Vote on Tuesday

Are you voting on Tuesday? 

Have you truly considered your vote or are you supporting the same party you always have - even the same party your parents always did?  Or are you voting for the party your teachers and professors told you to support?  Or the party that you researched fifteen years ago and deemed good.

Your party has changed.  How do I know?  Because both parties have evolved over the years.  Your parents' party is no longer your parents' party.  Find out who is running it and what they stand for.

This is America.  Every voter is responsible for considering the pros and cons of each candidate.  Voting for a party is no longer acceptable.

My brother summed it up a while back.  He said, "I did not leave the party; they left me."

Be sure you know who and what you are voting for.  Make sure the policies the candidate supports are the policies you want to support. 

Our country is about to collapse under the weight of our debts and our policies.  Vote for the people you think will work for our survival.   All else is relatively unimportant. 

OofDah!  Make the right choices for our country.   My grandchildren are depending on you. 

Arizonians Quaking in Their Shoes?

Apparently the administration is sending Department of Justice (DOJ) personnel to "observe" at the polls in Arizona. 

Considering:

1. the behavior of this administration in regard to Arizona's state laws,
2. the administration's and the DOJ's attitude toward enforcing the federal laws applicable to the border, 
3. the administration's concession of a US zone along the border to the illegals and drug cartels
4. the DOJ's decision to let off the billy-club-wielding, threatening gangsters at the 2008 polls,

one has to wonder on which side of the law the DOJ people will be they get to Arizona.

As President Reagan said, some of the most frightening words in the English language are, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

OofDah!  That, I'm thinking, would be true in Spades in Arizona.  And they are accustomed to living next door to the drug thugs! 

Rally for Sanity Another Alice Moment

Another Alice moment.  The Rally to Restore Sanity.  A sign.  "I Support the Rally to Restore Sanity.  NAMBLA."

Hint MBL is for Man-Boy Love.  That's not my idea of sanity.  Not with boys in my family!

Another sign.  "I masturbate to Christine O'Donnell."  Held by some mother's daughter.  I'm sure she's proud of her sweet girl! 

I wonder, is the girl doing it to O'Donnell?  I mean is she offering it up as a gift?  Or does she mean "I masturbate, too, Christine."  I'm sure her English teacher is also proud of this literate girl.

Oh, yeah.  Sanity!   This rally was all about sanity!

Alice, are you down here in this rabbit hole?  Or are you inside the looking glass?

O'Donnell Guilty!

O'Donnell has been outed by a nasty kiss-and-tell story!  Yes, the New Jersey candidate has been indicted by an anonymous tattle-tale - a real sex scandal!

According to reports this damaging bit of smut relates details of a one-night stand --- but there is no intercourse involved!  How damning is that?!

And what kind of guy brags about a night for which he cannot claim a notch on his bedpost?!

Weirder and weirder - I feel like Alice in wonderland.

Terror and the Methodist Ladies Aid

Suddenly several suspicious packages seem to be floating around the world.  I don't want to trivialize the threat, but I heard on TV that authorities were profiling packages to help to identify any other threats.  Is that allowed?  Hasn't profiling, no matter how effective, no matter what the threat, been cast out of the law's toolbox?

Maybe they've thrown that limitation to the winds?  Maybe they'll no longer be watching members of the Methodist Ladies Aid in connection with terrorism originating in Yemen?

OofDah!  Maybe they acquired some sense??

The "View" from here is less than generous

I woke up this morning thinking about Joy Behar of The View.  Strange.  I never watch The View and my familiarity with it is confined to the coverage it gets on other programs. 

Sidenote: have you noticed how much the industry reports on itself lately?  We have become such a society of spectators that the programs people watch are increasingly part of the programs they watch!  Almost incestuous, wouldn't you say?

Back to the View and Joy Behar.  That woman seems very offensive.  Why would any woman speak of another woman in such terms?  She seems like a totally classless human being who should not be on national TV because of her ignorance and coarseness.  That kind of behavior belongs on the waterfronts of the 1940s.

