Monthly Archives: April 2015

TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY

There’s a photo going around on Facebook this morning that featured a quote from Senator Bernie Sanders, Independent from Vermont, and an avowed socialist democrat. The Senator states the following: “Today the House voted to give $269 billion in additional tax breaks for the families of the wealthiest 0.2% of Americans. Not only are the Republicans giving huge tax breaks to people who need it the least, they are simultaneously raising taxes on working families by ending earned-income and children’s tax credits that benefit 13 million Americans.

I wonder how many people will share this without actually checking things out.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted Thursday, April 16 to repeal the federal tax on estates, which affects few inheritances. According to Fox News, which most liberals hate, the federal estate tax is 40%, but exemptions limit the share of estates that pay it to less than 1%. The exemption is $5.43 million for a single person. Married couples can exempt up to $10.9 million. Larger estates pay taxes only on the amounts above the threshold.

I’ve always been against the estate tax. I think it’s immoral. First of all, it’s not the government’s money. It belongs to the people who have already earned it and have already paid taxes on it. For the government to come in and take 40% of someone’s estate is confiscation and it’s stealing.

Furthermore, I can demonstrate that it’s Communism. The philosophy of the Democrats in opposing the elimination of the estate tax is that these folks will still have millions left after the government takes what it wants. The government is deciding how much money someone should make and/or have. Remember, “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.”

This is not going to affect most of us, and it’s certainly not going to affect me. However, putting a quote from socialist Bernie Sanders out there stirs the pot and has the masses wanting to tar and feather anyone who is rich.

The quote goes on to say that the Republicans are simultaneously raising taxes on working families by ending the earned-income and children’s tax credits that benefit 13 million Americans. I’ve got news for you folks, that’s not true. The EITC and the children’s tax credits are not to expire until 2017. I did some research on this and through Google, I could only find liberal publications that were trashing the Republicans. While it appears that not extending these taxes has been talked about and that nothing is in place to make them permanent, what Senator Sanders says about this is false.

The federal government, in taking money that has already taxed, is stealing and one of the Ten Commandments says, “Thou shalt not steal.” Another of the Ten Commandments says, “Thou shalt not covet.” While it is certainly not for me to judge, but it seems that the taking of this money is stealing which many are proponents of. Also, when the Democrats say that it’s okay to take this money because these fat cats still have enough left is being covetous.

Instead of focusing on how much you hate the wealthy and how you would so like to punish them, wouldn’t it be better to focus on your own circumstances and channel all of this energy into making some money for yourself?

Facebooktwitter

YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS – BUT MAYBE LIBERALS CAN

Again, a liberal Facebook friend posted a link to an article in liberal publication Daily Kos. The headline read: “Tough guy Chris Christie wants to beat up on disabled, elderly when he’s president.” No matter what your political persuasion is, always double check, especially when you see something as “sensational” as this headline.

I can honestly say that since the Internet has come of age and I have been following politics and current events on the Internet, I’ve only seen one conservative post where the quote of a liberal was taken completely out of context and I commented back that it was. Also, there have been many times that a conservative article or headline sounded harsh and upon checking I found it not as bad as portrayed. I’ve seen a lot more on the liberal side where liberals either out and out lie or stretch the truth to the nth degree. A number of posts on this website illustrate just that.

According to this article in the Daily Kos, Governor Christie, speaking at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, called for reduced Social Security benefits for retired seniors earning more than $80,000 and eliminating the benefit entirely for individuals making $200,000 and up in other income, along with raising the retirement age to 69 from 67.

Are the liberals squawking or what?

Bernie Sanders, Independent Senator from Vermont and avowed socialist said the following, “What Governor Christie is saying is just the continuation of war being waged by the Republican Party against the elderly, against the children, against the sick, and against the poor, in order to benefit millionaires and billionaires. It is an outrage.”

I only have a bachelor’s degree plus I’m southern, conservative, white, and Christian. According to liberals, this makes me an unenlightened oaf which I readily admit that I am.

Isn’t it the liberals that hate the “well off?” Isn’t it the liberals that believe in re-distribution of wealth? Isn’t it the liberals that believe our economy is a zero-sum game and if you are doing well, you must have cheated to get there and should be punished by perhaps, stripping you of your wealth?

What Chris Christie is proposing is indeed re-distribution of wealth/punish the rich. Even though Chris Christie is a Republican, what he said is straight out of the Democrat playbook.

The purpose of this post is not to debate Chris Christie’s ideas about Social Security, but to expose liberals for what they are and to remind them of some things. Though, in the past, they have, on many occasions, proven that they are not capable of reading comprehension. I’m going to try anyway.

