About Me

Name: grad_1986
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Nixon "Triangulation" used on Christmas

Posted by grad_1986 on Wednesday, December 07, 2011 5:19:26 PM
If you remember the days of the cold-war with Russia, Nixon and Kissinger came up with a strategy to bring Russia to the arms table called: Triangulation.   By appearing to make friends with the Chinese, Russia feared we were ganging up on them thru their next worse enemy China.  This worked and eventually brought them to the negotation table Today, triangulation is being used on Christmas via the Islamic religion.  Liberals in our country really are not interested in Islam as a religion.  In fact, most liberals would rather remove religion from our country and our schools altogether.   But how do you do that?  
 
The answer is triangulation.  Here you use other religions (such as Islam) in our schools to eventually remove all religions from them. 
 
Here is how it works. 
 
First you preach "tollerance" to the parents and children.  You say you can't just honor Christian or Jewish holidays in the school.  You need to honor ALL religions (even if those other religions preach you must remove all others from the face of the earth).   Now you've opened a pandoras-box.  You begin honoring, Islamic, Hindu, Budist and Native American festivals and holy days.  What follows next is confusion.  The schools are inundated with all kinds of requests for "days off" or "special classrom acknowledgements" etc..  School districts will find themselvses in court on a regular basis as there will always be some group that feels left out of the fun.  After some period of time, the parents will be so upset that so much time and money is being lost on these festivals, they will agree to not celebrate ANY religious holidays.  And VIOLA!  You have systematically removed ALL religions from the schools. 
 
Which is what you wanted in the first place. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A polically correct "Charlie Brown Christmas"

Posted by grad_1986 on Tuesday, December 06, 2011 3:49:40 PM
 
   Did you get a chance to watch “The Charlie Brown Christmas” special last night on ABC?  My wife and I recorded it as we had to go out to do some shopping.  Upon return I turned on the TV to watch it.  As I was watching it I was scratching my head wondering why by the 6 minute mark in the show we are already at the scene of kids practicing the play at the school.   I restarted to the show again and saw the some scenes had been removed from the show altogether.   ABC had butchered the show and took out the following scenes:
   1)      The snowball throwing scene where Linus uses his blanket to hurl the snow ball and knock the can off the wall.  It’s also the scene
            where Lucy ridicules him for carrying a blanket with him. 
   2)      Scene were Charlie Brown helps Sally write a letter to Santa. 
   3)      Scene of Lucy telling Linus to lose “the stupid blanket” during the play and threatens him with “five good reasons” in the form of
            a fist. 
   4)      Scene of Schroeder playing “Jingle Bells” on the piano. 

Here are what I believe to be ABC's reasons for removing these scenes from the show.
Lucy ridiculing Linus' blanket scene
      This scene obviously does not fit with our culture of "tolerance".  Lucy should not ridicule Linus for his difference and his need for security blanket.  She should praise him instead for his "resourefullness" and should show solidarity with Linus by getting her own blanket.
 
Charlie Brown helps his sister write a letter to Santa.
      Obviously this is a slam against the 99% who in the Occupy Movement only want their "fair share" and "what they have coming to them".   This antiquated mindset must be stamped out at all costs.  Charlie Brown should not be upset at her sisters letter writing campaign to obtain more for herself.  She should be praised for her effort.  Obviously she has paid close attention to her marxist teachers at school and is being proactive.  Charlie Brown should join her in this effort and encourage he to demand even more.  Why stop with 10's and 20's?  Why not 50's and 100's ?   After all Santa is the epitomy of a "fat cat" capitalist.  Also note, they did chose to keep in the scene of Lucy saying that Christmas is run by an "east-coast syndicate" (she will make a really good 99-er or Huffington Post editorial writer when she grows up). 
 
Lucy threatening Linus with "five good reasons" to not carry his blanket.
      This scene is not in keeping with our cultures "anti-bullying campaign" today.  Lucy should be sent to the counselors' office and ordered to go through extensive psychological evaluation as to why she feels she needs to control her little brother.  She obviously has anger issues which have not been dealt with yet.  (Although, her desire to inflict physical harm could prove useful if she later decides to work as a SEIU union thug)
 
Schroeder playing "Jingle Bells" on his piano
      Of course ABC has nothing against playing Jingle Bells, but they must draw the line on Lucy's attempt to charm Schroeder.  This cannot be allowed in elementary school children and is clearly an overtly sexual ploy on her part.  Girl's like Lucy should not grow up with romantic ideas.  Instead she should be learn to hate men and their sexist attitudes towards them. 
 
