuff of legend, Jesse Jr. decides that with all of the swirling legal problems surrounding his reprobate activities, he will get the Mayo Clinic to declare him a sicko, and voila, presto chango he is no longer responsible for being a reprobate.
Worked for Tiger, why not Jesse Jr?
Too bad he had to resign his U.S. House of Representative seat, but that just comes with the territory of staying out of jail.
Stay tuned. Jesse Jr's tainted resume is now the stuff of Senatorial or even Presidential aspirations.
Must be nice to have a liberal resume. No matter how sordid, it always seems to work wonders for the reprobate's political career.
It is becoming clearer and clearer as to how people think and vote by noticing where they live: city dwellers are quite dependent on others around them, while country folk still maintain a fierce independence of spirit.
Just look at all of these sob stories coming out of the storm ravaged areas of New Jersey and New York: no power even after 15 days. No information about when they can expect power, just busy signals. Gas lines that test even the patience of Job. These city dwellers are so dependent on government provided infrastructure that they are completely and totally helpless when the government systems fail them.
And all government systems will fail when put to extreme stress. They are not set up to respond, other than to usher a politician to the stump, hand them a bullhorn and let them announce that things are under control, and that just a little patience on every one's part will be appreciated. Then the politician leaves after taking bows for 'fixing things.' But nothing got fixed, absolutely nothing.
The city dwellers are scratching their heads, wondering why they are still without power, water, gas, food and clothes. Wasn't their vote to elect people who promised to heal any wound, fix anything broken and dry every tear worth anything? Where are those helpful Democrat politicians now?
You would think that these city folks who trusted the government to provide all of their security, to include heat, water and power would learn: the government is not good at anything other than national defense: building tanks for three times what they should cost under private efforts, and then shipping tanks to foreign shores for three times what private shipment costs, and providing the tanks with top of the line ammunition (again, for three times what it should cost), and letting them do what they do - smash, break and blow up things, until the bad guys can't threaten us. That's what government does very well. How does that skill translate into peace time efficiency?
It doesn't. And yet these numb nut city folk vote Democrats into office time and again who promise government solutions to every problem under the sun, but when push comes to shove are nowhere to be seen when it comes time to put up or shut up.
Now they are reaping what they sow: misery, and broken promises from liberal politicians who couldn't help in any disaster under any circumstance. You city folk deserve what you voted for: widespread misery.
Now all we hear is these miserable people wanting someone, anyone to come to their aid. The only ones able to help them are country folk, frankly. The smart folk who choose not to build their houses on the beach, where the ocean will eventually wipe them out, and that fact is inarguable. The people who can help the helpless city folks are the ones with the common sense not to trust the government to provide them with the basic necessities of life. The country folk noticed who all of those stricken city folk voted for (Barack Hussein Obama), and are not really inclined to assist people who seek to enslave them.
This storm that ravaged New York and New Jersey shorelines was imminent: it already happened to about the same level of destruction in 1944. And again in 2012. And again in (fill in the blank, nobody really knows when, but a year will eventually be filled in this blank). And as sure as the sun comes up in the east, city folk will clear away the debris in time, and rebuild on these disastrous yet for whatever reason, coveted waterfront lands. When that blank, unknown year comes along, with yet another monster storm surge, these future waterfront property owning city folk will be devastated, and will be crying for help from the government, who probably subsidized the rebuilding effort on these dangerous lands.
You city folk are now on your own. Let the government, with whom you entrusted your lives, come help you.
Maybe you will learn something from all of this. But I wouldn't hold my breath counting on any learning going on with these city folk. From what I can see, they are all dumber than a bag of hammers.
Waterfront property is a wonderful thing. I feel compelled, however, to bring up the politically incorrect and yet cold, hard and irrefutable truth about this situation that will never get brought up in the news media: Yes, waterfront property is indeed a wonderful thing, except when the ocean or river or wind driven lake waters rises above normal levels. And here is the irrevocable, inexorable, immutable truth about waterfront property:
As sure as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West; As sure as the Pope is Catholic and the bear does what a bear does in the woods; As sure as a bottle of Scotch will be guzzled on the Kennedy compound within the hour; SOONER OR LATER, THE WATER WILL RISE ABOVE NORMAL LEVELS ON ANY WATERFRONT PROPERTY, AND THE MASS OF WATER WILL EITHER DESTROY OR GREATLY DAMAGE ANY MAN MADE STRUCTURES PRESENT, AND IT WILL KILL, GREATLY MAIM OR OTHERWISE DISTRESS ANY LAND LIVING CREATURE THAT CHOOSES TO BE ON THIS PARTICULAR WATERFRONT PROPERTY WHEN THAT EVENT INEXORABLY HAPPENS.
This fact is not even arguable.
