Showing posts with label liberal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberal. Show all posts

Monday, November 21, 2016

In the wake of Facebook's News Feeds, we have this! AND IT'S AN OLD STORY.

WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR NEWS?
From Business Insider's Pamela Engle, Oct 21 2014.
News outlets like CNN and ABC News might have the biggest audiences, but they're not the most trusted across-the-board in America.

The most trusted news outlets in America, according to a new study from Pew Research Center, are actually British.

BBC and The Economist top the list of outlets that are trusted by every ideological group, while BuzzFeed and The Rush Limbaugh Show are at the bottom.

Conservative-leaning news outlets seem to be the least trusted among those with a mixed political ideology. Liberal-leaning outlets like Mother Jones and ThinkProgress also rank lower than major media players like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.

The news outlets that are considered trustworthy by every ideological group don't equate to the most popular outlets, however.
Americans say they get most of their political news from local TV, Facebook, and major networks like CNN and Fox News.
CNN and Fox News both had a high trust rating overall, but there is more of a dispute between ideological groups about whether they're trustworthy. For example, 88% of consistent conservatives said they trust Fox News, but only 14% said they trust CNN.
For the study, Pew surveyed a representative sample of randomly selected Americans.


DON'T BE BLUE

Monday, October 31, 2016

“Can’t We All JUST Get Along?”



“Can’t We All JUST Get Along?”
Famous words from the past that still deserves an answer that we won’t accept.
“The lie behind the buzzword of diversity could not be made more clear,” Thiel said Monday.
“If you don’t conform (to their ideology), then you don’t count as diverse, no matter what your personal background.”

So are we talking about RELIGION, RACIAL ETHNICITY, HERITAGE or WHAT?

Immigration reform is more than just installing a "religious test" for immigration, like banning Muslims. It's about looking for extremists regardless of religion.

It's not about keeping individuals from certain countries or religions out, but about looking at why they come here and what they do here.

It's about putting those who want to legally immigrate and go through the proper steps in front of those that don’t. Those that do go through the proper procedures, should be given preference to be allowed to live here and accept the more vigorous scrutiny of their circumstances. It's about if they should be allowed to live here. 
If they want to live here, they should want to belong here. They should want to assimilate into the society of law-abiding citizens that live here. They should want to accept our culture, even if it interferes with theirs. They should be allowed to bring in those parts of their culture that don't interfere with ours. They should want to speak our language and help us to understand theirs.

Not everyone who is here illegally is a bad person who has a violent or criminal behavior; many are hardworking individuals with a moral upbringing. They aren't all into theft, drugs, and violence, but the good ones should not be given preference over those who legally go through the proper procedures, and those who are born here should only be given citizenship if one of the parents is already a citizen.

It appears that the many religions have the same view of God, but differ in interpretations of the words of God. It's interesting that the words and ideals attributed to God are essentially the same, before religious inflection is applied to them.

I think I heard that God will accept anyone in heaven if they repent, but I could be wrong about that, it may depend on which religious leader I ask.

What's most interesting is that if you convert from one religion to another, it doesn't make a difference which one, you most likely aren't going to Heaven, but it might keep you out of Hell and at least with one religion it may keep you from being killed.

Are we teaching our children to respect authority or reject authority? Is that a biblical teaching regardless of which religious tome you read?

It’s ok to question authority, but if your only action when confronted with those in authority is to provoke a reaction to a perception, either real or imagined, by causing a violent act in defiance of authority, then who was your teacher and what were they teaching?

We can’t all get along together if we don’t try to get along together and not act like a thug or criminal and disrespect any act of authority.

If you want to be treated like a law-abiding person you have to act like a law-abiding person and let those who are videotaping the action help to prove the action was right or wrong.


In God We Trust; religion or amoral activism, not so much.

DON'T BE BLUE

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Top 25 Radio Hosts


OK, I'm admittedly a conservative, sometimes called a Republican. Don't call me a Rightist and I won't call you a Leftist. Where do you get your news?
Left Right Left.

Here's the kicker. Liberal radio stations don't want to be called "Liberal", they call themselves "Progressive"?

NewsMax Top 25 Radio Hosts and I've listened to most of these at sometime and I doubt I've listened to more than 15 minutes of any one of these, they usually get to ranting about something after 10 minutes.

1. Rush Limbaugh is more than America’s most widely listened-to talk-radio host (“the most listened-to radio host on the planet,” he likes to say).
Take almost anything he says with a shot of JD, about 15% of anything he says is worth listening to and if he gets on a rant, which will usually happen about 2 minutes into a topic, change the station.

2. Bill O’Reilly has established himself as one of the nation’s top media personalities. Every week he finds occasions to agree with something a prominent Democratic politician has said, although O’Reilly has also remarked that “the Democratic Party has been hijacked by the far left.”
By that standard he will say something "Nice" about something from a Democrat about one in 5 times, again about 20%, but for the most part I consider about 40% of anything he says as worth listening to, until the ego trip.

3. Don Imus is the most curmudgeonly of America’s major talk hosts. Although "slightly" liberal, Imus’s sharp tongue slashes Republican and Democratic politicians alike.
He likes to rant a lot, which means I will change the station after about 5 minutes. Maybe 10% of anything he talks about is worth listening to.