          Charles Schultz must be rolling in his grave after seeing what they have done to his beloved characters.  Our children are being short-changed and executives at TV stations like ABC are hoping that eventually everyone will forget these "deleted scenes" altogether. In fact maybe in a few short years, they can remove the most "despicable" (sarcasm here) scene of all where Linus recites lines from the most hated book on the planet, the Bible.  and all we will be left with is the opennig scene of kids on skating on a pond (although that does trouble the nanny-staters who see that as HIGHLY dangerous) and the scene of Charlie Brown getting psychological help from Lucy. 
 

dd

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Add TEACHER to your list of parental duties

Posted by grad_1986 on Monday, December 05, 2011 7:17:07 PM
Many parents today list their home duties as:  provider, leader, caregiver, cook, bargain-hunter, coach and occasionally disciplinarian.  However today we must add to the TOP of our list : TEACHER.   Over the past 50 years we assumed this was to be done by the schools.  Some of us were able to afford private (church-based) schools for our children but many were not.  We thought all the 60's radicals had some how vanished from the face of the earth, but instead they all went underground and hid in our childrens classrooms disguised as "well meaning teachers who have our childrens best interests at heart".    These radicals also went into the universities and indoctrinated the indoctrinators.   They have taught our children that America is "bad" or "evil"  and NOT "exceptional" as we were brought up to learn. 
 
But they do not have to have the final say.   We need to turn off  ESPN and turn on FOXNEWS and see what is going on in our world.   We need to stop reading the "Harry Potter" to our children and start reading "The 5000 year leap" and "The Real George Washington" so they can know the REAL history of their country.    We need to get off of Facebook and look up "Reagan speech" on YouTube to reacquaint our children with real leaders.  We need to teach them the difference between Keynes and Hayek economic policies.   We need to teach them that success is NOT failure and failure is NOT success. 
 
Too many of us took the path of "just get them through the system" and "don't make waves".  But that is exactly what the other side wants us to do.... NOTHING!   "Leave the educating to US the professionals" is what we are often told.  But today, many of those "professionals nothing more than idiots with diplomas.  Do you know that the average high school teacher today was a C student when he or she was in school.  The old adage "those who can't, teach those who can" still holds true.   Show your kids all that is left out of their history books. People like, Wentworth Cheswell , a black man, was elected to New Hampshire colonial government in 1762 and was also rode the same night as Paul Revere to gather the people from the north to come and fight.  Show them, Prince Estabrook, who was the first person shot by the british at Concord.  He was a black man who was a member of the Lexington church (blacks and whites worshipped together) and cam to fight the british (half of those who showed up were also free black men).   Show James Armastead (another black patriot) who George Washington credited with shaving 2 years off of the war.  He allowed himself to be captured by the british and was a servant for General Corn-Wallace so as to spy on their plans.  He later became a "double agent" and gave the british bad intelligence and gave George Washington good information.  His bad information to the british made them drop off their soldiers in Yorktown where we were waiting and the French fleet to come in and blockade them.   Show them that George Washington chose as the surveyor for the new capitol , Benjamin Bannergy ( a black man) who was highly qualified as one of the best mathematicias in the colonies (if Washington was a "racist", why did he chose Bannergy ?).   We need to show them that is was Woodrow Wilson who "segragated the military and the government".  We need to show that HE was a racist and not George Washington.   We need to educate them on the meaning of the Constitution.  We need to read to them "The Original Argument" so they see that the Constituion is meant to control the government and not the other way around.     We need to show them that the "Articles of Confederation" show us that our founding fathers feared and oppressive government more than they feared anarchy.  We need to teach them that with FREEDOM, WE ALL WIN.  We may not agree with how each person uses that freedom, but we must all say to one another, " I will fight for your freedom as long as you fight for my freedom".   An example of this is gay rights.  I will fight for your freedom to be left alone and live your life your way, as long as you fight for my freedom to say I don't agree with your life-style and my religious belief it is wrong.  Together we can stand against the opressive government who wishes to destroy both of us.
 
