Just a few points of hypocrisy to throw your way. I hope that you see the unbelievable nerve of these people. You'll see what I mean!
* Liberals want to make it so any 13 year old should be allowed to have an abortion, and do so without her parents consent. Yet, the same liberals want you to be 22 to possess a weapon. Therefore, you're old enough to make the incredibly permanent and powerful decision to submit your body to an abortion? But, your not old enough to possess a weapon to protect your life or your property. Republicans agree with no weapons for children, and especially if some of those weapons call themselves Doctors.
* Since we are on the subject of abortion, and so called Dr's. Liberal Doctors are now stating that the death penalty via a hypodermic needle is "cruel and unusual punishment". They say that assisting in these legal actions would be against their Hippocratic Oath. So a Dr can suck the brain out of a baby's head that is sticking out of a birth canal, but they have a problem inserting a needle into the arm of a proven murder?
* How about a liberal that opposes "big" oil, and defense contractors by the name of Michael Moore. Michael Moore calls oil companies and defense contractors "war profiteers", but Moore owns shares in Halliburton, Honeywell, and Boeing. (all of which he supposedly opposes.) Michael Moore also is a big supporter of labor unions, but when Moore makes a propaganda film he does his post production work in Canada. Michael Moore does this so that he doesn't have to pay union wages like in the United States. This way he can keep production costs down. I'm sure his movies are 100% fact!
Remember as the good liberals say: "Do as I say, Not as I do."
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Prime Time Propaganda!
It has come and gone. One of the few days out of the year where the major networks speak highly, or in a positive way about our troops. They do their required reflection of fallen heroes on Memorial day, and then on Tuesday it's business as usual. Talk of new books about the "lies that propagated" the war, new studies that show that our troops are ill prepared, surveys that say that our troops come mostly from poverty stricken homes and have no choice, but to join the military. I mean it couldn't possibly be that these brave men and women share the same call to duty as the soldiers that have gone before them. It couldn't be that some of our nations best, and brightest would want to give selflessly of themselves to defend their countrymen, or that they believe in the mission at hand.
I know these networks place a lot of questions out there about the war. I understand that many people watch morning, noon, and prime time news shows. It is even understandable that after hearing the same barrage of rhetoric and questions, that some of these questions would start to stick in peoples minds. However, I am also a strong proponent of researching "news" that you hear, and checking out "facts". So here are a few answers to some of the most repeated questions and/or comments about our troops, and the war.
Q. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq! So was Saddam Hussein/Iraq really a threat to the United States? Or did the Bush Administration force this war?
A. Yes. Saddam Hussein's regime was a major threat to American interests and the region as a whole. The United States was not alone in believing Saddam Hussein had WMD, which is why the U.N. Security Council had adopted 12+ resolutions since 1990 to force Hussein to disarm his weapons program. The U.N. even authorized U.N. member states "to use all necessary means" to compel Iraq to comply. So to say that Pres. Bush lied to the U.S. about WMD in Iraq is a lie itself. However it is also fair to note that before the U.S. led intervention (and during the first few weeks of the War) convoys of hundreds of trucks crossed over the Iraqi/Syrian border. Also there is been evidence of WMD materials found scattered across the desert in Iraq. But for argument sake lets say there were no WMD in Iraq. We did find: prohibited missiles (a violation of the U.N. Security Council), Hussein supported a wide variety of terrorist groups against U.S. allies (one of which was Israel), and they routinely fired on U.S. warplanes that were enforcing no-fly zones. Their was also proof that Saddam Hussein used illegal chemical weapons against Iran, and his own men, women, and children. This evidence was left behind in mass graves of 300,000+ victims.
Q. Saddam Hussein isn't in charge anymore! Therefore U.S. soldiers shouldn't lose their lives waging another country's civil war.
A. There is no evidence of full fledge civil war. However our enemy, al-Qaeda, is seeking to provoke a civil war by bombing Shiite mosques and shrines. If we were to stand back, allow al-Qaeda terrorist to succeed at creating a civil war, they would turn Iraq into a base of operations for attacking the U.S. and our allies. Much like they did with Afghanistan when Clinton decided that we had no stake in the Afghan civil war in the 90's. The fact is a Talibanized al-Qaeda controlled Iraq would be like Afghanistan on steroids. All fueled by Iraqi oil revenues. The U.S. simply cannot permit this.
