When I heard about the shooting at Ft. Hood, my first thought was that the shooter was probably Islamic.
Then I heard the shooter's name: Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. The percentage of Islamic likelihood just skyrocketed.
The next day, news reports told us how Hasan shouted, “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire on unarmed soldiers, killing 13 and wounding another 30.
Doug Giles--the man who helped expose ACORN for the scandalous, biased, taxpayer-funded organization that it is--wrote a piece called, "We Need an Ask and Tell Policy Regarding Jihadists in Our Military." He hit the nail on the head. Read it here:
http://townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2009/11/07/we_need_an_ask_and_tell_policy_regarding_jihadists_in_our_military
I couldn't agree more. Why haven't we put such a policy in place already? It's simple--unfortunately, the military is not allowed to discriminate against anyone because of their race, religion, or nationality.
What gets me is that Islamists call it "The Religion of Peace." Really? How so? Anyone who does not worship the same way they do is called an infidel and considered worthy of death. Hmmm...why not let these radicals join our military, pay them, educate them, and give them weapons they can use against us? Makes sense, huh?
So if we can't discriminate against religious zealots who come to our country hating us and believing they have every right, "In the name of Allah," to kill us, how can we keep the weapons out of their hands if they enlist? Is there such a thing as a "peaceful" Islamist who want to join the U. S. armed services?
And if we could enact an Ask-and-Tell policy ("Are you a jihadist?") would they be truthful? Of course not.
Even scarier than the base shooting is the fact that the FBI knew this "U.S. officer" was posting threats on terrorists websites, but did nothing about it. This could have been prevented, much like the planned attack on Ft. Dix was thwarted during the previous administration's watch. So why didn't our current FBI intercept Hasan before the shooting? Why no reprimand? No court martial?
This is the new and improved FBI under the Obama administration.
Even after the shooting, Obama was indifferent about the incident and supposedly has no interest in viewing the Ft. Hood shooting as a terrorist act. Nor does he want any Americans to think that either, or link the shooter's religion with his craven act. (See Kevin McCullough's column, too: http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2009/11/08/why_obama_is_blind_to_terror__freedom).
Do you feel safer yet?
God help us. Allah sure won't.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Well, it's official: the glow of Obama's election has faded among the American people. His approval ratings are plummeting. Why? Hmmm....
Michelle Malkin went on The View (that ultra-liberal gossip fest, with one lone dissenter) and basically presented her argument that Obama voters are beginning to realize they've been sold "a bill of goods." He's no different than any other politician in DC, except now dirty Chicago politics are working their way into the already-shameful game played in DC. And Obama is appointing so many czars that do not have to answer to the American people. Scary people with even scarier views. One is even a self-proclaimed communist. Doesn't matter. They will be making major decisions that impact Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBfihCRHhqg
The clip is great not only because Malkin brings up great points about the corruptness of the Obama administration (while maintaining a professional demeanor) but also because she shuts down Whoopi and Joy Behar. Usually guests on The View that don't agree politically with those two get attacked verbally and shouted down. Instead Whoopi and Joy try to defend Obama by slamming George W. in comparison (proof that Dems have nothing in their arsenal except the tiresome Bush bashing).
Obama and the Dems still have a majority in both the House and Senate. So why haven't they been able to pass "Health Reform" yet? Because Congress is seeing firsthand the anger people have over what Obama, Reid and Pelosi have rushed through so far. They're also upset that the Dems wanted to vote on a bill they hadn't even read (again!) while many Americans have problems with so many elements of the proposal. And we're getting conflicting answers to our questions.
The last thing we need is the government running yet one more thing.
There is not one government agency or program that is run effectively and cost-efficiently. [Read that last sentence a few times, then try to think of one that could counter that statement.]
Medicare and Social Security are on the verge of bankruptcy. We owe so much money to other countries already that we don't even know how much the interest is. How can we feasibly afford yet another monumental, costly government program?
If ObamaCare wanted true health care reform (instead of just financial control and more opportunities to line their backpockets), it would address the two biggest factors in rising health costs: prescription costs and lawsuits. Neither of these elements will be touched by "ObamaCare." There will be no savings to pay for the program.
If you really want the government to "fix" health care, just force all politicans to be in the same insurance plans that are offered to everyone else. Then maybe they'll create legislation that would actually be helpful to people who can't afford insurance, or who get turned down for coverage due to pre-existing conditions, etc. That's the only way politicians will fix anything--if it affects them directly.
There's a great bumper sticker out there: If you can't afford health insurance now, wait until it's "free"! Enough said.
