|
|
“You having trouble?”
Well, yeah. Getting to CPAC isn’t cheap. The travel costs and lodging range from $600-$800 for me, so yeah. I need some help.
That’s when he handed me $50. A reader and a driver donated 25 times more than I was asking.
That brings to over $150 raised, but it’s far short of what you donated in years past.
One cup of McDonald’s coffee is all I ask for you to give. $1.
Please donate:
A Des Moines area father was left in slack-jawed wonder at the flier his child was given at the government school he sends his children to. The flier featured a couple of workers shackled to a machine working, with a fat, cigar smoking man behind the machine taking the products of the workers’ labor.
Above it read, “Capitalism.”
Juxtaposed against it was a picture of two happy and unshackled workers working at the same machine, but the products of their efforts now come right back to them.
Above it? “Communism.”
Here’s a part of it:
Text in the flier read:
“Communism stands for equal sharing of the work according to the benefits and the ability, but in capitalism an individual is responsible for his works and if he wants to raise the ladder,” the flier stated. “While the profit of any enterprise is equally shared by all in Communism, the profit in the capitalist structure belongs to the owner only.”
Small business owner Jeff Tavis couldn’t believe that communism was being taught like this in public schools, despite public schools being one of the 10 Planks of Communism:
“I’m a businessman,” Travis told Fox News. “I took great offense. I don’t smoke big stogies. I don’t have a big gut. My employees are not shackled. If this was a fair representation, where is the fence around the workers on the communist side? Where is the guy holding a gun to their heads saying either comply or die? Where are the bodies that Stalin and Mao put in the graves.”
Travis said he spoke to the principal of the school and asked for an explanation. It’s been nearly a week and so far – he hasn’t received one.
“I couldn’t believe how slanted it was,” he said. “It wasn’t given as an example of propaganda. It was given as an example of capitalism and communism. I can’t believe they would hand out something like that.”
Jeff, where have you been? This has been going on for a long, long time.
It’s a good thing he didn’t open one of the texts schools give students. He might have passed out.
Business Insider is soooo happy with themselves over finding what they think is a embarassing bit of hypocrisy on the part of the Susan G. Komen Foundation.
The Foundation recently decided they would stop donating money to Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the country.
In 2010, Planned Parenthood performed 329,445 and dispensed 1,461,816 morning after pills.
Komen is taking a lot of flak for ending the donations to Planned Parenthood, and Business Insider apparently felt the need to look at the financials of the foundation. They discovered something they consider scandalous:
So the Komen Foundation doesn’t want to be associated with the nation’s largest abortion-provider. But they don’t mind partnering up with a handgun maker.This gun is a beauty.
And a portion of the sale of each P-22 Hope Edition will be donated to the Seattle Branch of the Susan G. Komen Foundation.
So, the Komen Foundation decides to stop giving money to an organization that pushing abortions, an act that literally ends a life, and Business Insider thinks it’s hypocritical for them to accept donations from the manufacturer of a device that saves lives.
That’s right. Guns save lives:
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year — one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone “almost certainly” would have died had the gun not been used for protection — a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone “probably” would have died if the gun hadn’t been used in defense.)In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first — disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn’t make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn’t be called “newsworthy” by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare — well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers — and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm — martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns — gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender’s home.
If women are out there buying the Sig Sauer described in the Business Insider, it’s less likely they will get raped. That’s a good thing.
It’s not hypocritical for the Komen Foundation to accept donations from Sig, when they are in the business of protecting life, and deny donations to Planned Parenthood, who makes most of their money by ending life.
Watch the video and try not to cry:
But please, whatever you do, don’t read the hateful comments left by liberals on YouTube. They are vile.
The rumor mill was wrong.
My opinion that this “is a joke and a sad indictment of the state of politics today?” Not so much.