Q. The death toll is rising higher everyday! With that fact the U.S. ability to win in Iraq gets lower, and lower.
A. No, the war in Iraq CAN be won. Winning in Iraq would be helping Iraqis build a stable government that is an ally in the war on terrorism (unlike Saddam's Iraq which was an enemy to that war.) This would be a major victory. It is true that Iraq will be a violent place for many years. But some of the forces that make it violent are radical Islamist, and Saddam's Baathist party supporters. (Both of which are sworn enemies of the U.S.) If we turn our backs now, and pull the military out 2 things would happen. 1. A young but growing Iraqi democracy would be destroyed. 2. The threat to the U.S. and our allies from terrorist groups will only grow.
I know these networks place a lot of questions out there about the war. I understand that many people watch morning, noon, and prime time news shows. It is even understandable that after hearing the same barrage of rhetoric and questions, that some of these questions would start to stick in peoples minds. However, I am also a strong proponent of researching "news" that you hear, and checking out "facts". So here are a few answers to some of the most repeated questions and/or comments about our troops, and the war.
Q. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq! So was Saddam Hussein/Iraq really a threat to the United States? Or did the Bush Administration force this war?
A. Yes. Saddam Hussein's regime was a major threat to American interests and the region as a whole. The United States was not alone in believing Saddam Hussein had WMD, which is why the U.N. Security Council had adopted 12+ resolutions since 1990 to force Hussein to disarm his weapons program. The U.N. even authorized U.N. member states "to use all necessary means" to compel Iraq to comply. So to say that Pres. Bush lied to the U.S. about WMD in Iraq is a lie itself. However it is also fair to note that before the U.S. led intervention (and during the first few weeks of the War) convoys of hundreds of trucks crossed over the Iraqi/Syrian border. Also there is been evidence of WMD materials found scattered across the desert in Iraq. But for argument sake lets say there were no WMD in Iraq. We did find: prohibited missiles (a violation of the U.N. Security Council), Hussein supported a wide variety of terrorist groups against U.S. allies (one of which was Israel), and they routinely fired on U.S. warplanes that were enforcing no-fly zones. Their was also proof that Saddam Hussein used illegal chemical weapons against Iran, and his own men, women, and children. This evidence was left behind in mass graves of 300,000+ victims.
Q. Saddam Hussein isn't in charge anymore! Therefore U.S. soldiers shouldn't lose their lives waging another country's civil war.
A. There is no evidence of full fledge civil war. However our enemy, al-Qaeda, is seeking to provoke a civil war by bombing Shiite mosques and shrines. If we were to stand back, allow al-Qaeda terrorist to succeed at creating a civil war, they would turn Iraq into a base of operations for attacking the U.S. and our allies. Much like they did with Afghanistan when Clinton decided that we had no stake in the Afghan civil war in the 90's. The fact is a Talibanized al-Qaeda controlled Iraq would be like Afghanistan on steroids. All fueled by Iraqi oil revenues. The U.S. simply cannot permit this.
Q. The death toll is rising higher everyday! With that fact the U.S. ability to win in Iraq gets lower, and lower.
A. No, the war in Iraq CAN be won. Winning in Iraq would be helping Iraqis build a stable government that is an ally in the war on terrorism (unlike Saddam's Iraq which was an enemy to that war.) This would be a major victory. It is true that Iraq will be a violent place for many years. But some of the forces that make it violent are radical Islamist, and Saddam's Baathist party supporters. (Both of which are sworn enemies of the U.S.) If we turn our backs now, and pull the military out 2 things would happen. 1. A young but growing Iraqi democracy would be destroyed. 2. The threat to the U.S. and our allies from terrorist groups will only grow.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
More Global Warming? (Brrrrrrr)
Bundle up it's time for more "Global Warming" news. Thats right the world is getting hotter, and here is more proof that its gonna keep getting hotter. There are 5 states right now as I write with active winter weather advisories from now through the holiday weekend. Thats right Idaho, Montana, Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. In fact people in Vermont are going to be experiencing snow this weekend, not just an advisory, but actual warm snowy goodness. (Makes you scratch your head, and wonder how it is people can believe this stuff.)