Michelle Malkin went on The View (that ultra-liberal gossip fest, with one lone dissenter) and basically presented her argument that Obama voters are beginning to realize they've been sold "a bill of goods." He's no different than any other politician in DC, except now dirty Chicago politics are working their way into the already-shameful game played in DC. And Obama is appointing so many czars that do not have to answer to the American people. Scary people with even scarier views. One is even a self-proclaimed communist. Doesn't matter. They will be making major decisions that impact Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBfihCRHhqg
The clip is great not only because Malkin brings up great points about the corruptness of the Obama administration (while maintaining a professional demeanor) but also because she shuts down Whoopi and Joy Behar. Usually guests on The View that don't agree politically with those two get attacked verbally and shouted down. Instead Whoopi and Joy try to defend Obama by slamming George W. in comparison (proof that Dems have nothing in their arsenal except the tiresome Bush bashing).
Obama and the Dems still have a majority in both the House and Senate. So why haven't they been able to pass "Health Reform" yet? Because Congress is seeing firsthand the anger people have over what Obama, Reid and Pelosi have rushed through so far. They're also upset that the Dems wanted to vote on a bill they hadn't even read (again!) while many Americans have problems with so many elements of the proposal. And we're getting conflicting answers to our questions.
The last thing we need is the government running yet one more thing.
There is not one government agency or program that is run effectively and cost-efficiently. [Read that last sentence a few times, then try to think of one that could counter that statement.]
Medicare and Social Security are on the verge of bankruptcy. We owe so much money to other countries already that we don't even know how much the interest is. How can we feasibly afford yet another monumental, costly government program?
If ObamaCare wanted true health care reform (instead of just financial control and more opportunities to line their backpockets), it would address the two biggest factors in rising health costs: prescription costs and lawsuits. Neither of these elements will be touched by "ObamaCare." There will be no savings to pay for the program.
If you really want the government to "fix" health care, just force all politicans to be in the same insurance plans that are offered to everyone else. Then maybe they'll create legislation that would actually be helpful to people who can't afford insurance, or who get turned down for coverage due to pre-existing conditions, etc. That's the only way politicians will fix anything--if it affects them directly.
There's a great bumper sticker out there: If you can't afford health insurance now, wait until it's "free"! Enough said.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
rude awakening
We've been pretty lucky so far with this economy. My hubby is still working. We personally know only two people who are unemployed. Houses seem to still be selling, although not as many as have realtor signs on their front lawns.
More and more businesses seem to be closing up, more plywood appears over windows of both homes and businesses, and more grumbling comes from employees of various establishments stating that they see business dropping off significantly and questioning how long they will have their jobs.
It finally hit home (for me, anyway) how bad the economy is when we tried to refinance a loan to consolidate bills. We have excellent credit, job stability, etc. We were turned down--for the first time since we were teenagers! I was in shock. We were approved with the second company we applied through, but our appraisal was about $60,000 less than I expected it to come in at, even with the sluggish market. Yikes!
Didn't Congress tell us that they had to bail out the banks in order to free up money for lending? That didn't happen. The banks that received bailout money seemed to be the first to jack up interest rates and throw every fee they could at their loyal, paying customers. (You know--us taxpayers who involuntarily gave them money for their bonuses, incompentency, and poor judgment.) Which is why we wanted to refinance in the first place. What happened to freeing up money to lend? What's the deal with skyrocketing the customers' rates while getting handouts themselves?
Thanks Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, etc., etc., etc. We're indebted to you; and so are our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren....
More and more businesses seem to be closing up, more plywood appears over windows of both homes and businesses, and more grumbling comes from employees of various establishments stating that they see business dropping off significantly and questioning how long they will have their jobs.
It finally hit home (for me, anyway) how bad the economy is when we tried to refinance a loan to consolidate bills. We have excellent credit, job stability, etc. We were turned down--for the first time since we were teenagers! I was in shock. We were approved with the second company we applied through, but our appraisal was about $60,000 less than I expected it to come in at, even with the sluggish market. Yikes!
Didn't Congress tell us that they had to bail out the banks in order to free up money for lending? That didn't happen. The banks that received bailout money seemed to be the first to jack up interest rates and throw every fee they could at their loyal, paying customers. (You know--us taxpayers who involuntarily gave them money for their bonuses, incompentency, and poor judgment.) Which is why we wanted to refinance in the first place. What happened to freeing up money to lend? What's the deal with skyrocketing the customers' rates while getting handouts themselves?