4. Michael Savage is individualistic, iconoclastic, and eclectic; a passionate populist who sometimes sounds like a shock jock.
He yells a lot and may even start off in a rant about something which I don't care about! I usually can't listen to him for more than 5 minutes. Again about 10% of anything he talks about is worth listening to.

5. Sean Hannity is a talk host with a pugilistic demeanor who polarizes issues into contests between good guys in white hats and bad guys in black.
I can usually listen to him longer than others, I may have listened to him for more than 15 minutes at any one time, but not often. About 30% of anything he talks about is worth listening to.

6. Laura Ingraham, whose insider knowledge of government, droll humor, and feisty, fervent conservatism keeps her at the top of Conservative Talk Radio.
I can listen to her for about 15 minutes, or until she goes on a rant about her views on abortion. I can sometimes stand her for more than 15 minutes, but only about 20% of anything she talks about is worth listening to.

7. Glenn Beck’s relentless good humor can make important topics seem less urgent.
He can get into a "holier than thou" attitude, then it's change the station. I even have one of his books, about a Christmas Sweater. Again, usually 15 minutes is about all I can take, but about 25% of anything he talks about is worth listening to for me, until the God rant starts - and sometimes he starts with it.

8. Dr. Laura Schlesinger is seen as a cultural and political talk host because she — sin of sins — judgmentally asserts that some politically correct behaviors are wrong.
I think I've listened to her for more than 20 minutes and think about 30% of her topics are worth listening to.

9. Neal Boortz, “the talk master,” is America’s most popular Libertarian talk-show host.
I can take maybe about 2 minutes and less than 10% of what he talks about is worth listening to.

10. Al Franken, the brightest star of Air America Radio, is the left’s latest attempt to create its own Limbaugh.
They admit it's a Leftist radio station and host, not just liberal, which means right away it's over the top and extremely bent. Let's see, Minnesota had Jesse Ventura (R) as a governor and decided to tip the scales back to center with Al Franken (D) as a Representative in Congress. They overtipped. As soon as I hear his voice, I know about 2% of his topics would be worth listening to, for maybe 30 seconds.

11. Mike Gallagher a talk host in the Hannity style who sees right vs. left as right vs. wrong,
and as far as extreme views go, he's half right. I can actually stand him for about 20 minutes and think about 30% of his topics are worth listening to.

12. Erich “Mancow” Muller is known for his wild behavior. His show features a large cast of characters, adolescent pranks.
Not a serious show, so unless you really want to screw up your head, don't bother unless you're an airhead.

13. Howard Stern, the self-proclaimed “king of all media,” is a talk-radio superstar whose audience once rivaled Limbaugh’s.
A real shock jock with nothing worth listening to, again don't bother unless you're an airhead
OK, here's the deal, when is the last time you actually ate at a restaurant with a "B" rating? And Howard is a "C", at best.

14. Bill Bennett’s radio show, Morning in America, was launched in April 2004. On the air he often exhibits the patience and certitude of a priest.
5 minutes, tops, then that's it and about 10% worth listening to, if you can get past 5 minutes.

15. Opie & Anthony epitomize radio’s new “cringe” shock jocks.
Airheads only, couldn't get past 30 seconds.

16. Ed Schultz a converted “moderate” Republican is now a “progressive liberal.” Schultz describes himself as a “gun-totin’, red meat-eatin’ lefty” out to slay the “right-wing radio dragon.”
So, by his own definition, about 5% of his topics are worth listening to, for maybe 2 minutes, before he goes on a rant.

17. Michael Medved the self-described “cultural crusader on politics and culture” has always enjoyed debating politics.
Good for maybe 20 to 25 minutes max, about 25% of his topics are worth listening to.

18. Randi Rhodes is the main “hit man” at Air America Radio, the liberal network. She has been described as, “a chain-smoking bottle blonde. The Miami Herald says she's mostly, rude, crude, loud, brazen, gleefully scatological.”
Less credible than Al Franken or Keith Olbermann. 30 seconds max and nothing worth listening to.

19. Jim Bohannon describes himself as “a militant moderate”, soft-edged liberal.
Apparently he's retiring anyway.

20. G. Gordon Liddy has brought unique insights about government and the world, and convicted in the Watergate scandal.
I can actually listen to him and Oliver North for longer than most pundits.

21. Diane Rehm is one of the more moderate voices empowered by taxpayer-supported NPR.
But then again, NPR is 100% liberal, if not tipping too far to the left, so I don't listen to them.

22. Larry Elder is America’s pre-eminent libertarian-conservative African-American radio talk show host. He coined the term “Victicrat” to describe those who seek political power by claiming to represent victims of racism or poverty.
I can listen to him for 20 minutes or more and about 45% of his topics are worth listening to.

23. Michael Reagan’s radio show is a forum where Republican voices and conservative values come together.
The son of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, he has a large legacy to live up to. He's also good for about 20 minutes.

24. Tammy Bruce is living with one foot at each end of the political spectrum, she has both conservative and liberal critics. She describes herself as “a pro-choice, gun-owning, pro-death penalty, openly gay, voted-for-President-Reagan progressive feminist Democrat”.
If she can stay on topic for 5 minutes, without the ego trip, I can listen to about 15% of her topics.

25. Tom Leykis, the poor man’s Howard Stern, used to focus on politics and boasted that his was the only radio show “not hosted by a right-wing wacko or a convicted felon".
Any reference to Howard would make me change the station, but I can actually take him for about 15 minutes on about 20% of his topics.