As Ronald Reagan once said, "We will preserve for our children this the best hope for mankind on earth or we will sentence them to take the final step into a 1000 years of darkness". 
All of this means we must become educated ourselves.   We must take the time to read and research what we believe as citizens.  Maybe we too were in some way indoctrinated and we need to question even our own beliefs and ideas as well.  Maybe we are afraid of confronting our childrens teacher and
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The upside down pyramid

Posted by grad_1986 on Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:41:41 PM
    To understand what is wrong in our country and with our leaders you need to understand Jesus' words to his disciples about leadership. 

    Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

     You see the problem is we have have inverted the pyramid in our country.  We have all the power at the top and not at the bottom.  If you look at our past leaders, who stands out as our greatest leaders and what quality did they share?   Two that come first to mind is George Washington and the second is Abraham Lincoln.    Both of these leaders understand this principle and applied it to their lives.   I am not saying they were not "ambitious" but they were able to contain that ambition for the common good.   They truly saw their job as being a "servant" to the many.   Washington went back to being a farmer after the war.  When the Articles of Confederation failed, he did not go rushing off to Philadelphia to "fix the problem" or offer a solution with "himself at the center".   No!    They went to him to urge him to come back and fill this role.   His answer to those men was not "What's in it for me?" instead he responded "Have I not already given enough for my country?"   When Washington's had finished two terms HE decided that he was in office long enough and stepped down.  He could have run again and probably won.  But he knew HE was setting the bar for all future Presidents.  I think Washington followed Jesus' words on leadership.   He could have been made a king after the Revolution and he even had to go and show his frailty to a group of soldiers who were planning to take over the country and make him their king.   

      We need to find leaders like Washington today.  They are still out there, but you won't find them on the golf course or sailing a boat to Martha's Vineyard.   Most likely they are out their harvesting their corn or baling hay.   We just have to keep looking!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Get rid of the safety-nets

Posted by grad_1986 on Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:06:41 PM
     Today we hear our politicians talking about "safety nets" and how important that we have them.   We have grown up in an era where it was just expected that there would always be a safety net to catch us when we mess up.  However, when you think about the term "safety net" and what it means you see how it is the real cause of all of our ills. 

Reckless Behavior   
     The term "safety net" comes from the trapeze artists in the circus.   It allowed the artists to take on larger and larger risks up there on the trapeze without the fear of it being their last act.   They could do double and tripple summersalts and many other moves to entertain their audiences below.   While this is fine for the circus, this is not fine for the real world.  For unlike the circus,  the actions of those depending on the safety-net have consequences for others not taking the risk.   For example, those not saving money for rainy days or retirement.   Why should I waste my hard earned money for something that the government will take care of?   We saw this in the mortgage crisis.  People not saving their money but instead taking on riskier and riskier mortgages all so they can have the ever illusive "home in the suburbs".   Also, in this crisis, it was not just the people buying these homes that were lured by the safety-net, but also the banks and mortgage companies.  They were able to pass on these risky loans to government institutions like Fannie-Mae and Freddy-Mac and thereby take on riskier and riskier loans because the "government has their back"  (safety-net).  When risks are removed, people do increasingly stupid things.  

Safety-Nets or Hammocks
   The circus safety-net is to be used only for a brief period of time.  But if a trapeze artist fell and then decided to lay in the net and take a nap, would you not be demanding our money back from the circus?   You did not come to see I guy take a nap, but instead you want him to get back on the ladder and try the stunt again.   This is what has happened to our social-security and welfare safety-nets.   The have become hammocks for the lazy.   Rather than get up and try again at life, the welfare line becomes a way of life for them.  And as more and more people find themselves in the net, the net requires more and more support from us the taxpayers.  Like the circus-net, the net is only designed to have a certain number of people needing it at a particular time (1 or 2 performers).   This determines the cost of the net and makes it affordable by the circus manager.   If he had to make the net accommodate the entire circus company (performers, workers, animals) the net would be too costly and we would never see another triple-summersalt again.  Our government nets are breaking under the weight of too many requiring toomuch when too few pay taxes ( 51% of Americans pay no income taxes and the top 1% pays 50% of all the taxes).      