The only issue that people will debate is WHEN something like this WILL happen, but not IF it will happen. True, it may be decades, centuries or even millenia between such events, but they will still happen given the passage of time. Columnist Steven Chapman brought up a salient point in his column in the Chicago Tribune a few years ago when he opined that the more affluent and civilized we become, the more clamoring there is among the anointed elite that we need to “live in harmony with Mother Nature.” Mr. Chapman’s point is that we have a paradox here: “Mother Nature has NEVER lived in harmony with US.”
Mother Nature has killed more folks than all of the despots and tyrants, wars and other manmade calamities combined over the span of human history. Since we have emerged from the ooze, mankind has had to fight Mother Nature tooth and nail to survive. Over the many millennia, humans have largely figured out where to put down the tent stakes in our best effort in beating Mother Nature’s wrath, but there are still those who have yet to figure out that if you choose to live in the path that Mother Nature stomps on from time to time, then those souls have opted to dramatically increase their chances of removing themselves from the gene pool at worst, or greatly distressing their lives at best. I would lump everyone in this category who builds their permanent residence on flood plains, on muddy hillsides, and on waterfront property WITHOUT INSURANCE.
Most of those wretches you see on TV hurricane or tsunami coverage wandering the streets with only the shirts on their backs in all likelihood had their entire life’s assets assembled in a shotgun shack near the beach, and had no backup plan or insurance. We call folks such as these either stupid idiots, or far more likely, they are the nation’s poorest of poor who cannot afford to live elsewhere, and like others of the world who find themselves in this situation, are constantly exposed to the ravages of Mother Nature and are sooner or later naturally selected to be excluded from the gene pool. Sadly, and I wish it were not so, but this is the way it always has been, and it is the way it always will be, much to the dismay and disbelief of the utopian imbeciles that populate the news desks across the US and elsewhere.
I still enjoy sipping a girly-looking drink with an umbrella in it on the various beaches in the Caribbean from time to time. And yes, I do expose myself to the hazards of this environment. Hurricane season in the Caribbean is to be avoided, and I avoid it. I still swim in the cobalt-blue water, and enjoy it immensely, even though I run the risk of being gobbled up by a man-eating shark. These are risks I willing take, and the actuarial odds of me taking a hit during these times are minimal. But should I choose to live permanently on these beaches, and even take it one step farther by sitting in the water with a pound of raw hamburger in my hand for 12 hours a day, then my odds of getting hammered by Mother Nature or her menacing creatures goes up considerably. Sometimes Mother Nature is just plain meaner than a junkyard dog, and not everyone can live in the mansion on the hill; there simply is not enough room for everybody up there.
DeToqueville's prediction has come to pass, effective two days ago: once the voters realize they can vote themselves money from the common trough, our great American experiment is over. Done. Kaput.
We have crossed over the point of no return. Alexis DeToqueville made this prediction in the 1820's, after observing our then-40 year old republic and how it functioned in the world. With amazing accuracy, his observations 190 years ago have become reality.
The Obamaphone Lady in Cleveland is the poster child of this truth. She gets a free Obama phone, and now she expects more. All she has to do to get these goodies is to vote for the guy that promises to give them to her. She doesn't care where the money comes from (that would be the rest of her fellow citizens), all she knows is that she has goodies, and she got them for free.
Mitt Romney offered a change to this course in our history, a path of self reliance, where people worked for what they wanted and took pride in their efforts. The majority of voters in the country rejected that old fashioned philosphy: they want the government goodies, to hell with that self reliance garbage.
These free loaders now outnumber the hard working schlubbs at the polls. The days of American exceptionalism and self reliance have hit a tipping point: DeToqueville probably thought that the American voter would have figured this out a century ago, but in the fullness of time, his observation and prediction proved correct.
The only thing that remains fuzzy going forward is just what our society will look like after a few decades of this kind of voting. The people that pay for all the free goodies given to others will not stand for this forever. And just because the laws of the land say that the earners have to cough up all their dough to the government doesn't mean that people will not try and find a way around this. They simply will not become slaves to the majority. Human behavior is not wired that way. Once they lose the fruits of their labor, they will revolt, much like the French Revolution. Americans will not be told year in and year out 'let them eat cake.'
Either through mobilization of resistance, or through mass exodus, Americans will reject this subjegation to slavery, as their labor is confiscated and given to others who vote the right way. Or perhaps another dynamic will develop. In any event, the America that our Founding Fathers gave us has come, and now sadly, gone.
It will take awhile to manifest itself, but the moochers now smell blood in the water. Abuse of their votes will now take place enmasse. DeToqueville's prediction has become a reality as of around 11:14PM Eastern Standard Time, November 6th, 2012. That is when Ohio's 18 electoral votes were projected to go to Barack Obama.
That is the precise time when the first of many dominoes of America's fall from greatness fell.
...and leave the important political discussions to adults who took the time to educate themselves as to the issues.