It's all about the business.

"Some of the progressive or liberal shows had just been sold to Al Jazeera. it's clear that the progressive community and its political leaders have simply not supported the format in the same way that the (conservative format) has. As someone who took substantial personal risk in syndication and station ownership, I can tell you that progressive talk has not panned out as a viable business. Air America's parade of management blunders produced the downward spiral that brought us to this tipping point for progressive talk radio, and most station owners, rightly or wrongly, see that failure as an indication that audiences won't support liberal talk radio."
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14355-an-insiders-view-of-the-progressive-talk-radio-devolution


DON'T BE BLUE

The 50 most popular liberal websites

OK, I'm admittedly a conservative, sometimes called a Republican.
Don't call me a Rightist and I won't call you a Leftist.
Where do you get your news?
Left Right Left.

Their list, not mine:
Newspapers are off the list for two reasons. Number one, people reading newspapers for reasons other than political content; Number two, since most newspapers lean to the left, they would have dominated the list.
These websites were ranked using Alexa Web Analytics.

 All 50 websites are listed with their Alexa rank following their link. So for example, a “1” would mean the page was the most popular website on the net. A “100,000” would mean the 100,000th most popular page on the net. With that being said, let’s go ahead and take a look at the rankings.
The number beside of each website represents its overall rank on the Internet.

1)  CNN: 52
2)  The Huffington Post: 393
3)  Time: 553
4)  NPR: 1,524
5)  Slate: 1,569
6)  Newsweek: 1,690
7)   U.S. News & World Report: 2,408
8)  Politico: 2,470
9)  Salon: 2,455
12) The Atlantic: 8,538
13) The Village Voice: 8,922
16) New Yorker: 12,429
17) The Daily Beast: 12,512
23) MoveOn: 21,786
24) Mother Jones: 22,277
25) Amnesty International: 23,807
27) The Nation: 24,552
28) Antiwar: 24,799
32) Planned Parenthood: 28,207
33) Information Clearing House: 28,605
37) Political Wire: 34,698
39) ACLU: 37,195
40) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: 37,494
41) Media Matters: 37,650
44) Drudge Retort: 41,472
45) The American Prospect: 42,082
46) Harper’s Magazine: 42,659
47) Firedoglake: 42,836
48) TruthDig: 44,389
49) Wonkette: 45,704
50) AmericaBlog: 45,195

Honorable Mentions

51) FiveThirtyEight: 46,521
52) The Washington Monthly: 48,238
53) Michael Moore 48,918
55) Air America: 54,928
58) Center for American Progress: 58,713
59) The Brookings Institute: 61,302
60) Zmag: 65,741
http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/the-50-most-popular-liberal-websites/#ixzz43mb7ZOOy



DON'T BE BLUE

The 100 Most Popular Conservative Websites Of 2015



OK, I'm admittedly a conservative, sometimes called a Republican.

Don't call me a Rightist and I won't call you a Leftist.

Where do you get your news?
Left Right Left.

Their list, not mine:
Newspapers are off the list for two reasons. Number one, people reading newspapers for reasons other than political content; Number two, since most newspapers lean to the left, they would have dominated the list.

These websites were ranked using Alexa Web Analytics.

The number beside of each website represents its overall rank on the Internet.




1) Fox News: 212
2) Wall Street Journal: 294
3) Independent Journal Review 341
4) The Drudge Report: 635
5) Western Journalism: 819
6) New York Post: 870
7) The Blaze: 1045
8) Breitbart: 1,533
9) WorldNetDaily: 2,500
10) Conservative Tribune: 2,555
11) Newsmax: 2,622
12) Young Conservatives: 2972
13) Infowars: 3,133
14) Top Right News: 3,203
15) The Washington Times: 3,241
16) The Daily Caller: 3,328
17) National Review: 4,379
18) Rare: 5,159
19) Real Clear Politics: 5,617
20) PJ Media/Instapundit: 5,799
21) TownHall: 6,643
22) Investor’s Business Daily: 6,930
23) Hot Air: 7,136
24) The Washington Examiner: 7,372
25) Reason: 7,882
26) The Washington Free Beacon: 8,176
27) Qpolitical: 8,564
28) Twitchy: 8,783
29) The Weekly Standard: 9,124
30) Cybercast News Service: 9,154
31) Free Republic: 10,125
32) Right Wing News: 10,545
33) Chicks On The Right: 11,575
34) Newsbusters: 12,674
35) Mad World News: 13,110
36) The American Thinker: 13,279
37) The Gateway Pundit: 14,301
38) The Tea Party News Network: 14,928
39) Glenn Beck: 15,422
40) Freedom Outpost: 15,869
41) The Heritage Foundation: 15,991
42) Lifesitenews: 16,045
43) Buzzpo: 17,949
44) The Federalist: 17,512
45) The Federalist Papers: 17,759
46) Shoebat: 17,976
47) Power Line: 18,615
48) The Rush Limbaugh Show: 19,421
49) Lew Rockwell: 20,179
50) Watts Up With That? 21,357
51) Bizpac Review: 21,506
52) Redstate: 22,625
53) Life News: 22,747
54) Clash Daily: 23,254
55) Truth Revolt: 23,564
56) Lucianne: 23,856
57) Ace of Spades HQ/My Pet Jawa/Rhymes With Right: 24,253
58) Viral Buzz: 24,918
59) The Right Scoop: 27,873
60) Pamela Geller: 28,467
61) Front Page Magazine: 30,367
62) Universal Free Press: 31,314
63) Tell Me Now: 31,221
64) Weasel Zippers: 32,545
65) Louder With Crowder: 30,631
66) Jihad Watch: 33,200
67) Mr. Conservative 33,894
68) American Conservative: 33,952
69) RedFlagNews: 35,048
70) The Ludwig von Mises Institute: 35,700
71) Freedom Outpost: 36,794
72) The Cato Journal: 37,900
73) Taki’s Magazine: 40,558
74) Joe For America: 44,530
75) Legal Insurrection: 45,079
76) Steyn Online: 46,174
77) The American Spectator: 49,116
78) American Enterprise Institute: 49,548
79) Personal Liberty Digest: 49,747
80) Allen West: 49,872
81) Commentary: 49,515
82) Bad Blue: 49,522
83) Three Percenter Nation: 50,012
84) The New American: 54,502
85) Judicial Watch: 59,172
86) Washington Weekly News: 62,691
87) Althouse: 66,030
88) Daily Paul: 66,851
89) Bill O’Reilly: 67,480
90) GOP.com: 67,749
91) Canada Free Press: 68,023
92) Human Events Online: 68,967
93) Jewish World Review: 76,215
94) GOPUSA: 71,293
95) Ricochet: 71,358
96) Day by Day: 73,755
97) Numbers USA: 76,280
98) Vox Day: 76,816
99) X Tribune: 76,417
100) City Journal: 84,176
http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-100-most-popular-conservative-websites-of-2015/#ixzz43md12DPH