We need to get rid of our safety-nets.   We need to have people reap the rewards of their own behaviors (good or bad).  We need people to use their own inner desire for safety to protect them (and us) rather than hoping that some faceless government agency.   If we don't we will continue to "reap the whirlwind" because others are "sowing the wind" without ANY regard for us.  That is the only way for us to encourage others to change their ways. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We need more starving people

Posted by grad_1986 on Saturday, June 04, 2011 4:20:34 PM
   President Johnson in the 60's launched his "war on poverty".  He felt that we should spend our affluency on insuring no person goes malnurished and homeless.  Many lauded his plans as a great initiative that would usher in a new American era.  Now nearly 50 years later we are on the brink of bankrupcy and insolvency.  On top of that we have taken away from our country the driving force that has long made our country great..... HUNGER!   Often when we read the biographies of great men and women we find that in their stories a common thread.   They will recall their meager beginnings in small homes with little to eat or wear.  This will go on at length about how their parents worked multiple jobs and had to scrimp and save to buy their first television or car.  They will talk about how their parents urged them to do well school and pay attention to what was being taught because that was going to be their ticket to a better life.  They will talk about how this hunger for a better life drove them to making something of themselves.
 
   But where is that hunger today?  When union and government workers can make as much money as anyone with an advanced colleg degree why work hard in school?  Why even graduate from high school?   Where is the impetous to study long hours or stay after school to get extra help when needed?  Hunger is not pleasant, but its a much needed emotion and our country and government has done all it can to placate that feeling.  If you could genetically engineer a rat to not be hungry, it would starve to death in a cage full of food.
 
   We are now going the way of Europe.  Thinking that we can spend our time working 40 hours a week (and no more), with 4 week vacations abroad in the summer,  watching reality shows at night  and wasting hour upon hour on Facebook. Without the drive to push our children to do better than us, we are harming their futures.  We will soon become a nation of insurance salesmen selling each other worthless pieces of paper rather than a nation of creators and entrepreneurs.  
 
   So many are worried that our country may enter a second great depression.  But rather than fear it, I embrace the idea. A drepression is what we need the most.  We all need to know what its like to have nothing again.  We all need to learn to do with less.  We all need to reconnect with that which is most important:  God and Family. 
 
We need to become HUNGRY AGAING!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No one is every "under paid"

Posted by grad_1986 on Thursday, May 05, 2011 2:41:20 PM
      Have you ever heard people talking about a group of works as "under paid".   Have you ever thought about what that phrase means.   To me it means that some unidentifiable entity out there has measured the quality and necessity of various workers and has determined on their own what some one is worth.   What made me to start thinking about this was when my son who is 19 started earning a living for the first time as a "lube-tech" at a Nissan car dealership.  Even though he had almost 2 years of training at a major auto-tech-school, he started out at this level making $9.50 an hour. It was difficult at first and a bit depressing.  I encouraged him to keep looking and that this was just a start.  A few months later an Acura dealer called him (he left a resume several months ago) and they wanted to interview him for an auto-tech position.  He got the job and is now making $16 per hour.  
 
     When I looked at this I thought about the whole aspect of "under paid".   One might argue that in his first job he was "under paid" given his experience and training.  However we are not paid on our exerience, we are paid based our our contribution and our level of responsibility.  My son could have said "no" to the first job and kept looking, but instead he accepted it and when he did he made a conscious decision to VALUE HIMSELF as being worth $9.50 per hour.   When he took the new job, he was willing to accept the HIGHER level of responsibilty and VALUE HIMSELF as being work $16.00 per hour.  We are paid what we feel we are worth.  Since this is still a free country, no one forces us to work for a certain wage (except unions).   We have the right to say "yes" or "no" to the offer.   If my company gave me a 10% or even 20% cut in pay, I would still continue to work for them because I like my work and I would still feel good about what I am doing.  
      Are there "under paid workers" ?  Yes there are, just not in this country.  Go to China where people are forced to work in factories (and even live and eat there too) who cannot say "yes" or "no".   Those people truly are "under paid", but not here in our country.   So the next time you think you are "under paid", I would tell you this, until you leave that job (say no to it), and find something else to do, you are being paid EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE WORTH and not a penny less.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Big Bang... God's Gift of FREE WILL

