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

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."

 Peter B Collins, Truthout

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

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.

Point of View  Wikipedia Yahoo 

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


DON'T BE BLUE

TRUTH IN ADVERTISING VS TRUTH IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS

It's that time again. Political campaing season is coming, now that the polls are history and the voting is starting.

Businesses have to abide to Truth in Advertising, why don't politicians?

Are they held to a lower standard?

We should have all of the politicians wear a collar that would shock them when they lie to the public.

They should also be held accountable for advertising that is used to sway public opinion on their behalf.

Where have all the honest politicians gone, well they've been dead for a long time.


Here are some of the voices of the past about Politics.

“You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”
― Malcolm X, By Any Means Necessary

“In politics as in philosophy, my tenets are few and simple. The leading one of which, and indeed that which embraces most others, is to be honest and just ourselves and to exact it from others, meddling as little as possible in their affairs where our own are not involved. If this maxim was generally adopted, wars would cease and our swords would soon be converted into reap hooks and our harvests be more peaceful, abundant, and happy.”
― George Washington

“The Seven Social Sins are:
1. Wealth without work.
2. Pleasure without conscience.
3. Knowledge without character.
4. Commerce without morality.
5. Science without humanity.
6. Worship without sacrifice.
7. Politics without principle."
From a sermon given by Frederick Lewis Donaldson in Westminster Abbey, London, on March 20, 1925.

“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain

About political correctness
“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.”
― Martin Luther King Jr., A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches

“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.”
― Napoléon Bonaparte

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
― William F. Buckley Jr.

“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”
― John F. Kennedy

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
― Edward R. Murrow

“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”
― Thomas Jefferson

“Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely, absolute power attracts the corruptible.”
― Frank Herbert

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
― Winston S. Churchill

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

“Corrupt politicians make the other ten percent look bad.”
― Henry Kissinger

“In this country we have no place for hyphenated Americans.”
― Theodore Roosevelt

“Leadership is being the first to put others second. Wait, that’s not right. That’s politics."
"I trust politicians to do what’s right. For themselves.
”
― Jarod Kintz

“The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli

“The short memories of the American voters is what keeps our politicians in office.”
― Will Rogers

DON'T BE BLUE

The future of Presidential Elections in America.

In the future, all presidents will be elected by minorities, entitlements will be the law of the land, and entrepreneurship will be a thing of the past.

Obama and the Democrats believe demography is on their side. Census 2010 made abundantly clear that racial and ethnic minorities, especially Hispanics, are dominating national growth and will for decades to come. The Democratic agenda— favoring broader federal support for medical care, housing, and education seems designed to curry the favor of these groups, which played a huge role in tipping the balance in his favor in several key swing states.

In 2010, minorities were 26 percent of the electorate. Yesterday (Nov 7, 2012), 28 percent. A 2 percent bigger slice of the pie doesn't sound like much, but in a tight election it's everything. If conservatives want to win, we must broaden our appeal. But that doesn't mean abandoning our core principles. Assuming the country can survive another four years of Obama, Tuesday's loss might actually be good for the long-term health of the GOP, and thus, the nation. A victory would have allowed Republicans to sweep their problems under the rug — and postpone taking that long, hard look in the mirror. But let's face facts: Republicans simply must confront the fact that, at minimum, they need a makeover.
By next year, 500,000 more Latinos will have turned 18 in our country — and every year after that for the next two decades.
The irony, for those Republican primary voters who demanded tough stances on immigration, is that this is one problem Obama has inadvertently solved. The economy is so lousy under his stewardship that immigrants have stopped coming.

The Census Bureau also makes projections of the future population based on fertility rates, family size, immigration and other factors. Its latest estimate projects that by 2030 the black and Asian populations will be about unchanged in percentage terms, but the Hispanic population will rise sharply from 16 percent to 22 percent. On the question of whether they favor bigger government or smaller government, Hispanics favor big government by a 75 percent to 19 percent margin.