DON'T BE BLUE

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Left, Right, Left (politics)

In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order. The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a called a moderate.

In the dictionary the word "liberal" is defined as "open minded, not adhering to established doctrine or orthodoxy, while "conservative" means "one who conforms to traditional positions or views".



This would make anyone, whether a Democrat or a Republican, who voted the straight party ticket, a conservative, someone conforming to established doctrine. 

The only people who can, legitimately, be called "liberals" would be the independents and swing voters, since they are the only ones making open minded individual choices.

This is not about who's better, Democrats, which are often mislabeled as LEFT or Republicans, which are often mislabeled as RIGHT, or to suggest that anyone is wrong to vote their beliefs, which, as an American, I'd hope you'd do just that. 

My question is about the choice of terms.

The extremes in both parties are most likely to label the other party as either Left or Right, while they,  really think of themselves as Liberal or Conservative.

Amongst published researchers, there is agreement that the Left has been labeled as anarchists, communists, socialists, progressives, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, anti-racists, democratic socialists, greens, left-libertarians, social democrats, and social liberals.

Researchers have also said that the Right has been labelled as fascists, racists, Nazis, capitalists, conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, religious fundamentalists, and traditionalists.

Interestingly, both categories have contradictions, in my mind, for the same terms.
Both parties have demonstrated that they are NOT open minded as a party, while any person of either party would certainly say that "they" ARE open minded and anyone of the other party is not.

I've seen more racist attitudes and demonstrations started by so called Anti-racists as categorized by the term Left. I've also seen more so called Anti-racists throwing the race card, with the express intent to initiate a confrontation that will lead to open violence.

Keep in mind that the first person or group to throw the race card, is the real racist.

I think no party designation, either Democrat or Republican, is really defined, by either party, as being racist. It is an individual ideology. Most people have forgotten that the Democratic party was originally founded on racism and the Republican party was against it, resulting in the Civil War,

It is also very interesting that while the, admittedly Democrat leaning activist group, "Black Lives Matter", so called Anti-racist activists, openly demonstrates against a black person being killed by a white police officer, whether rightly or wrongly accused of a crime, BUT there is no outcry by them when a black police officer kills or even shoots another black person, whether rightly or wrongly accused of a crime.

There has never been a public outcry from "Black Lives Matter" when a black police officer shoots or kills a person who is white, hispanic, asian or any other race, whether rightly or wrongly accused of a crime. Clearly ALL lives do not matter.

And there has never been a public outcry from "Black Lives Matter" when a black police officer is killed by another black person committing a crime.

And don't get me started on using insanity as a defense for a not guilty plea.


DON'T BE BLUE

Friday, May 29, 2015

What's your definition of "Millionaire"?

Definition of Millionaire

Obama: Anyone who makes over $200,000.
Wikipedia: an individual whose net worth or wealth is equal to or exceeds one million units of currency.
Merriam-Webster: A person whose wealth is estimated at a million or more (as of dollars or pounds).
Dictionary.com: A person whose wealth amounts to a million or more in some unit of currancy, as dollars.
Investopedia.com: It is important to note that paper millionaires are not the same as true millionaires, which generally refers to people who have more than $1 million in cash in the bank.
Urbandictionary.com: A person or organisation that is in possession of over one million of a pre-set currency in liquid assets, except property.

I don't know about you, but I have a great deal of difficulty believing anything that comes out of the mouth of someone who makes-up definitions of the words they use. If you like that stuff, play the board game Balderdash.