Thanks Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, etc., etc., etc. We're indebted to you; and so are our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren....
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Sorry for the long hiatus...
For the one or two people who actually check my blog, sorry for the long hiatus. Those who know me know that I'm usually in one of two states: busy or resting (i.e. feeling lazy).
I take care of what's necessary, but the stuff I should do (e.g. cleaning the house, de-cluttering rooms, washing sheets and making the beds, etc.) always gets put off. And put off...and put off...and--you get the idea. I watch Clean House sometimes to motivate me, but my progress is slow. I can honestly say our house is nowhere near as bad as the ones on the show, but it's nothing to brag about.
The one room I did work on, I have been trying to keep relatively clean and clutter free. But the clutter starts again right away--especially with the kids. Just a few things at first, but that's all it takes. Those few items act like a magnet for more clutter. It's an uphill battle (figuratively and literally). You have to be on top of it all the time. I just don't think I have the energy to keep the whole house that way all the time.
I'm diving in. Wish me luck. If I'm not out of the pile of debris in one hour, send the rescue team in!
I take care of what's necessary, but the stuff I should do (e.g. cleaning the house, de-cluttering rooms, washing sheets and making the beds, etc.) always gets put off. And put off...and put off...and--you get the idea. I watch Clean House sometimes to motivate me, but my progress is slow. I can honestly say our house is nowhere near as bad as the ones on the show, but it's nothing to brag about.
The one room I did work on, I have been trying to keep relatively clean and clutter free. But the clutter starts again right away--especially with the kids. Just a few things at first, but that's all it takes. Those few items act like a magnet for more clutter. It's an uphill battle (figuratively and literally). You have to be on top of it all the time. I just don't think I have the energy to keep the whole house that way all the time.
I'm diving in. Wish me luck. If I'm not out of the pile of debris in one hour, send the rescue team in!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Hollywood bailout?
In the name of stimulating the economy, Democrats have gone on the largest spending spree on record. It's payback time for votes: unions, ACORN, Hollywood, illegal aliens, sexually-transmitted diseases, you name it.
President Obama had the audacity to look the American people in the eye and say that his economic recovery act had been stripped of earmarks.
Interesting wording.
Dick Morris said that technically, "earmarks" are what Congressional members put in the bill in order to get something back for their states. So with Obama's semantic somersault, does that mean all the pork in this spending bill are his own doing? Perhaps such semantics allow him to feel confident that he could pass a lie detector test. (It's reminiscent of Clinton swearing that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman.") Depends on your definition of a term.
Obama was careful not to use the word "pork" since the alleged stimulus bill is loaded with it. The two most ridiculous pork items: $80 million for ACORN, the same organization being investigated in many states for voter fraud; and $256 million for Hollywood. That's a quarter of a billion dollars! What for?
Didn't Hollywood also receive millions of dollars in the infamous Wall Street bailout last year? Why did they need to be "bailed out" along with banks? Since when has Hollywood helped the national economy?
Now that Obama has placed a cap on all CEOs' salaries if their company received taxpayer money in the bailout, will he also cap actors' multi-million dollar salaries? After all, he should be consistent. Actors get paid more than they're worth regardless of whether the final version of the film is successful or bombs at the box office. Can the President change Hollywood contracts, too?
He won't, of course, since Hollywood is a huge Democratic voting base.
Don't get me wrong: I find it despicable that CEOs can take home millions of dollars when they've run their companies into the ground and have cost many employees their jobs. But as my husband tells me over and over again, that was in the contract that the board of directors agreed to.
What about athletes' high salaries? The team owners are willing to sign a contract guaranteeing top players millions of dollars over a few years time in hopes of a championship, which in turn makes money for the owners. If the athlete gets hurt or doesn't perform as expected, the owner can't renegotiate the contract or put a cap on the salary.
Don't be surprised if franchises start asking for government handouts. If governors and mayors across the country are doing it, why not everyone? The Wall Street bailout was the first in this slippery slope, with no end in sight.
Clearly a bias exists against businesses. I hate golden parachutes, but the government has no business changing contracts. If it chooses to anyway, it should do so consistently with all the companies and organizations receiving government money (aka. pork) - even ACORN and Hollywood.
Moreover, this spending bill demonstrates bias against any religious organizations, which will not see a dime from the government trough. All religious schools are specifically excluded from the huge "investment" in education.
And the government in control of a database of medical information for all Americans? We have no rights, no privacy, and no option to "opt out" of such Orwellian measures. Gee, has a government computer ever been compromised? I don't suppose we can trust our information will be used only by the medical community; if so, wouldn't the medicos be in control of the information instead of the government?