Eva Longoria, an ardent supporter of Obama tells us that it is a huge mistake to vote for a misogynist such as Mitt Romney. And what are Eva's credentials and standing in the political arena? She got her degree in kinesiology from some podunk college in Texas. Kinesiology? That's the study of basically 'working out.' Eva has spent her entire life working on herself, practicing yoga and pilates, emerging herself in the world of cosmetics and body image all the while promoting one and only one person: herself, Eva Longoria. And now she tries to come across as someone who cares about others. That's quite a stretch, much like Ghengis Khan, who was a master of wiping out populations deciding he needs to spread himself out a bit and seek a gig in the nursing profession.
But at least Eva bothered herself enough to get a college sheepskin. Her fellow shallow, uneducated actors and actresses didn't even lift a finger to stoop to hitting the books. Fellow Obama supporter and Hollywood heavyweight Leonardo Dicaprio never went to college, but tries to come off as someone who deeply understands the issues, and urges us to vote for Obama. The guy can barely read, but he's the one to trust when he tells you how you should vote.
Fading singing star Cher Bono is the poster child for the leftists who call all conservatives idiots, while she herself dropped out of high school to pursue her singing career. Recall, she's the one who called Harvard MBA grad George W. Bush 'stupid.' That's like Michael Moore calling supermodel Twiggy 'fatso.' It just doesn't quite resonate with anyone with even one ounce of intelligence.
Ditto the resume of Barbara Streisand. She is a radical whacko lefty, who scolds Democrat office holders constantly for not going further to the crazy left. Babs dropped out of high school to hit the nightclub circuit as a singer. I also recall her labeling Dubya as an idiot, much akin to the emaciated has-been pop singer Billy Idol calling the hulking body builder Lou Ferigno a weakling.
These Hollywood morons have absolutely no standing in the poltical arena. None whatsoever. All of these stupid Hollywood types should stick to what they do best: look good on TV and on the big screen. Leave the important conversations to those of us who actually took the time to inform ourselves on the issues of the day.
Love him or hate him, Barack Obama is in the news every hour of every day, and has been for the last six years. And Mitt Romney is not exactly a shrinking violet, either, over the last 18 months or so of the 2012 presidential campaign.
So how is it that there is a single American out there anywhere who hasn't made up their minds about one or both of these guys? They are on every media outlet spouting their message to the masses constantly. These two guys are ubiquitous: like Chicken Man, "they're everywhere, they're everywhere."
And yet Dr. Frank Luntz seems to pack rooms and rooms full of these undecided morons. Luntz asks these fools why they support one guy over the other and lately, these imbeciles are starting to break for Romney, and break for him in a big way.
Well duh, you idiots. Nothing Obama has done over the last four years has worked out at all. He is a complete and utter disaster and failure. And you guys are just now figuring it out.
The irony of all of your awakening to the obvious, is that your vote will be the one that puts the right guy in office. The United States of America will be put back on the right track courtesy of the vote of the truly dumbest voters: the undecideds.
You would think OJ Simpson, Jerry Sandusky and Casey Anthony would head up this list: but you would be wrong based on my criteria. These jerks are simply some of the most HATED Americans, but had limited (but profound) affect on very few of our citizens.
My criteria for making the Top 10 Evil list concerns primarily how many of us are adversely affected by their actions. OJ, for example, only killed two people (that we know of), and their families of course were profoundly and negatively affected. Ditto with Jerry Sandusky. Sure, lots of folks affected, but I would say it does not exceed 500, tops.
Without further ado, here are in my humble opinion the worst and most evil Americans ever:
10) Rev. Jim Jones. This scumbag was directly responsible for the deaths of 914 people in Jonestown, Guyana in 1978. These misguided victims believed in Jone's cult and his promises of a paradise on earth, and paid for their foolishness with their lives.
9) Bernie Madoff. Convicted of defrauding thousands of investors out of billions of dollars, this guy slept like a baby at night knowing that his Ponzi scheme of several decades was providing him and his family a life of luxury. He told authorities after his arrest that he was troubled by his deceit; yeah, right. Evil folks are not troubled by their evil deeds.
8) Barney Frank. (D-Ma). Although many fingers could be pointed in many directions as to the main cause of the financial meltdown of 2008, I would argue that Barney Frank was the proximate cause of the direct pain that millions of us were forced to endure (and are enduring this very day) during and after the housing bubble collapsed. Barney was knee deep in malfeasance pertaining to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while constantly banging the drum for 'affordable housing', and pressuring banks to give free houses to dead beats and free loaders. Once they defaulted, which they were guaranteed to do from the git go, Barney's 'affordable housing' push bankrupted millions of us. You can't get much more evil than this pus bucket.
7) Chris Dodd (D-Ct). Ditto all of the above Barney Frank evilness for Chris Dodd. He was the Senate Finance Committee Chairman during the buildup to the housing bubble collapse, and was in bed with Barney Frank every step of the way, all the while taking bribes and freebies from Countrywide Financial and doing 'waitress sandwiches' with Ted Kennedy.