Posted by grad_1986 on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 7:54:46 PM
      As an engineer who has had extensive math and science courses, I had often "hoped" that eventually science would come across something so bizzar that nothing could explain it except "creation".   Everytime however I have been disappointed.  Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that science has a answer for everything.  In fact, I believe science has often overlooked basic physics in its quest for answers and over sells itself to humanity.  A simple example of this is as follows: if I take a ball and use a video camera to capture the last few hundreths of second before it strikes the ground, I can determine by playing back the video the velocity of the ball and the acceleration due to gravity using simple mathematics.   However, looking at the film will NEVER tell me how long it took to hit the ground because I am missing 2 critical pieces of information: the height it started and the initial velocity.   Both of these variables effect the total amount of time the ball was in the air.  Physics is very good at predicting future events but very poor and determining past events.    Because of this, physics cannot tell you with 100% certainty how the universe came into being, because we are missing important "initial conditions" that we will NEVER be able to determine.  Science can ASSUME certain conditions but that is all.   Therefore if science cannot tell me where the ball started at, it cannot tell me how the universe started either as it does not have the initial-conditions.   

      Another problem science must also wrestle with is "complexity".   An example of this is as folllows: I can tell you with a very high level of certainty how long it will take a ball dropped from 64 feet to hit the ground (2 seconds).   But science cannot tell you with any level of certainty how long it would take a feather to dropped from 64 feet  will take as the other factors of drag, lift, rotation etc.. make it too complex of  a problem to solve.  Physics does have its limits to what it can achieve with high level of certainty.   But of course what is taught in our classrooms and on our TV shows gives kids the wrong impression about science.  They present an idea that science has all the answers to all the problems. (Its one reason I cannot watch the show "Numbers" because it gives a false impression that every problem can be solved with an equation or an algorithm but left out of the show is that the main character in the show has no way of determining all of variables in the equation without some serious guessing... yeah try to pass that in the court of law).   

      So what does this have to do with Big Bang and FREE WILL.  Let me explain...    God does not force ANYONE to believe in him.  For him its a matter of FAITH that we come to him and surrender ourselves to him.  In fact, he may have created this world using physical laws (that he of course created) so that if someone looked at the world could possibly see another way it all came into being rather than seeing God at work.  He will not stop us from creating gods of our own imagination ( physics, math, chemistry, biology etc..) that we are will to put our "faith" into and bow down to in submission.   In fact I believe if God created the whole world in 6 days and the world was indeed only a few thousand years old, that he would be ultimately taking away our free will to not believe in Him.  Think about it.   Science would look everywhere and see no dinosaur bones, no layers of sedimentary rock, no galaxies billions of miles away, no rocks dated to more than a few thousand years.   Everything would point to Genesis being 100% correct and therefore we would have no choice but to believe there is a God who created it all.   But God in his wisdom is not that controlling of us.   He gives us the option to believe or not believe.   Or I should really say to believe in God who loves us and desires us to be with him or to believe in a universe that is an accident of some strange interaction of a 11-dimensional M-brane that collided with another 11-diminensional M-brane causing our reality to come into existence (this is what they now believe happened and its all part of what they call M-theory or string-theory).   Both views require "faith' but only one leads to eternal salvation and hope.  

      But what about Genesis and its "6 days" ??   I believe what God tells us in Genesis is what we need to know.  I use this example.   Imagine our 5 year old who has just seen his brand new baby brother or sister  asks you that timeless question: "Where did I come from?"   You don't want to lie and tell him the stork brought you.  But at the same time is not ready for the whole story about the birds and the bees.  So you tell him this:  "A special love the only a mommy and a daddy can have was blessed by God and put you in mommy's belly".   Did you lie? NO!  You told him the truth in a way he understands and you have laid the ground work for that future conversation.  The same goes for Genesis chapter 1.  God told the Israelites what they needed to know.  That he was involved in his creation.  That he is a God of order and not chaos.  The he loves them and wants them to be with him.   He also communicates to them that they should be like him by working 6 days and resting on the 7th.  He did not lie.  I also believe God did infact "breath into us" and give us a soul (immortality).   The choice however to believe in him or not is up to us.   That is his gift of free will to us.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How much energy can we get from Solar Energy

Posted by grad_1986 on Monday, March 14, 2011 2:33:05 AM
  I went online today to find out how much energy can be collected from the Sun using solar panels.  One site made me laugh as it posted that the sun produces over  3.8 x 10^23 kw-hr of energy.  I almost fell of my seat from laughing.  This kind of junk science is used all over the world to push for "green energy" and it needs to be confronted.