In practically every speech on taxes, President Obama likes to pit the wealthier population against everyone else by using the term “millionaires” to pay their “fair share” of taxes.  Class warfare is unnecessary.
President Obama wants to raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 and families making $250,000.  First of all, how $200,000 + $200,000 = $250,000, instead of $400,000 as a couple, is beyond me.  Is one spouse supposed to suddenly make only $50,000 from $200,000?
Give me a break.
 http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/08/17/how-long-does-it-take-to-become-a-millionaire/

One of the problems of taxation that needs to also be addressed, is Social Security.  The maximum taxable earnings amount for Social Security (OASDI) taxes, 2012, is $110,100. True Millionaires don't have to pay any more into Social Security after they earn $110,100. Fortunately there is no cap on income and payments into Healthcare. However, both Social Security and Healthcare, as well as all government relief programs, are destined to bankrupt the United States, if illegal immigrants are allowed amnesty.

First we need to change the US Constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship for people who are born here, but neither of the parents are legal citizens. Then we need to establish a guest worker visa program that insures that only citizens can get any government relief.


DON'T BE BLUE

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Shame on our own national news media! CBS NBC ABC

2010
With all the news that's not fit to print or broadcast, why is the significance of Cordoba not getting out to the people?

"I was watching the news the other day and noticed a familiar occurrence."

A reporter was talking about new parking meters in Los Angeles and that there would be tens of thousands of them going up in the next few months. His emphasis was on the technology; card readers in the machines, you don't even need cash or coins anymore and there is a sensor that will send a signal out to a central processor when the time expires that will get a parking enforcement officer over to write up a ticket.

What he failed to mention at any time was that right on the meter there was a big label, "$3 for each 15 minutes"! Nowhere in the story was there any mention about the cost to park. Luckily I don't need to go to Los Angeles and fight for parking. I don't really know how much it costs today or if the $3 per each 15 minutes is a new increase. It wasn't reported.

It's what isn't mentioned in the news that is getting my attention more and more, especially when part of the story is right there in the background or foreground or hanging around in the ether. Not that some stories are not getting aired, but the stories are incomplete

I don't know if it's a carryover from the Dan Rather debacle where the news was being manipulated, as well as outright fabricated, by the news organization or that there is still too much political correctness going on and they are just afraid to bring out the whole story. Most of the news on TV and in the newspapers is so skewed to the left, mostly, or at least leaning that way or over the top to the right, occasionally, that there are hardly any newscasts or newspapers worth watching or reading. The news should be balanced and fair, or maybe justified, but certainly not steered. That's mainly why I don't watch the national news broadcast on CBSNBC, or ABCThey are not interested in both sides of the story. It's also why I don't read the Los Angeles Times or New York Times or any of the big newspapers. All of the current national newscasts and newspapers are blatantly biased. Those big stories will get out somehow, on the internet, where you can decide how much to read, but most of the real story on any national news broadcasts will be lost in the bias.

It's kind of ironic that when an event happens that will impact not only the local region but broad reaching enough to tug at the heartstrings of America and possibly the world, the national news stations will broadcast those stories all day, every day for a week or more, until the next "big headline news event" comes up. Even news stories like the oil spill in the gulf, airplane disasters, the kidnapping of a child or finding the kidnapped child, trapped coal miners, devastating storms and the downing of the World Trade Center in New York City, are "sold" to the audience in how they are told, or not told. Questions go unanswered by both the news media and the government. It's so very interesting that with all the competition for the audience of viewers and readers that the news media is trying to attract, they don't even understand how to make shock media work for them. They certainly know how to make it work against them. How many times do you see the nauseating effort the media takes to make you see someone cry on national TV or invading someone's privacy with an army of reporters and news vehicles camped at a victim's or suspected criminal's house, yet alone someone convicted of a crime.

Just think how more time could be given to real news stories if all that was said was "there was a drive-by shooting in Los Angels or New York or Detroit today, but no one died"read about it on our web site", or some other quick 3 second blurb, and then get to real important news. 

No one cares about the celebrities and superstars on again off again escapades or lack of social grace. It belongs in its own news show or program. Olbermann, Stewart, Beck, Limbagh, and O'Reilly aren't news people, they're news entertainment pundits disguised as political news activists, but that’s where people are forced to go if they want the rest of the story that started on national news and was left unfinished on local news. We shouldn't be relegated to getting our national news from CNN or Fox News and no one watches MSNBC anyway. Although Olbermann, Levine and Savage may be in the basement of the political pundit tower, the elevator isn't going anywhere worth stopping. if you are looking for the real story behind those "breaking headline news" stories. There isn't one local or national newscast about bad things that happen to good people that should be longer than 30 seconds, or better yet if each event was cut to one sentence. Then you could get to the news that actually impacts the city, state, nation or world, from the national news programs (ABC, NBC, ABC) that both the left and the right should be watching.
Where's the GOOD NEWS being reported by the news media?

If the National news really wanted viewers to flock to their broadcast, they would let the news happen, give a short summary and then ask the question everyone wants to know, and then go looking for the answers. There are far too many news stories about drive-by shootings and minor crimes that are allowed way too much airtime. We glorify gangsters and criminals, even overpaid unappreciative super stars, by making them the headline in the news, so much so, that 80% of the news is either negative or driven by entertainment gossip. In fact, victims should, BY LAW, be given 3 times more airtime than criminals, and the story should never be more than 6 seconds long. If there needs to be more time, they should be directed to a 'special' news program.