Of course, I'm sure members of Congress will be able to exclude their private information from being listed. After all, they're not required to pay taxes - like we do - to pay for all the pork they want, do they?
Or is tax evasion just for the socialist Democrats?
President Obama had the audacity to look the American people in the eye and say that his economic recovery act had been stripped of earmarks.
Interesting wording.
Dick Morris said that technically, "earmarks" are what Congressional members put in the bill in order to get something back for their states. So with Obama's semantic somersault, does that mean all the pork in this spending bill are his own doing? Perhaps such semantics allow him to feel confident that he could pass a lie detector test. (It's reminiscent of Clinton swearing that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman.") Depends on your definition of a term.
Obama was careful not to use the word "pork" since the alleged stimulus bill is loaded with it. The two most ridiculous pork items: $80 million for ACORN, the same organization being investigated in many states for voter fraud; and $256 million for Hollywood. That's a quarter of a billion dollars! What for?
Didn't Hollywood also receive millions of dollars in the infamous Wall Street bailout last year? Why did they need to be "bailed out" along with banks? Since when has Hollywood helped the national economy?
Now that Obama has placed a cap on all CEOs' salaries if their company received taxpayer money in the bailout, will he also cap actors' multi-million dollar salaries? After all, he should be consistent. Actors get paid more than they're worth regardless of whether the final version of the film is successful or bombs at the box office. Can the President change Hollywood contracts, too?
He won't, of course, since Hollywood is a huge Democratic voting base.
Don't get me wrong: I find it despicable that CEOs can take home millions of dollars when they've run their companies into the ground and have cost many employees their jobs. But as my husband tells me over and over again, that was in the contract that the board of directors agreed to.
What about athletes' high salaries? The team owners are willing to sign a contract guaranteeing top players millions of dollars over a few years time in hopes of a championship, which in turn makes money for the owners. If the athlete gets hurt or doesn't perform as expected, the owner can't renegotiate the contract or put a cap on the salary.
Don't be surprised if franchises start asking for government handouts. If governors and mayors across the country are doing it, why not everyone? The Wall Street bailout was the first in this slippery slope, with no end in sight.
Clearly a bias exists against businesses. I hate golden parachutes, but the government has no business changing contracts. If it chooses to anyway, it should do so consistently with all the companies and organizations receiving government money (aka. pork) - even ACORN and Hollywood.
Moreover, this spending bill demonstrates bias against any religious organizations, which will not see a dime from the government trough. All religious schools are specifically excluded from the huge "investment" in education.
And the government in control of a database of medical information for all Americans? We have no rights, no privacy, and no option to "opt out" of such Orwellian measures. Gee, has a government computer ever been compromised? I don't suppose we can trust our information will be used only by the medical community; if so, wouldn't the medicos be in control of the information instead of the government?
Of course, I'm sure members of Congress will be able to exclude their private information from being listed. After all, they're not required to pay taxes - like we do - to pay for all the pork they want, do they?
Or is tax evasion just for the socialist Democrats?
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Random Acts of Kindness
I listen to K-Love for my daily dose of Contemporary Christian music. This radio station focuses on positive news around the world. The other day a news jockey read the following story about a pastor's kind offer and his decision to start the "365 Club" on Facebook:
http://www.christianpost.com/church/General/2009/01/pastor-s-story-of-kindness-sparks-idea-for-365-club-05/index.html
Basically, he wants people who join the club to perform a random act of kindness every day for a year. I found that intriguing, although I don't do Facebook. Anyway, members in this club post their good deeds for others to read. I'm not sure if that's positive or not. On the one hand, some people might provide examples of kind acts that others might not have thought of. It sounds a little too much like tooting your own horn, however, which seems counterintuitive to the point of the movement.
I know the term "random acts of kindness" has been around for years, but I appreciate that this man is bringing it to the forefront of people's minds again. Perhaps hundreds of people who heard this news story will now make a conscious effort to be a more positive force in the world. And those hundreds of people may inspire thousands of others to do the same.
In a similar vein, Liberty Mutual Insurance has a terrific ad campaign using the notions of both "random acts of kindness" and "pay it forward." They have several different commercials showing how one person's small, positive action can have a linear or ripple effect on others.
So how about a non-Facebook challenge? Commit a random act of kindness every day. Don't brag about it. Just do it. And if later in the day you cut someone off in traffic, or commit some other such human frailty, do an extra kindness to offset it.