You liberals are for expanding the federal government, you’re for increased entitlement spending even when there is no money available. You’re response to this is, “tax the rich.” You resent people who work hard just to have something. You hate corporations who employee millions of people, produce goods and services, and create wealth. You want to take from those who have and give to the have-nots. Your top elected officials discourage the work ethic; and instead encourage folks to follow their dreams and not to worry about stuff such as health care. The government will take care of you. Your goal is to make as many folks dependent on government as possible.

So when Governor Christie suggests reducing Social Security benefits for those making over $80,000 and eliminating Social Security benefits for those making over $200,000, you should be applauding. I know you liberals have trouble understanding what you read, even though the academic elites are in your corner, so I’ll take it slow.

Social Security is not an entitlement, employees and employers alike contribute to Social Security with the understanding that one of these days they will get some of that money back. If you can grasp the fact that those senior citizens earning over $80,000 have put money into the pot and Governor Christie is wanting to take the pot away from them, you should be on his bandwagon, shouldn’t you?

But this is what you liberals are all about. You’re okay the pot calling the kettle black. You’re okay with telling lies and you’re okay with being unethical. Most of you refuse to have reasonable discussion with conservatives because you know you can’t win. Instead, you hurl insults and do your best to get off subject. I have a hard time calling you stupid because so many academic elites are in your corner. Maybe your intelligence level is that of a genius and you have no common sense.

You know what I really think. You do these things because you can. No one holds you accountable. The press, except for Fox News, which you hate, is on your side.

Even though the headline of the Daily Kos article indicates Chris Christie wants to beat up on the disabled, nothing is mentioned about Social Security disability benefits in the body of the article. So, I’m going to say it with no regrets, the Daily Kos is a worthless idiotic liberal publication and the people that work there sure give the appearance that they are worthless idiots also.

Facebooktwitter

PUBLIC EDUCATION’S RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

Since I created this blog, I’ve written on many political topics: the economy, foreign policy, business, ideology, liberal v. conservative, etc. However, I have written very little on the state of public education.

While I’m not an expert on public education, I have observed many things over the years and I hate to say it, but I feel like there’s a lot that’s negative about public education. I do have a lot of friends who are teachers in various public school systems, most of them elementary and secondary. Most of them are liberal; most, but not all. Of course, I have more differences with my teacher friends who are liberal.

I had a teacher friend, a couple of years ago, to comment that teachers were hated by so many people. I told my friend that the word hate was a strong word and I don’t know that people hate teachers, but I do know that many people do have some problems with today’s school teachers. I further indicated to my friend that there were two main reasons why teachers might not be liked among the outside world.

1. Teachers’ Unions: Alabama is not a union-friendly state and a lot of folks just don’t like the AEA, the NEA, or other teachers’ unions. They have a bad perception of them.
2. All teachers do is gripe. Every teacher I know gripes about how much work he or she has to do. I know it’s a lot of work and a lot of responsibility, but so are our jobs. I’ve worked very hard throughout my career, still do, and don’t see any end in sight. I do get tired of the attitude that school teachers are the only ones who ever had to hit a lick at a snake.

I was right, my teacher friend didn’t like what I had to say at all. In fact, she pouted about it.

A number of years ago, another teacher friend of mine and I went to the beach for a weekend. This was in the summertime, so my friend wasn’t working, but I was. On the drive home, she said to me, “Nancy, you have a perfect job, don’t you?” I was driving and almost wrecked the car. Then I unloaded on her for about thirty minutes about the problems I had at work.

She replied, “I had no idea how you felt. You never say anything.” Then she asked me if I had someone that I called at night and shared my day with.
“Not only no, but HELL NO! Why would I want to re-hash my day and why would anyone in their right mind want to listen to me?”
After that, she toned down her griping about her job.

Every time a new innovation is education is implemented, public school teachers gripe about it and say it’s not good and they do site some points. They’re against home schooling, charter schools, school vouchers, and just about anything that deviates from the old standard of a teacher with a class of students.

I can appreciate that. No one likes change, especially in their job. When you’re told that there will be changes in your company, changes in your department, changes in management, changes in employee evaluation methods, you cringe. I cringe. Most of the time, we’re not going to like the change and we’re not going to come out for the better. Again, I can see why teachers resist alternative education methods. They’re human, they don’t like change, any more than I do.

A bill that would allow charter schools in Alabama has just been signed into law by Alabama’s governor. Of course the public school teachers are out there squawking. There is a provision in the law that would allow someone without a teacher’s certificate to come in and teach. If I had taken all those courses and was certified, I wouldn’t like someone coming in who was not certified. I’ve had to deal with similar situations in my career and it can be humiliating.