News stations and newspapers will see a resurgence of listeners and readers, if they took a more proactive, but unbiased, approach to the real news. News stories should be politically unbiased, as well as editorially unbiased. Most news organizations are politically bentthey all need to straighten up, or at least announce they are the voice of the left, or right, and see how their audience responds. That way we could have some fantastic news media battles that may actually get the whole story out and let the audience decide, or at least let them be informed enough to decide if they care enough to watch or read tomorrow's news.

Ask a politician a question, and the last thing that will come out will be the answer, which won't be understood by anyone anywayPoliticians always ignore the question. Their main objective is to get THEIR message out first, because air time is so short and costly to them. Usually the question never gets answered and the news reporter on the scene or the interviewer in the studio, also short on time, lets them off the hook. The first sound a politician should make when asked a question, must be about the answerGive them 3 seconds to start the answer or cut them off. You could then have a standard disclaimer, "another long-winded politician that can't get to the answer". The politicians will be screaming, but it should be, answer first - stump second. Everyone knows the news anchor is just really an overpriced news reader anyway; give them something they can sink their teeth into. Congress is currently trying to silence the news that everyone wants, under the guise of "equal air time", anyway, let the battle begin. Politicians would then get more air time than they would probably want, if they had to answer the question first, then stump, because there would always be questions that need answering.

The news media could easily put the challenge on politicians, government officials, superstars or the Corporate CEO, and drive up interest in viewing or reading their news. All they have to do is say, "We invited so and so to come on and answer these perplexing questions, but they have declined our offer", and keep repeating it every day. When they do come on, then it's, one question - one answerstump later, if there is time. There would always be some important news going on in-between the hard hitting world and national catastrophes that occur. The news stories wouldn't have to be dragging on ad nauseam until the next "breaking news" happens.

So with all the news that's apparently not fit to print in our fine national newspapers or broadcast on our upstanding national news broadcasts, why is the significance of Cordoba not getting out to the people?                                         

And it took a non-American to point it out!
Shame on our own national news media! 
Shame on CBS, NBC, and ABC.

APR. 30, 2014
Developer Sharif El-Gamal says he has downsized his plans for the $100 million, 15-story Muslim Community Center near the World Trade Center site that became a lightning rod amid the national controversy; he says he will now build a smaller, three-story museum dedicated to Islam, and has commissioned French architect Jean Nouvel to design the building and make the plan more attractive to neighbors. NOW CALLED PARK 51

Sharif El-Gamal is an American real estate developer. He is the chairman and chief executive officer of Soho Properties, a Manhattan-based real estate company.

CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN

 
 
 
 
Change you can believe in: The 1st Federal Sales Tax E-V-E-R and next the New Value Added Tax




Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil and the one-eyed monkey.

Updated 3/31/2017



Golda Meir got it wrong.
 Only because of the basic prejudice of the Jews vs Arabs mentality, when she said in 1957, "We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us."

It should have been,
"We will only have peace with the Muslims when they love their children more than they hate non-Muslims."


Not all Arabs are Muslim and not all Muslims are Arabs. Most of all, not all Muslims are the same.
The tolerant majority are just that, tolerant, but the fundamentalists hate not only other Muslims, the extremists hate everyone.



Terrorism, like any other hateful prejudice, from the KKK to Louis Farrakhan´s Black Muslim's to Hamas and Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda and now ISIS and Boko Haram, and the newly formed Black KKK, and their ilk, should be dealt with by force, since force is the only language they speak. These terrorists are the cannibalistic kind, it's as if they eat their young, when they use them as human bombs and practice polygamy, so they can make more human bombs. It's no wonder they treat women worse than cattle.



The 2011 bombings in Moscow were a precursor of things to come in Europe and therefore destined to happen in America, if we continue on the road to socialism and "political correctness" infesting our politicians. There is no place for "political correctness" in a war on terrorism. Whereas it may be thought of as politically incorrect to put all members of any group in the same category as those in the group that are true terrorists, you MUST start somewhere since they will not police themselves. Let them sort it out when they complain that they are not terrorists, and prove it to the world by exposing their own terrorists within their ranks.



The place to start would logically be with the leaders of the group, except when the leaders can not truly lead because the followers will not except their leadership. Whether it's the religious leaders or the political leaders, the truth is that Islam is more about politics than it is about religion. It's also more about being afraid to allow their own people to come out of the Middle Ages and into the modern moralistic world.


Politics and religion are so intertwined that they can not be separated and the leaders are so powerless, they can not change it. Sadly and more important is that they don't want to change it because then they will lose their power and grip on their own people.


Islamic fundamentalists still rule by fear and the fear mongers are the fanatical religious leaders that hide in the shadows of evil and worship Satan, but call him Allah.


All religious leaders need to take a stand against Satan's followers.
Any terrorist who wages war for their God has fallen away from the teachings of their church, synagogue or mosque and is now in league with Satan, the god of evil, the god of hate.







DON'T BE BLUE
(Holding my breath)

Monday, May 18, 2015

FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY GOT SLAPPED RECENTLY


You can avoid evil, 
but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding evil.

For the John Galt that lurks inside

March 22 2010

House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote

American business, the motor of the global economy, was dealt a deathblow by the Marxist coup delivered by the Demo-rat party. The numbers are staggering. AT&T, the largest telephone company in the country, will take a one billion dollar hit in the current quarter as a result of this economic attack on America.