1) We do not receive all the sun's energy.   The energy is spread of an area = 4*pi*r^2  (in our case r = 93 million miles).  Of that surface area we only collect   3.7x10^6 sq-miles in the United States. .  Doing the math,  we only receive 9.24x10-10 of the energy the sun produces leaving us with 12.9x10^12 kw/hr.  Still a large amount.. but lets continue

2) We only receive light for about 8 hours of the day and for much of the day the light entering the earth is not perpendicular to the earths surface but instead comes in a an angle.  On average much of the light coming in is only usable from about 9am-3pm (about 6 hours).  This reduces our "average energy by about 25%.   Therefore we are down to  3.23x10^11 kw/hr

3) We receive only about 10% of the energy the sun produces. The rest is either absorbed by the magnetosphere, the ozone layer or our atmosphere (without that we would all either freeze to death or fry like bacon).  So that reduces our energy down to 3.23x10^10 kw-hr. 

4) Not all the energy sent can be utilized for electrical conversion.  Of the spectrum of light only a 10% can be used).  Thereby cutting the energy down to 3.23x10^9

5) Now come the hard part... how much do we a lot for electrical energy development and how much for other uses like GROWING FOOD!   This is the part that many green advocates fail to recognize.  Every ray of light used by solar panels is a ray of light taken away for other uses like growing food or trees.   Many scientists have speculated that we could only probably be able to spare about 1% of our use-able land area for this purpose.  Germany saw what happened when the government made solar-farms so "economical" that corn, wheat and barley farmers stopped their farming and created a food shortage.  So if we take their recommendation of 1% we are down to 3.23x10^7 kw/hr of energy.

So how much energy DO we need every day in the United States?   Last census showed that we need about 5x10^8 kw/hr.  That means that solar energy can only produce about  5% of our nations energy.... MAX!   You are not going to get the sun to increase its energy output (unless of course it decides to go Super-Nova on us..but that is a different problem).


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Japan earthquake... a real disaster

Posted by grad_1986 on Saturday, March 12, 2011 2:36:08 AM
   Most of last week we watched a bunch of cry-baby-union workers yell, screaming and make a spectacle of themselves over losing their precious "bargaining-rights" in Wisconsin.  They acted as if their worlds had come to an end.  But now after seeing what Japan has been put through and seeing what it really means to lose it all, I hope these unions see what real hardship is.  But I doubt they will.  In fact, I am counting the days before I see a union worker holding a sign comparing the governor or legislatures to a "sunami" or calling for their fellow union members to create a "sunami of rioters".

Until then...

Our prayers are with the people of Japan and those who are there to help them.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Really?

Posted by grad_1986 on Wednesday, March 09, 2011 4:41:03 PM
My daughter and I are fans of Saturday Night Live (SNL), especially their "Really?" segment they do on the Weekend Update.  In this segment they take a story from the weeks news and lambast the person who has been arrested or fired for some stupid action on their part.  They tare it appart bit by bit and interject their discussion with the question: Really?
 
Today we have a major problem in Washington dealing with the ever rising debt.  The people spoke last November giving power back to the Republicans with the mandate to role in out of control spending.  The people are paying attention now and see that the debt is soon going to become, as Obama has said himself, "unsustainable".  But instead of dealing with the debt and cutting spending, our leader has decided to "double-down" and increase spending (but calling it: investing).
 
Really?
 
The Republicans have promoted cutting spending by 60 Billion dollars (though we have a 1.6 TRILLION dollar short fall.  This cut amounts to about a 3% cut overall.   But the president has suggested a meeger 6 Billion (or 0.3% from the budget)...To both of these parties I say ....
 
Really?
 
Harry Reid has said that the public depends on much of this spending and that without it, jobs will be lost.   To prove his point while speaking in the Senate, Harry uses the "Cowboy Poetry Festival" that receives money to support it.  That is as best as you can do Harry?...
 
Really?
 
To put things into context, if I make $80,000 per year and I decide to cut 0.3% from my budget that would amount to $240 per year that I won't be spending (or 65 cents per day).  Will the bank take notice of that and keep from foreclosing on my house?...
 
Really?
 