Her victim, on the other hand, retaliated in a very classy way.  Flowers with a polite put down note.  How . . . well, how very classy! Not to mention effective.

You know, it has been reported that about 98% of blacks vote in a block for their own color.  I don't approve of voting on the basis of color or gender, but why don't women stick together a little more?  Just be a little more accepting of one another. Instead they are knifing one another in the back like thugs on (again) a 1940s waterfront.

I think it interesting that women who call themselves liberal, the meaning of which is open-minded, generous, and not prejudiced, exhibit the exact opposite traits. 

For one example, they believe in abortion for any reason, for any woman. Free choice, they say. I do not intend to debate the issue here but merely to point out that these self-defined open-minded, generous women, singularly are NOT open-minded and generous if any woman dares to choose differently from what they would.  Sarah Palin has been severely castigated for choosing to deliver a specially challenged baby, and Bristol Palin has received the same treatment for delivering a baby out of wedlock.  No, the "liberal" women absolutely do NOT believe in free choice.

And if those choosing differently from the generous liberals should happen to express their "Views" or be successful (even at dancing), the liberal knives are brandished threateningly.

Run the gamut of their beliefs and you will find the same lack of generosity and open-mindedness on most of the issues.  Not only unaccepting of other "Views," but downright mean and personally offensive. 

It seems in this election cycle that liberal women are extremely nasty toward conservative women.  It seems they cannot disagree without extreme personal attacks, branding their opponents with personally offensive remarks, names, and descriptions. 

What is the problem with them?  It's almost as though they are ashamed of or guilty for their own choices so NEED 100% compliance to justify them.  Just one woman deviating from their path is a challenge to their equanimity?

OofDah!   If they're that unsure of their choices perhaps they should revisit their convictions.  And perhaps choose a more generous "View."

Accusations "ist" going too far!

Motherhood used to be sancrosanct, now in the heat of the election, apparently it is sexist.

The TV was on, but I was busy and only peripherally heard the story.  I do not know the names of the people in the debate nor do I know where it took place, but apparently a woman cited her motherhood as part of her experience.  This was pounced upon as sexist! 

In the past, women were encouraged to cite their experience as mothers and homemakers when applying for a job.  After all, successfully handling a household and children requires great management skills, not to mention great patience.  Both of those attributes would be helpful in a political poisition, so I can see the sense in citing those skills in a political debate.

The detractors said men would not use fatherhood in a political debate.  Perhaps not, but few are actually deeply involved in the day-to-day management of their households and their children. 

I am so sick of EVERYTHING being labeled sexist, racist, or otherist.  I prefer hearing about motherhood as opposed to the "ist" labels. 

OofDah! Vote for anyone who refrained from "ist" accusations!

Who gets to vote

The craziness of politicians really comes to fore during an election year. 

In their boundless generousity, some pols extend a friendly welcome to all who will vote for their side, whatever the risks.  Their minions register anyone, felon or not, citizen or not, alive or not.  And the politicians stand behind those registrations - as long as they vote their way.

You see, there is no such thing as dishonesty or cheating in an election year.  Remember 2008?  Dishonesty or lying -- except in their own case -- then it was called it political expediency.

Unfortunately, in this great country founded on Christian principles, those principles of honesty have been shunned - even to the point of denying our heritage.  Shed the heritage, embrace lying and dishonesty, great idea!

So we have to guard against the practice of allowing absolutely everyone to vote, qualified or not, dead or alive.

Meanwhile, others are trying to give the vote to aliens, people who live here but have no interest in applying for citizenship and have no plan to give up their foreign citizenship, people whose allegiance is NOT to the United States.  Mexico and many of our illegal Mexican visitors openly advocate "taking back" our southern states; Arab terrorist supporters openly support the destruction of our country though they live here.  Many people who live here hate us and our country.

Should we let them vote to use our tax money to accomplish their aims? Let them vote to extend our welfare supports to millions in other countries?  Let them destroy this country?

Does no one see the danger in allowing these people a vote? 

OofDah!  Dead voters may be better than foreign voters.  Either may take us to hell.