6). Ted Kennedy (D-Ma): This is the guy that murdered Mary Jo Kopeckne when he drunkenly drove off a bridge in Chappaquiddick and left her to die, alone and terrified in his car while he swam to safety. But that is not enough for Teddy to make the list. His long and dreary Marxist, socialist liberal stint in the U.S. Senate has enfeebled the U.S. economy in ways that are still felt today as it pertains to the progressive tax code, the choke hold that unions have on our economy and the stranglehold that liberalism in general has on each and every household in the U.S.
5) Ralph Nader. In the name of safety, Ralph Nader has handcuffed the American economy in ways that boggle the mind. His successful yet misguided crusade nearly a half century ago against a relatively solid car, the Chevrolet Corvair, in his book "Unsafe at Any Speed" has given license to the burgeoning industry of public safety Nazis to ban darn near everything that is fun. Now we have food Nazis, smoking Nazis, bike helmet Nazis, fat and cholesterol Nazis, and SUV Nazis. You can't swing a dead cat in America anymore without hitting a damn public safety Nazi, thanks to Ralph Nader, a pox on his evil house.
4) George Soros. Hungarian born George Soros is the primary financier of all things liberal, left and socialist in this country. He is the main source of funding for Moveon.org and Mediamatters.com, and has his fingers in almost every socialist cause. Accordingly, he is the proximate cause ('follow the money') of most of the misery in the U.S. that socialism wreaks.
3) Jeff Zucker. CEO of NBC Universal, this guy is a raging leftist and still thinks he can determine what is and what is not news. As such, this is the guy that is responsible for most of the thinking (or 'non-thinking') going on in the American public today. He and his peers at CBC, ABC and PBS, they are the folks who are in complete control of what the 'Obama-phone' lady in Cleveland spouts. And we, the American public, are the bearers of the costs associated with keeping this stupid woman and her ilk in food stamps, alcohol and drugs. Thanks, Jeff. Keep up the good (or as we would call it, evil) work.
2) Saul Alinksy. The God Father of American community organizers, this is the guy that was also the father of ACORN, and the leftist thinking spawned in the 1960's. Abby Hoffman, Huey Newton and Barry Obama all took pieces of Saul's teachings and used them to negatively affect the U.S. culture going forward. Never trust anyone over thirty, right Saul?
1) TIE FOR #1: Rachel Carson and Margaret Sanger. Although these gals are the only women on the list, they are by far the most evil, in terms of being the proximate cause of tens of millions of deaths worldwide, if not hundreds of millions. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and Ghengis Khan are pikers compared to these American born gals when it comes to killing people. Rachel Carson was the single driving factor in the crusade against banning the pesticide DDT, claiming that it was causing birds' eggshells to become too thin. This is the reason for taking a wonderful and subsequently proven harmless mosquito killer off the market, and allowing untold millions in underdeveloped countries over the last several decades to perish from mosquito born diseases such as malaria. Good (or evil, I say) work, Rachel. You're #1.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, is another mass murderer of grand scale having founded a legal abortion culture, in which women can kill their unborn (or sometimes, born) babies for any/every reason simply because they will crimp the mother's lifestyle.
Hard to say who has more blood on their hands: Rachel or Mags. Rachel killed men, women and children alike through unintended consequences of her actions (legally called manslaughter, but I will stick with murder because I am not a lawyer), while Maggie has millions of babies' blood on her hands. Who's more evil? Hard so say, hence the tie.
(Thanks to Hack and Joe for pointing out Margaret Sanger to me, she was not on my original list but should have been, see comments below).
I'm fairly certain that everyone who pays even a slight bit of attention to politics has seen this video:
the Obama-phone lady in Cleveland. She is most certainly a card carrying member of that 47% that Mitt Romney wrote off, and writing folks off like this is fairly logical:
Bag Lady: "Everybody in Cleveland no minority got Obama phone. Keep Obama in president, you know. He gave us a phone, he gonna do more.
Guy: "How'd he give you a phone?"
Bag Lady: "You sign up if you on food stamps, you on social security, you got low income, you disability."
Guy: "I have a question, what's wrong with Romney again?"
Bag Lady: "Romney, he sucks. Bad."
Turns out, she is paid by the local SEIU chapter $11.00 an hour to show up and chant Obama slogans and raise awareness of the plight of the average Obama supporter. It's also very, VERY likely that Barack Obama cannot count on her vote. This woman is so ignorant, it's painful to watch this video, much less listen to her screeching voice (like fingernails on a chalkboard). Does this woman strike you as somebody who will get up off their couch, shuffle on down to the polling place, wait for an hour or two in line just to vote for Obama?
Does this woman strike you as someone who feels a pride in her ability to keep herself informed of the issues, and that her vote is a civic duty that must be honored every election?
Unless the SEIU personally comes to her front door, pays her in cigarettes and whiskey, and hauls her to the polling place and watches to make sure that she actually casts a vote, it is almost a certainty that Obama will not receive her vote this election. She will blow off inconveniencing herself by voting to catch 'Dancing with The Stars," "the X-factor," or some other bilge that passes for television entertainment these days.
