I do not think Bloomberg is that far off in his assessment of the American people if they do not get some jobs and get them very soon. The plans for “creating” jobs have not done enough to make sure those coming out of college have employment, and those young adults who are not looking for work cannot find it. We have seen in other nations how the youth can rise up and take the fight to the government in the way of protesting in the streets on a massive scale, I am just not sure how much longer it will be until those younger people finally rise up, take their voice to Washington, and refuse to leave until something is done. Some of you may think this is not the best idea and in some ways I agree, but there is more to worry about in this nation than some college students who want to voice their opinion and voice it loudly. If they can keep it civil and refuse to leave and do not bring the violence as other nations have seen with their youth, then maybe this is the best thing that can happen to America.
What we have to understand about the youth in this nation (those who are recently out of college and cannot find work in their field) is that they are ticking time bombs waiting to go off. They were groomed from an early age to expect to graduate high school, go to college, graduate, and then go off to work for the next 35-40 years of their lives and start a family. This is the American way and the American way has been disrupted by politicians who do not have the best interest of the people at heart. More importantly, however, is what happens when the status quo changes. When you change the course of events that people are used to, they get angry. For example, if the media ran a news report saying that Congress just passed a bill into law that would cut food stamp rolls by 50%, you would immediately see people in the streets with signs, and some that would be looking to cause trouble. This is the way the world works. Take away what people expect to have, and sooner or later you will be left with chaos. All we have to do is look to European nations and we have a prime example of what happens when the government is forced to take programs away from the people. What happens is that cities burn and the younger people are out in the forefront of those acts. read more »
There have been many commentators taking this question on for the past couple days or so, asking, “What will it mean for the President if the Democrats lose a seat they have held since 1923?” Many times in politics we can look too deep into something when it really does not mean anything at all, but in the current economic and social climate that we are facing here in this nation, I believe this election to say more than even most pundits may agree with. This election has told the President that he must work with the other side and use their ideas or he will never come close to winning another election in this nation again.
Some of you who are reading this may not take it to mean as much as that, but we have to look at the facts of this district and then make our call on how much it means. This district has been held in Democratic hands since 1923, has been held by many prominent Democrats such as Chuck Schumer and the late Geraldine Ferraro, and went strongly for Barack Obama in the last election, with the President winning 55% of the vote. In the latest polling, the people of the 9th district in NY are not so favorable to the President, with him polling at around 33% in a district that has never been a problem for the Democrats to grab up. The President needs to be worried, and he needs to get together with his people and figure out how to save his Presidency because it is imploding onto him.
These are the facts of the matter, and the President knows it. The White House and other Democrats are trying to downplay it as they downplayed the election of Scott Brown, but the fact of the matter is that the President just does not have that way with the people as he did when he was elected. He has learned the hard way one of the rules of politics: Never promise too much when you cannot deliver. To some extent that is not the fault of the President. How could he have imagined that the Congress, full of Democrats that eventually passed health care reform, would do nothing else but sit on their butts and fight with the other side about legislation they could have passed without the Republicans. In some way he was denied a first term that could have got him re-elected, but now he only has himself to blame because he has decided not to work with the other side. In fact, he has decided to tell the Republicans what they NEED to do, and that is to pass the American Jobs Act before anyone knows what is included in it. This may have worked with the Democrats in the House before the last election, but it will not work now. read more »
Recently Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized fellow contender Rick Perry for labeling Social Security a Ponzi scheme. Romney extolled the virtues of the soon-to-be-bankrupt program and vowed to support its continuance unconditionally if elected.
A Ponzi scheme, so named after white-collar criminal Charles Ponzi, involves a huckster collecting money from numerous investors who are promised a high or reliable return on their investment, but in which payments are made by future investors lured in by similar promises of financial gain. The scheme is unsustainable, because dividends received are not actually invested, and are not equaled by the dividends promised to investors. Earlier investors fare better than later investors, who lose their money once the scheme collapses.
Social Security, signed into law by white-collar criminal Franklin Delano Roosevelt, involves the federal government collecting money from all working citizens, who are promised a reliable pension when they retire, but in which payments are made by subsequent generations dragged into the program. The system is unsustainable because, due to slowing population increases and politicians raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, most payroll taxes received are not actually invested and are not equaled by the payments promised to retirees. Earlier generations fare better than later generations, who will not receive benefits once the system collapses.
The history of Social Security’s establishment and implementation reveal that Governor Perry is wrong about the program’s being a Ponzi scheme. It is much worse. read more »
This is a couple days old but still very important and amazing to see. We have to be careful on how happy we get about this vote, considering the feminist groups will be out in force to challenge it even if it does pass through in the elections. The vote will be to define when a life begins, and the best way to do this is to allow the people in the individual states to determine what they believe to be the truth. Feminists groups and the Left hate this because they know most of America believes that life begins at conception, and allowing the people to vote on it will only show that the government is taking the wrong stance on this issue. The battle will begin in November, but if it were to pass it will not end there.
People from every state in the union should be trying to get something like this on the ballot in their states, if for no other reason than to let the people in state government know that this is a state issue, not a federal issue. The Supreme Court has taken it upon themselves to make it a federal issue, but the people can take it back and we can win this battle over the killing of unborn babies in this nation.