We must also address the issue of birthright citizenship or we will continue to have illegal immigration as far as the eye can see. Without changes in birthright citizenship, we will have future waves of illegal immigration looking to take advantage of the soon to be implemented plea for amnesty. The 14th amendment in its current form ensures birthright citizenship, automatic citizen status to anyone born or "naturalized" on American soil. Changing the Constitution to deny citizenship to children born in the US to parents who are not documented citizens is the solution Graham and many in his party are advocating for.
The bill for the Social Security and Medicare alone will be over 500 trillion ANNUALLY, once amnesty is given to ILLEGAL immigrants.

The worst part is that the Democrats refuse to acknowledge the word ILLEGAL, since it can not even be found in any dictionary used by the Democratic Party.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/05/01-race-elections-frey
http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/236006/what-the-election-means-for-minorities-the-supreme-court-the-gop-and-more
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/latinos-minorities-obama-win-election-article-1.1198477
http://www.hacer.org/usa/?p=1799



 DON'T BE BLUE 

Has HE seen the Elephant?

Michael Moore calls our soldiers cowards!

"Has Michael Moore seen the Elephant", or anyone else who wants to criticize our soldiers?

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Galloway_062304,00.html

One phrase familiar in enlisted men's writings is, "I've seen the elephant," or, "I'm off to see the elephant." Used to describe the experiences of war and soldiering, the term has many possible origins. Old soldiers in the Civil War coined a phrase for green troops who survived their first taste of battle: "He has seen the elephant."

This Army lieutenant sums up the combat experience better than many a grizzled veteran:

"Well, I'm here in Iraq, and I've seen it, and done it. I've seen everything you've ever seen in a war movie. I've seen cowardice; I've seen heroism; I've seen fear; and I've seen relief. I've seen blood and brains all over the back of a vehicle, and I've seen men bleed to death surrounded by their comrades. I've seen people throw up when it's all over, and I've seen the same shell-shocked look in 35-year-old experienced sergeants as in 19-year-old privates.

"I've seen that, sadly, that men who try to kill other men aren't monsters, and most of them aren't even brave - they aren't defiant to the last - they're ordinary people. Men are men, and that's it. I've prayed for a man to make a move toward the wire, so I could flip my weapon off safe and put two rounds in his chest - if I could beat my platoon sergeant's shotgun to the punch. I've been wanted dead, and I've wanted to kill.

 "I've heard the screams - 'Medic! Medic!' I've hauled dead civilians out of cars, and I've looked down at my hands and seen them covered in blood after putting some poor Iraqi civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time into a helicopter. I've seen kids with gunshot wounds, and I've seen kids who've tried to kill me.

"I've sworn at the radio when I heard one of my classmate's platoon sergeants call over the radio: 'Contact! Contact! IED, small arms, mortars! One KIA, three WIA!' Then a burst of staccato gunfire and a frantic cry: 'Red 1, where are you? Where are you?' as we raced to the scene...knowing full well we were too late for at least one of our comrades.

"I've heard men worry about civilians, and I've heard men shrug and sum up their viewpoint in two words - 'F--- 'em.' I've seen people shoot when they shouldn't have, and I've seen my soldiers take an extra second or two, think about it, and spare somebody's life.

"They say they're scared, and say they won't do this or that, but when it comes time to do it they can't let their buddies down, can't let their friends go outside the wire without them, because they know it isn't right for the team to go into the ballgame at any less than 100 percent.

"That's combat, I guess, and there's no way you can be ready for it. It just is what it is, and everybody's experience is different. Just thought you might want to know what it's really like."
YES, I've seen the elephant.






 DON'T BE BLUE 

Do we really need gun control? GET SERIOUS!

Do we really need gun control? 
YES, to some extent, but how about regulating automatic firearms and BULLETS!

No, Really, REGULATE THE BULLETS! 

We can and should regulate the sale of ammunition and the tools to make ammunition. 

One box per month per household! 

Seriously, if you need more than a half dozen rounds to bag that deer, moose, duck, pheasant or any other BIG game you are shooting at, you are a very poor shot. 
If you need to practice, go to a shooting range, which should be the only place you can buy more ammunition. Use it there, because you can't take it home.  You should have to turn in all of your spent shells in order to buy any more, that way you can't horde them.
Why do you need 5000 rounds of ammunition to protect your home? 
If you can't protect it with just a few rounds, MOVE!