And that is a big problem for Obama. He caters to a constituency that are the dumbest of the dumb, the laziest of the lazy and the most useless of the useless.
Good luck with that strategy, Barry. I think that this time around, a landslide is in your future, and not in your favor.
I'm old enough to remember the 1980 election, and worrying about Jimmy Carter getting his sorry butt re-elected. I recall the polls a few months before that election putting Jimmy back in the Oval Office by double digits, according to the polls. Doesn't anyone remember that besides me?
And what happened? Jimmy Carter lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan. One of the worst landslide losses in American history.
As Yogi Berra put it, it's like deja vu all over again. I've seen this before, not all that long ago. A really terrible first term president who couldn't manage his way out of a wet paper bag on any national issue up in the polls, with the 'underdog's' supporters wringing their hands and biting their nails.
The economy stinks. Just ask anybody (except Jay Zee and Beyonce). Obama's foreign policy stinks. Just ask Israili PM Bebe Netanyahu. Just ask the dead Libyan ambassador and all of those millions of Osama's in the Mid East (we all saw them chanting 'we're all Osama's now, Obama,' was I the only one who heard that?) what they think of Barry's foreign policy. Go ahead, ask them. Obama's domestic policies stink. Just ask the 60+% of us who loathe Obamacare and demand its repeal. Just ask the 53% of us who still pay federal income taxes.
Polls, scmolls. Did anyone see the landslide Republican wins coming in November 2010? No, not really. Did anyone dream of Republican off term wins by Bob McDonnel in Virginia, Chris Christie in New Jersey and particularly that pickup truck driving Scott Brown in Massachusetts? No way, Jose.
Romney wins in November 2012, and he wins big because this election is flat out a referendum on a failed Barack Obama first term.
And I'm going to say this one more time: polls, schmolls.
Karen Lewis vs Rahm Emanuel: Hard core liberal Democrat politican up against a hard core liberal Democrat union leader. Almost everybody outside of Chicago can see what kind of ridiculous, non-existent confrontation is going on here. This stupid circus is for only one set of eyes: the dumbest population living in any metropolitan area within the United States of America.
The Chicago voter.
Chicago, the county in which encompasses Chicago (Cook County), and the State of Illinois itself are all dead broke, penniless, and completely bankrupt. The Chicago Public Schools have an unfunded pension liability in the untold billions, are deep in the red as to their net assets (minus 1.2 Billion dollars), and the total bleak story can be seen in the Chicago Tribune article "CPS finances tell a grim tale" (chicagotribune story here).
And yet we would be led to believe that the brave, fiscally responsible Mayor Rahm Emanuel is holding the line against these greedy selfish union thugs and their demands of ever more tax money to fund their lavish pensions, existing salaries plus a 31% raise over four years , lax work rules during their 8-month work year of showing up in the classroom from 9 until 3, where 80% of their students can't read, write a complete or meaningful sentence, or add two plus two.
All of the union tomfoolery I mentioned above is true. What is not true is that Rahm Emanuel is holding the line against union greed: he is completely in the tank with union interests. The teachers walked out on Rahm's offer of a 16% raise over four years. Rahm is offering raises to a broken system with money that doesn't exist. Both of these sides are fiscally irresponsible. There is no money. Chicago is broke. The Chicago Public Schools are broke. Cook County is broke. Illinois is broke.
Not so, says Karen Lewis. "The CPS is awash in cash. It's just in the wrong hands." If this were true, which it isn't, what difference would it make if all of this cash that the CPS is awash in were in a liberal Democrat politician's hands, or in a liberal Democrat union leader's hands - none of this cash would go towards the public good. It would disappear faster than a case of Scotch on the Kennedy compound.
Regardless, these guys are sparring over how much money they can borrow to pay a pack of worthless, crappy teachers who already make $76K on average per 8 month year, compared to an average Chicago citizen who makes around $46K per year.
This phony baloney stand off is like watching Al Capone and Bugs Moran holding a meeting in which they are arguing about murder rates in Chicago: Al Capone wants to hold the murder rate increase over the next decade to only 31%, while the righteous Bugs Moran wants to keep the increase in the murder rate to a respectable 16%. And people in Chicago are all pulling for Bugs, you see, because Bugs is the responsible one here. And everyone outside of Chicago can see that both positions are outrageous, as the increase in the murder rate is unacceptable regardless of the numbers. Duh.
You idiots!! Every damn one of you in Chicago are dumber than a bag of hammers. These two liberal Democrats, Rahm Emanuel and Karen Lewis, are driving your town into further ruin and bankruptcy.
Everybody in the country can see this except you morons. Chicago finances are going up in flames, and Rahm and Karen Lewis are arguing about how much gas to throw on it.
Obama and Nero have much in common: they both watch with bored indifference as civilizations crumble. Nero liked to pass the time with his fiddle, or so it was told, and Obama is likely on the golf course as the Mid East erupts (again).