Verizon Communications, the second biggest U.S. phone company, told employees that tax burdens under the new law would likely filter down to employees.

Other companies that announced health care reform related charges include Deere, a maker of farm equipment, which sees a US$150-million charge for its current quarter, and Caterpillar, which warned of a US $100-million charge.

Unemployment will increase as companies, both large and small come to terms with the intended consequences of socialism, and the intention is to redistribute wealth.

Implementing a doctrine that has no plan to pay for it will eventually cause anarchy among the citizens that will be required to foot the bill, especially when the leaders decide to do it now and fix it later. While they are fixing this one, they will soon try to include the millions of undocumented immigrants in this plan and include them in our welfare system.

We should never allow a law that costs more than a billion dollars to be passed with less than a 2/3 majority.


Don't be Blue
(Holding my breath)

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Contempt of Congress - Then and Now

Pogo had it right!

1958 - Contempt of Congress



The Cold War

Walt Kelly's Pogo cartoon, from Earth Day 1971

Earth Day Cartoon - 1971

Probably the most famous Pogo quotation is "We have met the enemy and he is us." Perhaps more than any other words written by Kelly, it perfectly sums up his attitude towards the foibles of mankind and the nature of the human condition.

The quote was a parody of a message sent in 1813 from U.S. Navy Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry to Army General William Henry Harrison after his victory in the Battle of Lake Erie, stating, "We have met the enemy, and they are ours." It first appeared in a lengthier form in "A Word to the Fore", the foreword of the book The Pogo Papers, first published in 1953. Since the strips reprinted in Papers included the first appearances of Mole and Simple J. Malarkey, beginning Kelly's attacks on McCarthyism, Kelly used the foreword to defend his actions:

“Traces of nobility, gentleness and courage persist in all people, do what we will to stamp out the trend. So, too, do those characteristics which are ugly. It is just unfortunate that in the clumsy hands of a cartoonist all traits become ridiculous, leading to a certain amount of self-conscious expostulation and the desire to join battle. There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blasts on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us. Forward!
—Walt Kelly, June 1953

The finalized version of the quotation appeared in a 1970 anti-pollution poster for Earth Day and was repeated a year later in the daily strip. 


Have an AWESOME day

DON'T BE BLUE

Are WE Going John Galt?


Do you have your copy?
..... sales of “Atlas Shrugged” have tripled since President Obama's election.

http://www.whoisjohngalt.com/

"I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -- John Galt

John Galt spoke against what he saw as the "evil" of collectivism and Christian ideas of collective sin and guilt, and said they should be replaced by enlightened selfishness and individualism.

Not surprising, since Ann Rand, a deep thinker, believed that people should be selfish and not really help others, for free.

http://www.goingjohngalt.org/blog/about/
I really, really don’t want to ever actually have to go “John Galt”.

http://washingtonindependent.com/32772/battling-obama-by-going-galt

“Set off a series of regulatory blunders and congressional meddling, blame the free market for the financial crisis that follows — then use this excuse to impose a more intrusive state! Sounds like something right out of an Ayn Rand novel.”

Atlas Shrugged - From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years.
How about 52 weeks.

Does this sound familiar "...rebelled against them when they demanded he loan money to people who could not repay it...", right out of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

The Democratic Party itself is making similar demands, not just on one banker, but on ALL lenders of moneyIsn't that what got us here in the first place, when the Democrats forced lenders to loan money to people who could not repay it and set up ACORN to help f-i-n-d the people who couldn't qualify?

They spent more in the first three weeks of Obama’s “rule”
than the government spent in all the time since America’s CREATION!

Socialism creates need!

“We just can't trust the American people to make those (health and savings) type of choices...the Government has to make those choices for people.......We can't afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the Federal Government.....

because the Federal Government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it.
-Hillary Clinton, in 1993.
http://www.cchconline.org/soundbites.php3

And President Obama says that he is not an ideologue?
Ask him about ramming health care down the throats of Americans, whether they want it or not,
the government knows best!

Going John Galt?

I'm not there yet...............yet!
However, I do have an American flag that will remain upside down for at least until Obama is out of office, and most likely long after that.  (But that's a topic for another blog)
http://bullcutter.blogspot.com/2009/03/were-living-atlas-shrugged.html


Have an AWESOME day

DON'T BE BLUE

A TRILLION Dollars????? $1,000,000,000,000


What's a Trillion?
13 digits, never thought about that part. 13, Is it Lucky or Unlucky?

Everett Dirksen, one time Minority Leader of the Senate from 1959 to 1969, maybe most famous for the quote, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money".

Do calculators go to a Billion? How about a TRILLION? How many zeros is that?
9 for a Billion and 12 for a Trillion – but who’s counting?

The next time you hear a politician use the Word 'BILLION' in a casual manner, think about whether you want that 'politicians' spending - YOUR TAX MONEY!
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of it's releases. And don't even start them talking about a Trillionyou're head will explode.

So let's see:
1 year = 365 days (no, we're not counting leap years!) 
So…drum roll, please…
one year would equal 365 times 24 times 60 times 60 seconds…
or 31,536,000 seconds! 
That's over 31 million seconds you have to spend over the next year.