President Obama was trying to bring Jesus in as a class warfare warrior today, saying that as a Christian, Jesus expected him to fleece the rich:
The rich should pay more not only because “I actually think that is going to make economic sense, but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’” Obama said at the Washington Hilton, delivering remarks at an annual event that every president has attended since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
“We can all benefit from turning to our Creator, listening to him,” Obama said. “Avoiding phony religiosity. … This is especially important right now when we’re facing some big challenges as a nation.”
A bold statement, one I suppose he thinks bolsters his position. However, there’s a word in there that changes everything.
“Given.”
See, Obama isn’t talking about looting from those who have been “given” anything. He’s talking about shaking down the producers, the “creators” of profit, those who have, through their own industry, created wealth.
Jesus never said, “Eat the rich.” That was Lemmy.
If Obama really, truly believes Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’” let’s apply that to the recipient of government assistance. If you are given much from the benevolent government, shouldn’t much be required from you?
Without a doubt.
But it is considered an outrage that we would even consider doing a urinalysis on those who collect government assistance, despite the fact that those who were forced to pay for the assistance were often willing to provide a sample.
How about those who live in government housing? Should we expect them to keep the property clean and in good repair? They are getting much, should we not expect much? And “the projects” have become synonymous with filth and squalor. Why do we not have a squad of government employees who force the people who take advantage of the coerced charity provided by the taxpayer to keep “the projects” in good repair?
Why isn’t much required from them?
And why aren’t they required to show an increase in the skills necessary to stop being a good for nothing and start being a producer? Remember the story I put on the blog this winter about an Atlanta woman who was upset about not getting federal heating assistance? In the photo of her, you can clearly see a huge flat screen television and an XBox 360.
Why are those who enjoy the largesse of widespread government seizure of personal property allowed to spend money on such luxuries? Shouldn’t much be required, including the sacrifice of high definition television until you can pay for your own heat?
Why are those enrolled in the SNAP program not assigned someone to teach them how to get the most for their food dollar, in both nutrition and value? Instead, Democrats in the Senate won’t even consider a bill that prohibits that loot from being spent at strip clubs, liquor stores and casinos.
If Obama really wants those “unto whom much is given” to return much, start with those who are actually “given” their property. The rich, by and large, have created their wealth.
During a Hangout on Google+, President Obama found it interesting that a woman’s husband couldn’t find a job, despite the fact that he’s been told it should be relatively easy for him to get employed as a semiconductor engineer.
He encouraged her to send him his resume. Now, apparently he’s working the phones to get this guy a job:
Wedel said that Google personally made sure that the resume got to the White House after the chat (“Of course it was ready to go, because he sends it out all the time,” she said). On Tuesday, the couple got a call from the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, informing them that President Obama personally made it a point to get the resume out to several Dallas Fort-Worth contacts. “Not everyone has Obama as a reference,” Wedel noted.
So, having solved all the other issues he needs to deal with, Obama has time to make some copies of this guy’s resume and get it to some folks he knows.
That sounds realistic.
No, really. I’ll bet that is exactly what is going on. Obama wants those optics. He wants America too believe he will go above and beyond to fix their problems.
True, Obama may have farmed out some of the more blue collar tasks, like making copies, but I’ll bet he’s worked harder on getting this guy employed than he has on getting Harry Reid to pass a budget.
I used to have every episode of Milton Friedman’s fantastic 1980 series “Free to Choose” on my computer. Then, after going through the hard drive when it was dangerously close to being full, I decided to delete them.
I didn’t watch them all and wish I had finished the series before I deleted it.
Now, not only can I finish the 1980 series, I can watch the 1990 series also.
FreeToChoose.tv has all of the shows on one site.
It’s just been bookmarked on my computer. You should maybe do the same.
And next time you consider watching something vapid like Celebrity Apprentice, give Milton a day in court. You won’t regret it.
#OccupyOakland Protestor Kills Parents
"It's crippling," she said. "This is politics, and we are paying the price."
"Kwanzaa is like a bad weave. People might kinda like it, but we all know it ain’t real."