Obama is staking his re-election on two episodes: Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive. Both of which he really had nothing to do with, other than to get dragged into both decisions. Apparently he had to be urged three times by various defense poohbahs to pull the dang trigger, and he finally did. And with GM, recall that it was George W. Bush who initiated that fiasco. Obama just made sure that the GM bond holders got the shaft, and that control of the company was firmly in UAW hands.
If you call those his shining moments, I would hate to see what would happen should all hell break loose.
Oh, wait a minute. Hell has already broken loose. Mid East Islamic thugs have just committed an act of war, and murdered our Libyan ambassador. Our Cairo embassy was under assault the day before. Obama snubs meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday, saying he's just too darn busy keeping the world safe for democracy and can't squeeze Bebe into the schedule.
Good thing we have the Weasel in Chief calling the shots, don't you all feel comfy, cozy and secure knowing that Barack Hussein Obama is at the helm? I am quite sure he will bungle this mess just like he bungles about everything that comes across his desk in the Oval Office.
I can't wait for November to come so we can fire this idiot.
Recreation vehicles such as motorhomes and travel trailers are as popular now for vacation camping than ever before. The demand for them, despite the economy, is on the rise. And when mom and dad want to take the kids out to enjoy the great outdoors, and yet not subject themselves to roughing it in sleeping bags under the stars, these RV's are the way to go.
Although these RV's are mostly self contained and can be driven out to the wilderness, to get the most out of the amenities onboard, an RV site that has 'full hookups' is optimum (meaning electric power, water supply and sewer hookup). Demand for these sites are also on the rise with the demand for RV's, and the private sector is always happy to please a profitable market.
But most if not all federal, state and county parks also have RV sites, and these sites differ immensely from the private sector RV campgrounds in the following ways:
RV settings are optimally located out in the woods, mountains or deserts. Most of this kind of property is owned by the federal government and was acquired historically through wars, the railroads and other means. On occasion, a park would be cut out of these pristine properties and developed with public (tax payer) funds. Private campgrounds are usually of lower eye appeal than the government owned lands, but are eagerly developed by entrepreneurs looking to cash in on the camping market.
For every 100 privately developed campsites, there might be one public site. Accordingly, demand for the public sites are sky high and must be reserved many months in advance, while private sites are available most of the time simply by arriving and parking the same day. This is because the public pays for the state or federal sites, and there is no incentive to meet demand for these sites and increase the numbers available to the public. No incentive whatsoever. While the costs are born by the taxpayers at large, the public sites do charge a modest (yet lower) rental on each site than the private sites, and since these public sites will always be rationed by the government, no expansion has been significantly planned to address the increasing need for RV accommodations.
The typical private site has about half its property devoted to full hookups, and the other half to tent camping. The typical government site has about 90% of its campground devoted to tent camping, and maybe 10% developed for RV full hookup sites. The private campground has an owner and a family with a few employees keeping up the property and servicing the campers. The government site has many, MANY fold as many employees, or 'revenooers' as I affectionately call these government campground employees, and as the cartoon character Snuffy Smith called them as well. A few revenooers are at the main gate making sure you pay to enter. Another bunch of revenuooers are on patrol making sure that the campers stay within the confines of the regulations of the campground. On a private site, you will rarely see an employee unless they are picking up your trash or showing you to your site. On a public campground, the revenooers will actively seek you out, inspect your campsite for violations and give you a lecture about what you can and cannot do during your visit. On the surface, the revenooer will tell you that they are there to help you, but that is far from the case: they are there to enforce the government rules, regulations, and to make sure that you are obeying all of them to a T.
In general, the government sites are managed by people that simply don't care that you never come back: they will still get paid, and probably get a larger budget the next year regardless of attendance. They will never expand (only the personnel roster will get bigger), and will only spend their money on the existing property regardless of the need. Most of the increase in the budget will go into air conditioners for the entry booth, air conditioning and new roofs for the administration buildings, and brand new shiny camp cars and trucks. Typical government campgrounds are paved, and have pristinely maintained sites, using 10 times the manpower that the private, gravel road equipped mom and pop sites use. Private campgrounds need to make a profit, and go out of their way to ensure that the campers enjoy their stay and will return in the future.
The revenoors don't give a damn whether or not their patrons drop dead: as long as its not on their site, since that would be way too much paperwork to deal with your dead body. And when you are still alive and breathing on their state or federal park, you better toe the line or the revenooers will be crawling down your throat in the blink of an eye.
Camping is a microcosm of the difference between public managed resources and those in the hands of the private sector. Which management team would you like handling your health care program: the management team at the Department of Motor Vehicles, or the management team at Apple?
Most of us know by now the startling fact that 47% of Americans who file tax returns annually have no net federal taxes due. In other words, 53% of Americans pay all federal taxes seen flowing into the IRS coffers.
This is because our onerous, lumbering gargantuan tax code that has been patched together over the last 80 years or so by politicians trying to gain favor with voters via this tax code highly favors low income earners. It's a progressive system - the more you earn, the higher your tax rate. The lower you earn, the lower your rate. And now once you are making no more than approximately $34,000 annually, this federal rate becomes effectively zero.