Superman

Our very own super hero!  An American super hero!  Will he get his own comic book?

Who is it?  Well, it is the unassuming Harry Reid! 

He shyly told us himself, "I saved the world!"

Good thing he told us, else we'd never know.  Even after being fed the information, we're still having difficulty seeing it.

Anyone have any names for this latter day hero?  Superman is already taken.  Super Hare? Super Pol?

And what's his kryptonite? Truth?

Outcome Based Compensation

I'm not directly involved in teaching policies, but some of my friends are teachers, so I've been peripherally involved.  An interesting discussion is "outcome-based" teaching.  At first glance, this seems like a good idea.  Why shouldn't teachers' salaries be based on outcomes?  After all, their job is totally about pounding some facts into the kids' heads -- isn't it?

Now those questions lead to other questions like, "Are facts the most important things the kids learn?  Or is it important that they learn to think critically and how do you outcome test that?  Do we want kids to spout government-issued facts or do we want them to know how to dig up the evidence, evaluate it, and decide for themselves what the facts are? How do you outcome test that?"  Or how about this: "Should the kids be taught to be solid, upstanding adults with a work ethic and a sense of competition and a respect for innovation (the old-fashioned American individualist)?  And how do you outcome test that"

Then there are the questions of how a teacher can get better outcomes on government tests thereby earning more.  I'd say that if they can pick and choose their students, they can earn a raise.  Don't necessarily choose the thinkers and innovators, just choose those who've proven in the past they can memorize the official facts about things.  The good little robots.

Given choices, who will teach the average children?  Who will teach the special needs children?  And who will teach the real thinkers and innovators who may disparage the official facts?

But for the most part, teachers cannot pick and choose their students - at least not blatantly. At least, not yet.  So all the kids will at least have a classroom and a teacher.

Outcome-based medical care has also been proposed, and for all anyone knows, is already mandated in the monstrous healthcare bill.  Probably no one has read and interpreted the entire thing yet, so we still don't know what is in it.

But here's the thing: outcome-based health care is even more questionable than outcome-based teaching.  One big problem is that doctors can pick and choose who they will treat, and if their salaries are based on outcomes, why would they choose to treat difficult cases?  Who will take care of those people whose outcomes are questionable?

We all know of someone whose severe condition was considered fatal and who miraculously pulled through by the grace of God and the hands of a competent physician who was focused on helping, not worried about outcome figures that would be reported to the government.  Will people like this get care under an outcome-based system?

One of the great concerns regarding the health bill is rationing of care.  This bill dumps everyone, citizen or alien, legal or illegal into the health care pot.  If doctors can't possibly take all the patients who apply to them, why not take the sure-to-have-a-good-outcome patients?  They'll get paid for those.

But what happens to the questionable-outcome patients?

Will there be facilities where they can await their outcome without the attention of a physician?  Will they at least get comfort-aid?  Or will the outcome be hastened to save money?

OofDah! What kind of country have we become?

Catholics will be amazed to learn

O'Donnell had a boyfriend in high school who was into withcraft, so she explored it a bit back then.  Now, the opposing party says she is a witch. 

Paul may have been involved in a college prank involving AquaBuddha, whatever the heck that is.  Now, the opposing party says he is an AquaBuddhist.

When I was in high school, I visited the local Catholic Church several times with my friends, and I've gotta tell you the local Catholic Church is going to be amazed to learn I am a Catholic! 

But I must be 'cause that's how it works . . .

Unless of course you are Obama and sat in front of a ranting, radical, unAmerican "pastor" for twenty of your adult years.  Then you didn't know what was going on, did not hear a thing, and are not a radical.

Or unless you are Obama and attended a Madrassa for most of your formative years.  Then none of the brain washing touched you, and you are not a Muslim.

But in a matter of weeks the rest of us are utterly taken in.  OffDah!

Worth Anything?

Forbes Magazine named Michelle Obama the “most powerful woman in the world.” Huh?  She's the president's wife.  Shouldn't the title go to a woman who is powerful on her own? 