I’ve also heard public school teachers say that charter schools are just an avenue for the members of the chartering organization to make money. Of course, that’s typical for a liberal to say, since most school teachers are liberals and liberals don’t want any of us to make money.
To the public school teachers out there; if you’re a proponent of the “one size fits all” type of school; that’s changing. And you’re going to have to accept that things are changing. We’ve all had to do it. There have been times when I’ve “sucked it up” and dealt with the change. However, most recently, I decided that I couldn’t endure the changes and left my company and started my own business. Remember the old one room school? What if the teachers had said “no” way back when?

As one gets older, it’s harder to adapt to change. I can remember when I was younger and those much older than me resisted change, particularly when it came to computers taking over everything. I heard so much griping and teeth-gnashing that I made a vow not to sound like an old fogey when I started getting older and things were changing that I didn’t like. Have I done what I said I was going to do? Most of the time; yes. Although, I do catch myself sometimes complaining. And when I do, I try to pull back.

Many school teachers began their careers when they are in their early twenties and remain a teacher until they choose to retire. In Alabama, you can retire after twenty-five years. There is no job that doesn’t change in that period of time. Even ditch digging and janitorial jobs are subject to change over long periods of time.

While people should speak up when they don’t like something, if you’re constantly dissing changes and new ideas, you’re going to be labeled an old fogey. If you start getting shrill and emotional, accusing people who don’t agree with you that they don’t care about education, you’re doing what all liberals do when conservatives are attempting to have a discussion with you. In fact, you’re doing what typical liberals do. So, I guess there’s no point in trying to have a discussion with you about anything.

Facebooktwitter

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OR ARE THEY?

In addition to administering Wing Nut Gal, I have a number of other business concerns, one of which is the design and implementation of websites for third party clients. After what took place in Walkerton, Indiana with respect to the closing of Memories Pizza, I made a business decision to discontinue website designing for third parties. Of course, the websites that I currently administer, I will continue to administer and for those who I have already made agreements with, I will design their websites.

As a website designer, I must and I repeat must have full control over what I put out in cyberspace that carries my company name. In other words, I must have the right to refuse business that I find objectionable.
Since it looks as though the government intends to force private business owners to accept business even if that business is contrary to their beliefs and standards, I wonder how many other small business owners may just give up and close their doors.

All businesses have their guidelines/rules within which they operate and they should. Some rules may be unreasonable and even stupid, but the business has the right to have these rules and operate within them. I’ve just about warned this example out, but I’m going to use it again. I own a cake baking business in the Birmingham, Alabama area and I refuse to bake Auburn cakes because I’m an Alabama fan. Now how smart is that and how long am I going to stay in business if I refuse to bake Auburn cakes? Not very long, I can assure you. That’s a stupid guideline, but I should have the right to have that guideline.

A wedding planner who hangs out his or her shingle in San Francisco’s tenderloin district and refuses to plan same-sex weddings will, more than likely, go out of business also if his establishment is not destroyed first by the tolerant left. Locating in the tenderloin district and refusing to do same-sex weddings is a stupid business move; but again, you should have that right.

I’m not a libertarian who thinks that the government should not be involved in businesses altogether. There are some necessary and humanitarian regulations that should be in place. If someone approaches you about a job in your company, you should either take their resume, give them a job application to complete, or at least get their name and contact information even if you have no jobs available. I also okay with the law that says you can’t ask a person’s age, gender, race, ethnicity, marital status, etc. Jobs should go to the best qualified candidate, period.

Now that I’m no longer accepting new website design clients, I will be restricting my income, thereby restricting the creation of wealth. I’ll be paying less in taxes and therefore, the government will be collecting less revenue. How many other folks are out there like me who are going to close their doors because they might be forced to accept business they don’t want to accept? Will there be any mavericks out there who will try to fight the tolerant left? I really hope there are. Am I a chicken for making this decision? Actually, yes I am. I feel that my personal circumstances warrant it, though.

As a result of what happened to Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana, I predict that many businesses will close because the owners just don’t want the hassle. Also, many businesses will be forced to shut down because of actions by the tolerant left.

Small businesses are the backbone of this nation’s economy. The tolerant left who is against all forms of capitalism has now found another means to take down capitalism and further its plan to make every one of us dependent upon the government for our livelihood.

According to rule 12 of Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) It looks like the tolerant left is doing just that.