You never fully know the effect that your life, your words, your actions - positive or negative - have on others, whether they're family, friends, neighbors or strangers.
Stories of violence, injustice, and abuse abound. Let's follow the example of this pastor and try to turn that around. Every day. And in small ways.
http://www.christianpost.com/church/General/2009/01/pastor-s-story-of-kindness-sparks-idea-for-365-club-05/index.html
Basically, he wants people who join the club to perform a random act of kindness every day for a year. I found that intriguing, although I don't do Facebook. Anyway, members in this club post their good deeds for others to read. I'm not sure if that's positive or not. On the one hand, some people might provide examples of kind acts that others might not have thought of. It sounds a little too much like tooting your own horn, however, which seems counterintuitive to the point of the movement.
I know the term "random acts of kindness" has been around for years, but I appreciate that this man is bringing it to the forefront of people's minds again. Perhaps hundreds of people who heard this news story will now make a conscious effort to be a more positive force in the world. And those hundreds of people may inspire thousands of others to do the same.
In a similar vein, Liberty Mutual Insurance has a terrific ad campaign using the notions of both "random acts of kindness" and "pay it forward." They have several different commercials showing how one person's small, positive action can have a linear or ripple effect on others.
So how about a non-Facebook challenge? Commit a random act of kindness every day. Don't brag about it. Just do it. And if later in the day you cut someone off in traffic, or commit some other such human frailty, do an extra kindness to offset it.
You never fully know the effect that your life, your words, your actions - positive or negative - have on others, whether they're family, friends, neighbors or strangers.
Stories of violence, injustice, and abuse abound. Let's follow the example of this pastor and try to turn that around. Every day. And in small ways.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
A non-holiday?
New Years has never been a big deal for me. That sentiment was cemented last night when my kids wanted to stay up until midnight to "celebrate" New Years. I told them that people just count down the final minute before midnight, then kiss and say, "Happy New Year!"
They didn't believe me. They figured there had to be more to it than that.
So, they counted the seconds to midnight and watched the people on television kiss and yell into the camera that familiar phrase.
Boring! Then they went to bed. Nowhere near as exciting as Christmas or Halloween, that's for sure! The only good thing about it all was that they got to stay up until midnight.
So is New Years strictly an adult holiday? If you're a drinker, then you probably like celebrating it. But if you don't drink, it's not that much fun. Yeah, you get together with friends, but how is it different from getting together with friends any other night of the year? Of course on New Years Eve, you're more likely to share the road with a preponderance of drunks. Oooh, fun!
What about all the people at Times Square who stood in the freezing temperatures for hours? For what? The chance to kiss on television? A million people show up, so the odds that you will be one of the twenty couples they film kissing at midnight are pretty slim. Yet the ones interviewed claim it's "so worth it" to be there at midnight.
Hmmm. Right.
Freezing outside for hours just to say, "Happy New Year," is not my cup of tea. Not to mention using port-a-potties and pushing through a million-strong crowd to use them. (Yuck!) The supposed payoff for these people is to be able to claim that they were in Times Square when the ball dropped. Whoop-dee-doo! How about the folks who did the same thing to ring in 2008? Or 1986? Does it really matter?
I guess I'm too cynical for my own good.
"Happy New Year!"
They didn't believe me. They figured there had to be more to it than that.
So, they counted the seconds to midnight and watched the people on television kiss and yell into the camera that familiar phrase.
Boring! Then they went to bed. Nowhere near as exciting as Christmas or Halloween, that's for sure! The only good thing about it all was that they got to stay up until midnight.
So is New Years strictly an adult holiday? If you're a drinker, then you probably like celebrating it. But if you don't drink, it's not that much fun. Yeah, you get together with friends, but how is it different from getting together with friends any other night of the year? Of course on New Years Eve, you're more likely to share the road with a preponderance of drunks. Oooh, fun!
What about all the people at Times Square who stood in the freezing temperatures for hours? For what? The chance to kiss on television? A million people show up, so the odds that you will be one of the twenty couples they film kissing at midnight are pretty slim. Yet the ones interviewed claim it's "so worth it" to be there at midnight.
Hmmm. Right.
Freezing outside for hours just to say, "Happy New Year," is not my cup of tea. Not to mention using port-a-potties and pushing through a million-strong crowd to use them. (Yuck!) The supposed payoff for these people is to be able to claim that they were in Times Square when the ball dropped. Whoop-dee-doo! How about the folks who did the same thing to ring in 2008? Or 1986? Does it really matter?
I guess I'm too cynical for my own good.
"Happy New Year!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)