Can you picture Forbes giving a title of Most Powerful Man of the World to a U.S. First Dude who has no power on his own - just shares his wife's power?  I don't think so.

What a slap in the face to women who have power because of their own efforts!  What a slap in the face to all women.

This is on a par with giving Barrack a Nobel Prize.  For what? Being elected the President of the United States? Someone does that every four years, for crying out loud! 

Nothing means anything anymore because people play politics with awards that should be important. 

It is like passing everyone through high school, whether or not they accomplished anything or whether or not they can read -- and sometimes whether or not they bothered to attend.  That is why the value of a high school diploma has deteriorated. 

It means nothing, same as titles that are given out without merit.

OofDah!

Let the World In and Let Them Rule

For the first time ever, has our own government invited other countries into our courts?  Are they so wrong in their action against Arizona they can't stand on their own in the courtroom?  The unprecedented address of our congress by Mexico wasn't enough, but now eleven South American countries - Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru - are asked into our courtroom?

Could this be the beginning of fundamental changes in this country? Is a taste of the One World Order this administration has been espousing?

Isn't it strange that these eleven countries are not welcoming border jumpers in their countries, but they want to sit in our courtrooms and tell us we MUST make their criminal and undesirable border jumpers welcome - never mind the little mistakes of gun running, drug dealing, and human trafficking. And, oh, but welcome isn't even enough.  No, we must feed them, house them, and provide them with free medical care.  And more!  We should give them citizenship without question.

Under a One World Order, countries that hate our life style will be imposing their ways upon us. Countries that hate our prosperity will demand that we feed, house, and care for their citizens.  Other countries will impose their idea of justice on us - which may not allow us to speak freely, eat foods they do not approve of, or keep the money we earn.

Do we really want to live under a World Order?  We are now struggling with idle people demanding a portion of our income. Taxes high? Well, of course.  They have to be.

But under One World order, other countries, even (or maybe especially) those that hate us, will be demanding a portion from the US.  Taxes high?  Oh, yeah, they'll be even higher.  Welcome to poverty. 

OofDah!  As I've said before, sharing the wealth is a misnomer - a more descriptive name is sharing the poverty.

Nuclear Terrorism

Contrary to their assurances, Iran is already threatening us with nuclear weapons.  If our administration doesn't do SOMETHING about this rogue country, we'll soon be dealing with nuclear terrorism.

Reaching out a hand in friendship or appeasement is just dumb when dealing with people who will reach for that hand and detonate a suicide bomb in your face. 

OofDah!  Either this administration is gutless or just brainless.  Take care of the problem now!

O'Donnell - Two Opposite Extremes?

How can Christine O'Donnell be dangerous because she is too religious and at the same time be dangerous because she is a witch?  Interesting.  A religious witch. Really?

Does it seem Coons, the bearded Marxist, is flailing blindly at the pinata from all directions?

OofDah!  Politics!

Federal Land and the Illegal Alien

The federal government is making more grabs for western land.  Why?  They own huge portions of the west already, which is a detriment to the states, since the feds pay no taxes to the state as citizen land owners would do. (If you follow the link, the map may open very large but should adjust if you wait a bit.)

The Feds can't take care of their present holdings, so why grab for more?  They should be trying to increase the federal coffers, so why not sell off some of their holdings?  But instead they grab for more.  Surreptitiously.  And as is the habit with this administration, making an end run around Congress. 

Allow millions of illegals to jump the border while grabbing millions of acres of land?  Are the two connected?  Where will the illegals live?  Is the administration planning to cede the federal lands to Mexico?

That would be a quick way to make Mexican illegals legal, but will American citizens then be deported?  We know Mexico does not suffer illegals as they insist we should.

Sound a bit far-fetched?  Maybe.

But think about this, many in the administration want to bestow citizenship on millions of illegals who hate this country.  Millions of Mexican illegals think the southwest of US belongs to Mexico.  And when they become citizens, will they vote for ceding the southwest to Mexico?  Will they vote to extend all their US entitlements to all of expanded Mexico?

OofDah!

Pleas in a pod.