Facebooktwitter

WILFULL IGNORANCE

According to allenbwest.com, former head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency under the current President, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn said the administration’s foreign policy approach has led to an “almost a complete breakdown of order in the Middle East” and described it with two harsh words: “willful ignorance.”

Willful means intentional and ignorance means without knowledge. So, the current President approaches foreign policy related to the Middle East, as someone who just doesn’t want to know what’s taking place there.

On January 3, 2014, newspapers reported that the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) had captured and raised its flag over Fallujah, where Marines in 2004 had fought one of the bloodiest battles of the Iraqi war. The Washington Post reported: “A rejuvenated al-Qadea-affiliated force asserted control over the western Iraqi city of Fallujah on Friday, raising its flag over government buildings and declaring an Islamic state in one of the most crucial areas that U.S. troops fought to pacify before withdrawing from Iraq over two years ago. The upheaval also affirmed the soaring capabilities of ISIS, the rebranded version of the al-Qaeda in Iraq organization that was formed a decade ago to confront U.S. troops and expanded into Syria last year while escalating its activities in Iraq.

The current President was asked where this was going now that al-Qaeda is resurgent in Iraq, Syria, and Africa by David Remnick of the New Yorker. His reply was as follows, “I think the analogy we user around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”

Mr. Remnick then indicated to the current President that the JV team he was describing just took over Fallujah. The President then responded, “But let’s just keep in mind, Fallujah is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology is a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.

In January 2014, the President viewed the situation in Iraq, particularly Fallujah as a local matter between jihadists, but now, the United States is striking ISIS targets in an effort to turn back its advance across Iraqi territory.

With the passage of time, the current President’s JV comment does look ignorant, so White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest is trying to cover up body odor with cheap perfume in suggesting that what is now known as the Islamic State was not the subject of the January 2014 conversation. In a Washington Post article, Glenn Kessler wrote that the context of Mr. Remnick’s question makes it clear that he was asking about ISIS.

The Middle East is a mess. In September 2014, the current President said that Yemen’s war on terror was a success. In January 2015, Shiite insurgents overran Yemen’s presidential palace, posing a coup-style threat to President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi. The U.S. was forced to close its embassy in Yemen and embassy personnel had to flee the country.

Now, the Secretary of State, under the direction of the current President has completed talks with Iran regarding their nuclear program. According to various news sources, only the framework of an agreement has been negotiated. I can’t imagine anyone in their right mind would think that Obama’s deal would keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But we all remember, “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” So I was expecting the current President to at least say that it’s a good plan and that we would have to read it to see what was in it.

However, the current President is now admitting the deal does no such thing according to caintv.com. Caintv.com goes on to indicate that even assuming Iran’s complete cooperation with all of the alleged terms, even assuming to cheating, even assuming they allow inspections when our side says they’re warranted, and even assuming no covert sites spinning centrifuges, we’re looking at a nuclear Iran probably sometime in the next decade.

The current President promised us that Iran would not have a nuclear weapon while he was President. It looks like the President has done just that. There may not be a nuclear weapon under his watch, but his watch ends in less than two years. What about the next President? Did the current President merely kick the can down the road? If Iran does get a nuclear weapon in ten months, will the drive-by media allow the President to blame Barack Obama like Barack Obama has blamed George Bush for the last six plus years? The Obama approach is to remove all threats of military action, remove all economic sanctions, trust Iran to keep its work, and then sign a deal that even he doesn’t claim keeps them from getting the bomb.

This makes me knot up inside. What is this President doing to the United States of America? Do we really think that Iran is going to cooperate with the terms of this agreement? They’re not! What scares me even more, though, is that this President is, at least, an admirer of Islam. Some folks out there say that he’s Islamic and that he bows to the east. I’m not going to say he’s Islamic; I’m just going to say that he is an admirer of Islam. On several occasion, he has said that he is a Christian.

According to wnd.com, at a White House breakfast, Tuesday morning, April 7, the current President took a swipe at Christians, saying Christians are supposed to love all their neighbors, but that he sometimes hears less than loving expressions by Christians. That concerns him. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I do it all the time. Humans are sinful by nature. Before stepping off into it, the President did “pull back.”
Now what about all the things that Muslims say about their neighbors and all the threats that Muslims make? He didn’t mention that.

I’ve always said and I will continue to say that this President’s goals are not to strengthen the United States of America and continue to strive for exceptionalism; rather the goals of this President are to destroy the United States of America and all that it stands for. Could this Iranian nuclear deal possibly have been negotiated so that Iran would deliberately put off developing and deploying nuclear weapons until this President is out of office, and then? Can you say “Willful Ignorance?”

Facebooktwitter