Do you get the feeling that many in Washington are just stalling?   Waiting for the debt to compound and finally become unsustainable? That is the feeling I am getting watching this all move in slow motion.  I have a nasty feeling that the same people that had 3000 page bills ready for voting when the Democrats took power in 2008 and waiting outside Harry Reid's door with 10,000 page "constitutions" ready to be ratified as a way to fix our "bankrupt government".   They have hated our republic for a long time and have done everything in their power to destroy it.   "We the People" need to step up and make our politicians listen to our voices and make sure this does not happen
 
We need to:
   - Stop Social Security (slowly over time)
   - Reduce our Military budget
      - bring home troops from Afghanistan and Iraq
      - close bases in Germany and Japan
      - get rid of ventures that will not pay off for more than 10 years.
    - Get rid of:   (especially since Obama apparently doesn't talk to them anyway)
      - Dept of Education
      - Dept of Energy
      - Dept of Housing and Urban Development
    - Defund the arts and other non-essential parts of the budget (NPR and PBS)
 
These are the thing REAL Americans would do if they were in charge.
 
 
These are the things we need to do
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

State workers don't pay taxes

Posted by grad_1986 on Monday, March 07, 2011 1:32:26 AM
   Looking at the title you probably thinking that I am off my rocker.   But the truth is ... they don't pay taxes... not really.  To illustrate this let me suggest this comparison:

   Let's say I agree to work for a company for $1000 per week.  They pay me on every Friday at 5:00. I work my first week and go to collect my paycheck.  The lady at the pay window hands me 2 checks: one for $800 and the other for $200.  I am about to take the 2 checks when the lady pulls back the check for $200.  I tell her I agreed to work for $1000 per week so I need the other check.  She tells me that the other check is a "company tax" back to the company and it will be used to help pay all the OTHER workers in the company.  A week goes by and I go back to the pay window and the lady repeats the same scenario over and over again.  In fact its the SAME $200 check I am given and then take away each week. 

   What I am getting at is that government workers put money back into the government to pay part of their own wages the next week.  Their money never pays for a single road, bridge, school, airport or navy ship or military personnel.  In fact ALL government employees are not paying for the government to operate as their taxes are going to pay THEIR own wages.  But who pays for the other $800 in my scenario?   Answer: The private sector employee is paying that part.   THEY are the backbone of this country.. NOT the public employee. 

   Its time for the private sector to stand up and show the public sector who is in charge again!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I got your back!

Posted by grad_1986 on Sunday, September 05, 2010 2:45:58 PM
     I remember from the movie "The Blind Side" the phrase "Don't worry... I got your back" was used multiple times throughout the movie.  While watching an episode of "Ice Road Truckers" I listened to a trucker who was driving through a blizzard over frozen ice talked about the role of his faith in his driving that God was looking out for him.   Essentially God "had his back".  

    Last week on 8/28 we witnessed a rebirth of faith in God at the Restoring Honor Rally.  Faith has been so undermined in this country over the past 50 years,  that we have lost our reliance on God having our backside.  This has been done so as to make the people rely on the government when things go bad.  Nothing more illustrates this than what happened after Hurricane Katina.   While there were some stories of heroism and self-reliance, they were far and few between.  Instead people congregrated and waited for help to come from the government.  And then when it didn't come in the time they expected, they rioted and self-destructed.  The question was not "Where was God?" the question was "Where was George Bush?".    Some say we should change "In God We Trust" with "In Big Government We Trust".   But I think that is starting to change.  I think people of FAITH are not taking it on the chin anymore and are showing themselves once again in the public square which is encouraging.  What I think we need to show is that our FAITH is a BENEFIT and not a drawback in our lives.  Just as the truck driver who was driving on frozen lakes in a blizzard showed that his faith that God was looking out for him enabled him to do his job to the best of his ability.   The idea that God is there for you and has your back allows you focus on what you are doing and have a positive outlook for the future.  Do you think the founding fathers could think they could take on the world's greatest military power if they didn't have FAITH in God and that he would be there for them?  Really? 

    FAITH is the belief in things hoped for, in things yet to be.   It's not wishful thinking.   It's simple trust that God is true to his word.  Recently I lost my father who had suffered that past year from ongoing Alzheimers and Parkinson's disease.  I know my father's FAITH was strong and he knew his sin's were forgiven by Christ's suffering and death on the cross.   I was able to happy at his funeral, not just because he was not suffering anymore... NO!  But because I know for certain that I will see him again in the flesh and will be able embrace him in my arms again and see his smiling face.   I know the end of the story already. 