Insanity is a plea.  Here are two pleas in a pod.

Florida's Alan Grayson is a complete and total idiot, making Florida a laughing stock of the nation.

He is so unbalanced that if he followed me on Twitter, I'd carry a firearm and call 911.

But don't worry Florida.  You'll not be alone as long as Minnesota has Frankin, the freak of fake elections. 

Unfortunately most of their colleagues are just as deranged; it just isn't so blatantly obvious.

OofDah!

What is a Fair Trade

Should the government give you money?  Take care of you?  Provide for your needs?  Give you a car?  Keep you safe? Pay for your health care?  What would you give in return?

I've been thinking about a blog I participated in a year or two ago.  It was set up to facilitate quick give and take, more like an open conversation.  It was interesting, but I didn't like the name-calling and the nastiness that resulted. I enjoy discussing the issues, but the name-calling, not so much . Anyway, you get the idea of the informal format.

I've been thinking about one particular give and take on that site.

A person posted a comment that I surely thought must have been ill-considered and replied, "You just said you would be happy to give up your freedom for ten dollars.  You could not mean that."

The answer, "Sure, wouldn't you?"

So what's your price?  What would you take to give up your freedom?

The War Against Business

Is class warfare on the rise in the US?  It would seem so.  Many people denigrate business owners.  Rarely a day goes by without someone disparaging business. It is the new fad. Somehow business people have become the scapegoats, the bogeymen.

Trouble is, the critics often are people who have been told to hate businesses and business owners.  Many know nothing about business, and instead of thinking about it and reasoning out a stance, they just hate businesses and business owners, because it is easier to do as told.

The truth is, just as in any sector, there are those business people who abuse their positions, but the majority are only concerned about making a living and gaining enough profits to retrieve their investment, hold onto and improve their businesses, and pay enough dividends to encourage investors to help with expansions, which create more jobs.  Yes, along the way, they provide jobs for people. JOBS. You know the activities that allow other people to feed their families, too.  Profit is a good thing, not a dirty word.

What's very interesting is that some of the people who are encouraging other people to hate the dreaded businesses are the Union Big Bosses.  You know, the people of the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and other alphabet labor organizations.  Maybe they do it to draw attention away from their bad behavior. 

These organizations produce nothing, but collect dues from workers, make huge amounts of money feeding off the worker, then use millions to line their own pockets and other millions to support candidates that the worker may not wish to support. Is your Union pension fully vested?  Or have the Union Bosses squandered it into deficit?  How many of the Union Bosses make more than the CEOs they denigrate?

True, unions do things for the worker, sometimes even good things, but is encouraging them to demand so much in pay and benefits that the paying entity goes broke and can no longer hire anyone doing the worker a favor?  Wouldn't it be better to work with the paying entity ensuring that the worker gets FAIR pay and benefits, while leaving enough so the business can continue to provide jobs?

But it seems what the HATERS want is to suck the businesses dry.  Then blame the business owners or managers for the failure and the loss of jobs.

OofDah!  Businesses can't win.  Hated if they make a profit, hated if they don't.

Californians - Split Personalities

California is at it again!

The Cals are for illegals, they are for hiring them. they are for paying them well.

BUT

Not if Meg Whitman does it! 

Reminds me of Cals pushing for a morality law regarding no cursing in public, but also supporting weenie waggers in public parks.

Reminds me of Cals backing anti-smoking laws, but also supporting legalizing marijuana.  (I still want to know what the heck they plan to do with the doobie, certainly can't be planning on smoking it!)

OofDah!  California - a nut house full of schizophrenics.

Chicago Thuggery

Emmanuel's exit from DC was marked with references to his temper and his vulgar language, essentially a bow to his Chicago-thug behavior.  In addition, reportedly Rahm Emmanuel was presented with a dead fish. 

This was met with laughs.  Is it funny that the dignity of the White House has been replaced by Chicago Thuggery?  Isn't this the same bully behavior we're so concerned about when we see it displayed in young people?

Do we have trickle down bullying?

OofDah!  We need grown-ups in the White House!