Most of us taxpayers (us '53%-ers') would love to see this system scrapped in its entirety, and replaced with a national sales tax, a fair tax, a flat tax, anything but the current system. And most of us taxpayers know that because politicians are who they are (spineless, gutless cowardly invertebrates), this will never happen.
There is, however, a solution: in order to get those 47 per centers (let's call them the poor) to start coughing up their fair share in taxes, the feds need only enact one law: The Equal Entertainment Act. Every cowardly, spineless invertebrate politician could gladly support this law, since we all love entertainment.
The poor, like most Americans, need entertainment, and will pay for it regardless of the cost. Drinking liquor is one of the favorite forms of entertainment for the poor. They spend much of their money on this form of entertainment, many to the exclusion of some necessities like rent and utilities. Jack up the taxes on this form of entertainment, and you will see the percentage of poor folks's taxes flowing into IRS hands increase significantly.
Another form of entertainment that the poor love to engage in is gambling. The poor love get-rich-quick schemes, and buying a lottery ticket will make someone very rich instantly. Of course the poor never do the math on how that works, since the odds of winning a mega-million dollar lottery are much, much worse than getting struck by lightening 7 or 8 times. Much worse. But that doesn't matter in this discussion, since the poor love their lottery tickets, casinos, horse tracks, etc. so much that they spend enormous hunks of their disposable income on this form of entertainment, at times neglecting their child care payments, car payments and alimony payments.
Simply install federal lotteries, federal casinos and federal horse and dog tracks in every community, large and small. Build a casino on every corner. The poor will flock to these like hungry southern mosquitos to a snow bird on a Florida beach. The federal revenues will increase many fold, all on the backs of the poor. And what is absolutely great about the Equal Entertainment Act, most of us 53%-ers don't have to pay this tax at all, since we can simply opt out of paying this tax and not buy lottery tickets, not go to the dog track, or not trudge on down to the local Costco to pick up a pallet of cheap vodka.
This legislation is guaranteed to solve the revenue problem of the 47%-ers not coughing up their fair share.
Now, all of the social problems that will result in these poor people blowing all their money on entertainment, that's a discussion for a different time and place.
Mark Belling recently said that Obama couldn't manage a Starbucks, or words to that effect owing to Obama's razor thin resume in all things business related (he called that kind of stuff 'behind enemy lines' in his book, remember?).
This incompetent, arrogant foolish moron has never managed anything in his entire life, not even a lemonade stand, much less a Starbucks. He has held absolutely no executive positions in his existence on this planet. How can we expect a community organizer (read: rabblerouser) to get our nations' economy running like a well oiled machine? Because we overlooked this obvious inexperience when we elected this guy, we are now paying the piper.
He has expected to have things go well only on the basis that he wants them to go well, and tells everyone as much. He has never had to actually make decisions as to how best to solve problems, bring assets to bear and determine which assets to put more here and less there, etc. You know, things that even a simple lemonade stand owner understands, and certainly a Starbucks franchise owner. And yet these basic economic principles elude Obama's understanding completely.
It's a given that Obama could not possibly run a successful Starbucks franchise, what with making payroll, hiring and firing, etc. Let's dumb it down for Barry, and take a look at how his sole proprietor lemonade stand business would go down, shall we? (I penned the following some time ago, but thought I would dredge it back up, now that we are coming up on less than 80 days until we fire this guy).
'Obama's Lemonade Stand' would have been set up roughly like this: shake down some successful lemonade stands down the street for his supplies, such as lemon juice, sugar, ice cubes and water. If they don't provide it, he will get the community to march on them for reasons of social injustice, corporate greed, etc. Then he will set his prices according to a progressive agenda: poor people get it free. Rich people will pay $1,000.00 per glass. It's only fair, everyone knows that. Once word gets out among the poor people that there's free lemonade afoot, Obama's stand will be flooded with 'patrons.' Word also gets out among the rich folk that Obama is gouging them, and they avoid the stand.
Now Obama has lots (and LOTS) of demand for lemonade, and yet no revenue to show for his efforts. He needs more supplies, but the nearby lemonade stands have been bled dry by Obama's incessant shake downs, and have closed their doors. To make up for this lack of revenue, ever more shake downs of increasingly distant but successful lemonade stands for his growing demand of lemonade is arranged. In the long run, as long as there are more successful stands to shake down to keep supplies flowing, things will work out just fine at 'Obama's Lemonade Stand' : that is, until there are no more successful lemonade stands anywhere to shake down. But he has never arrived at that point yet in his sophomoric experience, and accordingly thinks he can run America in much the same way.
Right in front of America's eyes, Obama's abysmal lack of experience in managing anything has come to the surface when his problem solving rhetoric was clear for everyone to see: solving the oil spill by decree - 'plug the damn hole.' There you have it. Done deal, right?