Real quickly the Hurricane forecast for 2008 has been released, and because of "Global Warming" its gonna be very active. The prediction is 12-16 named storms, and 2-5 major storms (that means category 3 or higher). As you might have guessed the rumblings are it will be above average because of "Global Warming." Thats right because you drive a gas powered vehicle, use a/c, and use non curly q light bulbs the world is going to end. It will burn up one snow flake at a time, and maybe this year we will see something really cool like a Hurricane that smothers Miami in Snow. Just a thought.
Real quickly the Hurricane forecast for 2008 has been released, and because of "Global Warming" its gonna be very active. The prediction is 12-16 named storms, and 2-5 major storms (that means category 3 or higher). As you might have guessed the rumblings are it will be above average because of "Global Warming." Thats right because you drive a gas powered vehicle, use a/c, and use non curly q light bulbs the world is going to end. It will burn up one snow flake at a time, and maybe this year we will see something really cool like a Hurricane that smothers Miami in Snow. Just a thought.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
E85 Money Saver?
I know what your thinking, "Not another E85 alternate fuel blog." I do realize I may have been on a bit of a kick with this particular subject as of late. However, with that said this will be the last on the subject for at least a while.
With gas prices going up north of $3.75 (in NC) more people are looking at alternate fuels, and E85 Ethanol (corn fuel). But what they are finding is that while cheaper, the fuel economy is worse than the "slightly less" mileage promised by the government, EPA, and corn fuel companies. For example the new Ford Explorer is rated at 16 city/ 18 hwy with gas, but only 11 city/13 hwy with E85. The Chevy Tahoe is rated at 15/21 with gas, and only 11/15 mpg with E85.
The bottom line: Car and Driver magazine says E85 needs to be 30% cheaper than gas to start to save you money.
I mean that only seems fair that if its gonna be 30% less efficient than gas than it should be 30% cheaper. In closing I just want to recap that not only is E85 not more "green" as portrayed, but its not even as efficient as they claim.
Yet again I wish that we would start taking advantage of the enormous amounts of fossil fuels that are scattered all around our great country. Start building more drilling facilities and more refineries. Do away with these ridiculous regulations, and requirements on the gas companies. Just in those ways alone we will be able to bring down the gas prices.
With gas prices going up north of $3.75 (in NC) more people are looking at alternate fuels, and E85 Ethanol (corn fuel). But what they are finding is that while cheaper, the fuel economy is worse than the "slightly less" mileage promised by the government, EPA, and corn fuel companies. For example the new Ford Explorer is rated at 16 city/ 18 hwy with gas, but only 11 city/13 hwy with E85. The Chevy Tahoe is rated at 15/21 with gas, and only 11/15 mpg with E85.
The bottom line: Car and Driver magazine says E85 needs to be 30% cheaper than gas to start to save you money.
I mean that only seems fair that if its gonna be 30% less efficient than gas than it should be 30% cheaper. In closing I just want to recap that not only is E85 not more "green" as portrayed, but its not even as efficient as they claim.
Yet again I wish that we would start taking advantage of the enormous amounts of fossil fuels that are scattered all around our great country. Start building more drilling facilities and more refineries. Do away with these ridiculous regulations, and requirements on the gas companies. Just in those ways alone we will be able to bring down the gas prices.
Sunday Thought On Alternate Fuel
Is anyone else as tired as I am of hearing politicians talk about rescuing the people from "our energy crisis"? They refer to the state of the economy, and try to make us think if we just had things like alternate fuels we would have more money. Well what if we had put the 51.2 Billion dollars that were recently invested in corn fuel back into the economy. I mean since that 51.2 Billion was tax dollars anyway. However 51.2 Billion is a lot of money, but it doesn't hold a candle to the 177.6 Billion in farm subsidies to grow corn for alternate fuels. Now the only reason for that is to partially (thats right partially) replace the corn that we use for food products, and feed for livestock. So if these politicians want to really help us then how about they stop taking our hard earned tax money and blowing it on "corn fuel."
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Bio-Fuel Good for the Enviroment, and our Futures?
Every day we here more about energy independence, corn fuel, and carbon emissions. We are told that if we had more "jetson" cars, and more corn fuel we would be well on our way to ridding the world of those evil oil companies. I know that I for one am tired of living with the guilt that comes with driving a gas guzzling world killer. So I am proud to say that I am here to further the movement of Corn cars, and that alone will make the world better for our children. (Cant forget the kids, that would be cruel.)