    We too know the end of this story as well that we are living in now.  We know God does not support tyrrants, those who are against freedom and who subvert faith in him.   We can confidently stand for our principles and know that God will have our back-side.  We still have a lot of hard work to do going foward (he is not going to do it for us) but we can trust in him in FAITH.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mosque location NOT a 1st Amendment issue

Posted by grad_1986 on Saturday, September 04, 2010 3:03:15 PM
     People today are confused about what the 1st Amendment is really all about.  I constantly hear people arguing that telling the Muslims that they cannot build their beloved mosque near ground zero infringes on their 1st Amendment rights.   But the 1st Amendment has NOTHING to do with location, purposes or even sizes of buildings.  It has to do with their BELIEF.  It says that government cannot tell you what to believe, not believe, or worship in a certain way.  The government (in this case New York City) reserves the right to control WHERE you worship and other building codes.  For example,  the city can limit the number of people who can enter the building so in the case of an emergency they can all exit safely.  My church for example, was required to make sure our communion rale area always has 1 opening for the servers to exit in case of  an emergency.   We were also required to do neighborhood surveys before we built our church to insure the people living in the area would be okay with more traffic on sunday morning and a little more noise.  The result of the survey required us to build a 7ft sound-wall to cut down any possible noise from the cars. 

     Therefore telling the Muslims that they cannot build their mosque near Ground-Zero because it will cause emotional harm to the residents of  New York is NOT infringing on their 1st Amendment rights as long as New York City is telling them how to worship or what they can believe as Muslims.    We are saying Muslims are not welcome in New York City, New York State or even in our country.  We as citizens are only requesting that they respect our feelings
 
     Finally, supporters of this mosque must realize that Americans are not stupid.  We know from history that Muslims use mosques as symbols of victory over their enemies.   Muhammad used religion as a way to unify the arab people and also to fortify the cities he conquered militarily.  By leveling the enemies religious temples and symbols and erecting mosques around Islamic myths and legends he would be certain that those cities would forever be under his peoples control.   This mosque near Ground Zero is nothing more than a victory dance on the American  symbol of power and wealth.  Only a fool would think otherwise 
 
  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Imagine the World's Most Safest Car

Posted by grad_1986 on Monday, July 12, 2010 3:59:03 PM
   Imagine for a moment GM has just developed the World's Most Safest Car.   So safe infact that they are willing to pay 10 Million dollars to the family of any person who dies in a car accident when driving this car.  

    How will it work?  The car will detect milli-seconds before an impact that its about to be hit.  It filll the space in side with air-bags deployed from every angle imaginable (bottom, top, left , right, front, back) thus totally immobilizing the passengers as the passenger compartment (made of a titanium alloy) allows no crushing damage to harm its inhabitents.   The cost of one of these cars?   1 Million Dollars.  (Hey you can't put a price on life or safety!).   So who can afford this kind of luxury?  Only the super-rich will be able to afford it of course.  Now one may think that, "Ok,  I guess if they can afford it so be it.   It doesn't impact me though".   But actually it DOES impact you (maybe even physically).   

    Imagine one of these cars being driven by the owners teenage son knowing that he is SUPER-SAFE on the road. Also imagine that this teenagers father is very well connected to the legal system and will make sure no financial or legal harm comes to his son.   Will it change his driving habits?  You-Betch-Ya it will.   After all THEY are covered.  But of course you the poor slob on the road that cannot afford one of these vehicles will NOT be so lucky as you will most likely not live thru an encounter with one of these vehicles.  

   The scenerio I have outlined is exactly the scenerio we have created for companies we have bailed-out over the past couple of years (Freddy and Fannie mostly).  By bailing these people out we have given them a finanical-safe-car to drive recklously around and possibly injure other people with.   Knowing "daddy" won't let any harm come "junior" and that they will not pay for any of their mistakes they will continue to drive-our-economy with recklous abandon and WE will be paying with our very lives for their decisions.  We need to return this country back to the basic principle of "personal-responsbility".   We need to tell Washington that we are not going to "share-the-road" anylonger with people who do not share the same level of concern for their safety as we do ours.
  

     
 
  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234567891011Next »