When the solution by decree doesn't work (which it won't, duh), Plan B consists of sending a few battalions of attorneys, armed to the teeth with briefcases, to figure out whom to sue. Why should we expect anything else out of this guy? We shouldn't. And as we all know, and especially Obama's mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright knows, 'America's chickens have come home to roost.' We elected a boob who doesn't know how to do anything except cause chaos, and we are getting what we elected: a guy who couldn't even run a lemonade stand and who is now in charge of our national affairs.
Perhaps a lesson has been learned here. I certainly hope that this coming election in November bears this out.
A liberal whack job walks into the Family Research Council facility in Washington D.C., shoots a guard after spewing some nonsense about 'hate,' and immediately the uber-leftist Huffington Post declares that the 'haters' are all of the folks inside the FRC. How nutty is that? Well, the logic that the left uses anymore would not have this scenario any other way.
The left has been changing how the political discourse in this country is waged for decades now. Some call it 'political correctness:' none of us on the right are allowed to disagree with what the left has unilaterally declared as the cultural norm. When we do, we are called 'haters.'
In essence, when a conservative disagrees with a liberal, the conservative is by liberal definition a 'hater.' Much like being called a racist, nobody likes to be labeled a hater. And the left knows this, and that's why they use this label in almost every debate with those who oppose their ideology. By throwing out the H word, it automatically gets their foe on the defensive. "What?' sputters the conservative in the argument, 'I'm not a hater....' and then whatever comes after this defensive posture is ineffective in countervailing whatever liberal nonsense is at issue, since most everybody would agree that you can't score unless you have the ball, or are otherwise on offense. You can't advance your argument when you are defending yourself against a baseless and incendiary charge. And accordingly, this tactic is now favored on the left, since it derails any valid discussion or opposition to their views.
I disagree with virtually every ideological position associated with the Left. Nearly every darn one of them. If I agree with any of their drivel, I can't come up with an example. I oppose changing the definition of marriage. I disagree with doing this because that will fundamentally change our culture for the worse. I am accordingly called a 'hater.'
I fundamentally disagree that the government should redistribute what I earn to those who haven't lifted a finger. According to the left, I am a greedy hater. I fundamentally disagree with the left that the government should be taking care of everyone in their old age, and that their lifestyles in their retirement should not be uncomfortable in any way. I say that ones' retirement is a responsibility that should be borne by the individual, not the government, because there is only one way the government can provide for these irresponsible oldsters: take MY money and give it to them. I profoundly disagree with that notion. And of course, according to the left, I am heartless and cruel, and therefore a hater.
See how this works? No need for a conservative to debate the unsoundness of any liberal position, since all the liberal need do is slap the H word on you, and the issue is settled.
In a pigs' eye. Call me a hater. Yes: I HATE LIBERAL POSITIONS, because they are not viable in the long run, and destroy our culture.
We've all seen the ridiculous clip produced by the Democrats a while back showing a Paul Ryan (R-Wi) look-alike wheeling poor ol' granny's wheelchair up to the cliff and unceremoniously shaking her out of the wheelchair where she presumably plummets to her agonizing death, while 'America The Beautiful' is playing in the background. Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.
When I first saw this clip, I just had to laugh. This was just too moronic to be persuasive to anyone, even the dullest among the masses. And this sentiment was backed up last night on Fox News when pollster Dr. Frank Luntz examined the reaction to this video from various groups to this stupid attempt at demonizing the Wisconsin legislator's budget proposal last year. Dr. Luntz found that among every demographic he examined, the reaction was not persuasive in the least, but rather that the clip was met almost universally with slack jawed amazement at how silly this idiotic clip was.
Now that Paul Ryan has been tapped by Mitt Romney as the running mate in 2012 presidential election, the Democrats are incredulously licking their chops at the prospect of dredging this year old clip back up and running it again. And what is more amazing is that these liberal pundits truly believe that this stupid clip is going to change the hearts and minds of Independent voters everywhere. That, in spite of the analysis by the general punditocracy that the video, while graphically explicit as to their intentions of demonizing the congressman, was wildly ineffective in general with most every audience.
Although the dullest among us are the ones who will shape the election this time around, these dummies are smart enough to understand that Paul Ryan is not the one pushing granny over the cliff in his budget: the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION is the one whose Obamacare legislation cuts nearly 500,000,000,000 (that's five hundred billion) dollars from Medicare, not Paul Ryan's strengthening measures proposed in his budget. NOTE: Mitt Romney claims that the actual Medicare cuts under Obamacare are 700 Billion, but anymore, a few hundred billion either way is simply a rounding error considering the way our government is currently blowing through cash...cash that it just doesn't have.
If anyone is paying attention, even the dummies, they would more likely conclude that the guy pushing that wheelchair should have been a Barack Obama look-alike, if any truth to the matter should count for anything.
I urge the liberal Democrats, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the gang to press on, go with your gut and run this video day in and day out. It will only harden the hearts of those voters that you seek to woo against you.