Lets look at the full "life cycle" of bio-fuel consumption from land clearing (gasp) to automotive consumption. The moderate emission savings are completely uprooted (no pun intended) by way larger emissions from: deforestation, burning, peat drainage, cultivation, and soil carbon losses. Here's an example, for every ton of palm oil produced the result is 33 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. (that's 10 times more than good ol petroleum.) Also clearing of tropical forest (egad!) for sugar cane fuel emits 50% more greenhouse gases than the production and use of the same amount of GASOLINE. Lets not forget that growing the crops for these agro-fuels require large applications of petroleum based fertilizers, and since agro-fuel has double in production that means those fertilizers have double in # of applications. You see that might not sound so bad except the fertilizer gives off nitrous oxide, and that's a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than the evil "carbon dioxide".
Alright maybe I was a bit hasty on furthering the cause of the corn car, but I mean I was concerned about the children. However I think now we should erase those pesky child labor laws, and start drilling and refining more old fashion Texas T. I mean not enough kids know the value of a honest days work anymore.
Check back soon when I share with you what E-85 gas does to the normal combustion engine. Meanwhile call your congressman and senator. Tell them you want to drill for your oil in your country, build new refineries, do away with ridiculous gas taxes, and start to bring down gas prices the right way. They work for you, and it's time that they remember that. We can limit their power, but only if we stand up to voice our opinions. We are a republic!
Lets look at the full "life cycle" of bio-fuel consumption from land clearing (gasp) to automotive consumption. The moderate emission savings are completely uprooted (no pun intended) by way larger emissions from: deforestation, burning, peat drainage, cultivation, and soil carbon losses. Here's an example, for every ton of palm oil produced the result is 33 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. (that's 10 times more than good ol petroleum.) Also clearing of tropical forest (egad!) for sugar cane fuel emits 50% more greenhouse gases than the production and use of the same amount of GASOLINE. Lets not forget that growing the crops for these agro-fuels require large applications of petroleum based fertilizers, and since agro-fuel has double in production that means those fertilizers have double in # of applications. You see that might not sound so bad except the fertilizer gives off nitrous oxide, and that's a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than the evil "carbon dioxide".
Alright maybe I was a bit hasty on furthering the cause of the corn car, but I mean I was concerned about the children. However I think now we should erase those pesky child labor laws, and start drilling and refining more old fashion Texas T. I mean not enough kids know the value of a honest days work anymore.
Check back soon when I share with you what E-85 gas does to the normal combustion engine. Meanwhile call your congressman and senator. Tell them you want to drill for your oil in your country, build new refineries, do away with ridiculous gas taxes, and start to bring down gas prices the right way. They work for you, and it's time that they remember that. We can limit their power, but only if we stand up to voice our opinions. We are a republic!
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Liberal Tax Myths!
The following is a list of the 10 largest liberal myths on taxes. I will first give you the myth, and then follow it up with fact. So drum roll please........
Myth 10: Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the "Rich".
Fact 10: The rich are shouldering more of the nations tax burden than ever. (39% of taxes are paid by the top 1% of income earners, and 86% of all taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners.) Thats up 2-4% from 2000 when Bush took office.
Myth 9: Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact 9: Economy responded by creating more jobs (lowest unemployment since 1970.) Very simple more jobs means more money.
Myth 8: Tax cuts help the economy by “putting money in people’s pockets.”
Fact 8: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Myth 7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact 7: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Myth 6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact 6: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Myth 5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact 5: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.
Myth 4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact 4: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
Myth 3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact 3: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.
Myth 2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact 2: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline, where revenues were projected to be without the tax cuts.
Myth 1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact 1: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Myth 10: Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the "Rich".
Fact 10: The rich are shouldering more of the nations tax burden than ever. (39% of taxes are paid by the top 1% of income earners, and 86% of all taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners.) Thats up 2-4% from 2000 when Bush took office.
Myth 9: Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact 9: Economy responded by creating more jobs (lowest unemployment since 1970.) Very simple more jobs means more money.
Myth 8: Tax cuts help the economy by “putting money in people’s pockets.”
Fact 8: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Myth 7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact 7: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Myth 6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact 6: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Myth 5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact 5: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.
Myth 4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact 4: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
Myth 3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact 3: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.
Myth 2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact 2: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline, where revenues were projected to be without the tax cuts.
Myth 1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact 1: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