A Billion seconds ago, about 31.7 yearsThe world's most popular word processing program is launched Microsoft Word
  • A Terrorist attack by a suicide bomber destroys the United States Embassy in Beirut, killing 63
  • The first mobile phones, are introduced to the public by the Motorola Company.
  • Sally Ride on June 18th becomes first American woman in space on the Space Shuttle Challenger.
One TRILLION seconds ago – 31,688 years – Neanderthals stalked the plains of Europe.

A Billion minutes ago, approximately 1902 years, it was 114 A.D. and China discovers paper, made from rags and the fibres of mulberry, laurel and Chinese grass.

TRILLION minutes ago, about 1.9 million years, the earliest known species of the genus of man, Homo. habilis, was in the middle of its reign on earth and our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.

A Billion hours ago, about 114 thousand years, our ancestors were living in the Lower Paleolithic era "Old Stone Age".

TRILLION hours is about 114 Million years, the first modern mammals roamed the earth, the World begins to cool (there was massive global warming back then also) and dinosaurs were in their heyday during the Cretaceous period.

A Billion days ago, about 2.74 million years, Homo. habilis, was in the beginning of its reign on earth.

TRILLION days age, about 3 billion years ago, the Earth's atmosphere gets oxygen and the formation of the first known continent called "Ur".
 http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/timeline.html

A billion dollars ago was only 4 hours ago,
at the rate our government is spending it today,
and getting shorter by the minute.

If you spent a dollar per minute,
you could barely spend a TRILLION dollars during-------------


(drum roll please)..........
wait for it......
ALL OF KNOWN HUMAN HISTORY !!!!!!!!!!!!!.


Even if you spent $100 per minuteyou would not be able to spend a TRILLION dollars in 300 years,
virtually the entire history of the United States.

Packed in bales of $100 bills (each bill weighing a gram), a TRILLION dollars would be 10 billion $100 bills, or about 10 million kilograms, 22 million pounds, or over 10,000 tons of cash (at 2000 pounds per ton).

A TRILLION dollars in $100 bills would occupy a million cubic feet of space. It would fill a football field 6 feet deep.

A stack of 1 TRILLION dollar bills would be 67,866 miles high or 2.73 times the circumference of the earth.
It could reach 1/3 of the way to the moon.

A TRILLION $10 bills, taped end to end, would wrap around the Earth more than 380 times.

You could spend $10 million a day and it would still take you 273 years to spend $1 trillion dollars.

One TRILLION is more stars than there are in the entire Milky Way GALAXY,.................
but who's counting?


Have an AWESOME day

DON'T BE BLUE

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Quotes on The Cost of Freedom


"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
"If you want a symbolic gesture, don't burn the flag; wash it."
Norman Thomas (1884-1968)
U.S. Socialist Presidential candidate

"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."
Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929 – 1968)
American clergyman, activist

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
John F. Kennedy (1917 – 1963)

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke (1729-1797),
British statesman and philosopher

"All religious leaders need to take a stand against Satan's followers.
Any terrorist who wages war for their God has fallen away from the teachings of their church, synagogue or mosque and is now in league with Satan, the god of evil, the god of hate."
ME
"Neither a wise nor a brave man lies down on the tracks of history to wait for the train of the future to run over him."
"What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight - it's the size of the fight in the dog."
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969)

"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."
George S. Patton (1885 – 1945)

"Diplomats are just as essential to starting a war as soldiers are for finishing it.... You take diplomacy out of war, and the thing would fall flat in a week."
Will Rogers (1879-1935)

"There are good men and bad men of all nationalities, creeds and colors; and if this world of ours is ever to become what we hope some day it may become, it must be by the general recognition that the man's heart and soul, the man's worth and actions, determine his standing."
"Wars are, of course, as a rule to be avoided; but they are far better than certain kinds of peace."
"A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards."
Theodore Roosevelt

"I don't know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

"In time of war the first casualty is truth."
Boake Carter (1899-1944) aka Harold Thomas Henry Carter,
American national news commentator

"The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives."
Winston Churchill, Sir (1874-1965)

"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thank the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among human creatures."
Abraham Lincoln (1830-1861)

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
Benjamin Franklin (1706 – 1790)
American inventor, journalist, printer, diplomat, and statesman


"I'm not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons, Colonel. I'm terrified of the man who only wants one."
                                           from the movie 'The Peacemaker' (1997)

"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action."
"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749–1832
German writer and polymath

"There is nothing more dangerous than stubbornness and arrogance in action."
ME

"For every man who lives without freedom, the rest of us must face the guilt."
Lillian Hellman (1905 – 1984)
American playwright

"None who have always been free can understand the terrible fascinating power of the hope of freedom to those who are not free."
Pearl S. Buck (1892 — 1973) aka Sai Zhen Zhu,
American writer

"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."
Robert A. Heinlein (1907 – 1988)
American science fiction writer

"Freedom is not enough."
Lyndon B. Johnson

"There is no easy walk to freedom anywhere, and many of us will have to pass through the valley of the shadow of death again and again before we reach the mountaintop of our desires."
Nelson Mandela

"Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility."
Sigmund Freud

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
James Madison

"Power in defense of freedom is greater than power in behalf of tyranny and oppression."
Malcolm X

"Freedom is a right ultimately defended by the sacrifice of America's servicemen and women."
Arnold Schwarzenegger

"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose ~~~ nothing ~~ if it ain't free"
Kris Kristofferson


Have an Awesome Day!

DON'T BE BLUE