I have written a lot about this topic over the past few years now, especially in my two books where I talk about it in great detail. We on the right who are pro-life need to make a stand against the Left and pro-choice fanatics that say it is the woman’s body and shoe should be able to decide when life begins. This is making the woman a God, in my opinion, something that no woman is or ever will be. If we stand for the killing of innocent children, where does it end? We must make our voices heard on this issue and stand with those in Mississippi and hope that they make the right decision for everyone. They can take a lead in this nation and stand up to the federal government and tell them they will make their own rules and there is nothing that can be done about it. It is about time the states took the lead in their own business, and not allow the federal government to run everything in our lives. read more »
I was astounded. I didn’t think he’d really do it… well, yes I did, but I didn’t think it would be as blatant as it was. I’m referring to Barack Hussein Obama’s national address before the joint chambers of Congress, of course. It should have been billed as what it was, a campaign speech, and not a very good one at that.
It was vintage Obama. It was 2009 all over again. It was virtually identical to every other speech he has given since his election. Let’s just say that the speech itself had nothing new. It did run the entire gamut of the ever-present leftist shopping list.
Mr Obama wants another half trillion in ‘stimulus’ dollars to grease his campaign coffers and appease the unions. He’s planning on enlisting ‘the unemployed’, along with his AFL/CIO and SEIU goons, in their ‘war’ against the Tea Party.
Um, that would be their war on American citizens. We’ve seen all of the government’s tactics, time and time again. First, gin up unreasoning fear, then inject all of the DeMarxist straw ponies into the mix… use all of the oft-repeated talking points, the blatant lies which have served the left so well in the past. Scare the bejesus out of the elderly and the infirm. Ratchet up government giveaways. More shovel ready jobs that don’t and won’t exist outside of union and government welfare programs. Barack Obama’s ‘American Jobs Act’ is a fraud, through and through. read more »
What have we learned in the 10 years since Islamic terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Several lessons spring to mind:
1. There is nothing President George W. Bush could have done to prevent terrorist acts in his first eight months in office, of which his post-9/11 critics would have approved. Even after 9/11, liberals have loudly disapproved of profiling at airports, surreptitiously monitoring terrorist communications, and fighting al-Qaeda militarily abroad. Imagine how they would have reacted if Bush had attempted any of these strategies pre-9/11.
2. Poverty does not cause terrorism; it is both unnecessary and insufficient to the task. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up Northwest Flight 253, was the son of a wealthy Nigerian banker. American Taliban John Walker Lindh went to high school at a “California Distinguished School” in SoCal. In contrast, poor people the world over—rice farmers in China, untouchables in India—do not rise up en masse to wreak havoc in suicide bombings. Modern-day terrorism is caused by individuals’ adherence to an ideology that encourages terrorist acts against innocent civilians—an ideology that usually happens to be Islamist. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all modern-day terrorists are Muslims.
3. Liberals have amassed a formidable glossary of imprecations they invoke whenever commentators scrutinize the radical nature of Islam: alienating Muslims, being at war with Islam, being Islamophobic, demonizing the other, engaging in inflammatory rhetoric, hijacking a peaceful religion, singling out people because of their religion. None of these terms is objective enough to mean anything. read more »
An objective view on English as our National Language
Look, I get it. Learning English is not easy but neither is learning Spanish. I had to do when I was a kid after my parents divorced and my mom moved us to Puerto Rico for three years (she’s native Puerto Rican). I remember standing out in the school courtyard when another kid told me to yell out a word in Spanish that turned out to be a profanity. Thankfully, the teacher that heard me knew I had just moved from New York City and didn’t speak a lick of Spanish. Guess what…I learned it. Why? Because Spanish was the language I was required to speak in when I moved there because it was well, the national language.
Here’s another eye-opener coming from an American of Puerto Rican descent. English is the national language of the United States of America. Learn it. I had to learn Spanish and as such you should have to learn English. Some time ago I went into a McDonald’s and placed an order. The Hispanic person at the cashier refused to speak to me in English (I’m tan-skinned with jet black hair). Every response she would give me in Spanish was met with a response in English until it turned into a grudge match. This is what is called “reverse racism”. Reverse Racism does exist whether you believe it does or not. The attitudes behind this form of hatred are based on a lie: that all Americans do not share the opportunities to achieve their dream if they work hard enough.
As alluded to before, English is my first language (and a beautiful one it is) so I understand the hardship. I do not, however, understand the need to assume that I am not proud of who I am by speaking to me in Spanish which is what this cashier was doing. Again, I am not ashamed of who I am. To the contrary, I’m very proud. But along with my lineage I am even more proud to be an American and the national language of my country of birth and the country that I joyfully live in is English! That’s as far as I go in defending myself. read more »
The ‘Main Stream Media’, as it has come to be known, has ceased to exist. It wasn’t even given a decent burial. The advent of the new conservative media has thrown down the gauntlet. Despite near-hysterical attempts to sell America the Administration’s statist line, Americans have not been fooled.
The new media has forced a transparency on their MSM counterparts that they’ve never had to face before. They were like a moth circling closer and closer to the flame. In the MSM’s drive to be closer and closer to the seats of power in this country they sold out their independence, their integrity and, as we’ve observed, some have sold out far more than that.
It’s sad, really. American journalism had a great tradition and a worldwide reputation as seekers of truth, no matter where that truth took them. I’ve been calling the Main Stream Media the Lame Stream Media now for a couple of years, but in fact I’ve watched the decline of truth and objectivity in journalism since Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite sold us out on the war in Vietnam, with politically motivated lies and distortions that were unfortunately taken for gospel truth by the folks at home, and most especially by craven politicians on both sides of the aisle.
The very instant any journalist or writer sells out for political advantage or favor, he or she ceases to have any claim on objectivity. The very moment that they lie to protect that privilege, they become the creature of that political entity with vested interest in the furtherance of their benefactor’s aims and desires. It’s actually far worse than that. read more »