And it should be against the law to send guns and/or ammunition through the mail, 

NO ONLINE ORDERS ALLOWED.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/no-really-regulate-the-bullets/266332/
It's already illegal to send explosives through the mail and bullets are explosives, we should be enforcing that law.

Every citizen has near instant access to firearms and ammunition trough the Internet!
The United States is so saturated with guns that seeking to control them is futile. People own and use guns made in the early 1800s; guns made last month are on sale in stores now. We have a centuries-old accumulation of armaments that shows no sign of evaporating.

But there are two things that are needed for a gun to work: 

the gun and the ammunition.

Well, ok, actually three, but let's take the uncontrollable human out of the equation. Limiting guns may be hopeless. So why don't we focus on the bullets? A gun can be made from any number of common household objects, they can even be made by 3D printers.
But making bullets is much, much trickier.

 Bullets are so easy to come by that that huge stockpiles exist throughout the country. But unlike guns, bullets are single use. While attempts to remove guns from the streets would either be incalculably slow or require heavy-handed, dangerous government action, curbing the ability to buy ammunition would mean a natural diminishment of the arsenal that remains. Every time a bullet is fired, that bullet is rendered useless forever.

Perhaps the best argument in favor of limiting ammunition, though, is this. The mantra of firearms advocates is the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which reads:

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say a single thing about 
THE RIGHT TO OWN BULLETS!

Bear all the arms you want. Make your own at home. Without a bullet to fire from it -- or, at the very least, far, far fewer bullets -- we can achieve what the Founding Fathers really sought: a stable & secure nation.

This bears repeating:
Do we really need gun control? 
Yes to some extent, but how about regulating automatic firearms and BULLETS!

"THE ONLY THING NECESSARY FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH......

IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO.....

NOTHING!"

Which is exactly what the United States Congress is doing----------NOTHING!

 DON'T BE BLUE 

The new $10 Dollar, US, Note, will have a woman's portrait on it.

Treasury officials say Alexander Hamilton no longer fits the bill for the $10 note, we need to replace it and plan to replace him with the face of an American woman or women. No one has been picked, so here is a list of prospects.
Sacagawea and Susan B. Anthony are on the list, but they've already been used on US Currency, so we should give someone else a chance.

Here's my My SHORT LIST.

1754-1832
Molly Pitcher - Patriotism in battle
At the Battle of Monmouth, she brought water to Continental soldiers, attended the wounded and also replaced her fallen husband at a gun.

1811-1896
Harriet Beecher Stowe - Antislavery, fiction
Famous for her controversial novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, an antislavery story based on her experiences. Also spoke against slavery.

1860-1926
Annie Oakley - Sharp-shooting and entertainment
Gifted with uncanny marksmanship and star of Buffalo Bill's Wild West show, she established herself as a famous western folk legend.

1897-1937
Amelia Earhart - Aviation
Famous for flying across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. She attempted to fly around the world, then disappeared July 2, 1937.

1929-1994
Jacqueline Kennedy - As first lady, Jackie Kennedy became an international icon of style and sophistication, and dedicated great effort to restoring the White House with historic furnishings and art.

1929-2006
Coretta Scott King - civil rights, music
Known as the First Lady of civil rights, Coretta carried on the dreams of her husband, Martin Luther King Jr.

AND some others I think that are likely to make the final cut.

1744-1818
Abigail Adams - Politics and writing
She wrote lucidly about her life and time in letters, and exerted political influence over her famous president husband John, and son, John Quincy.

1752-1836
Betsy Ross
supposedly made the first American flag

1821-1912
Clara Barton - Aid to soldiers and free education
Organized and delivered important aid to Union and Confederate soldiers. Started the American Red Cross. Started a free school in New Jersey.

1837-1930
Mary Harris "Mother" Jones - American Labor Movement
“Mother” Jones was present as a labor organizer and speaker at many significant labor struggles of the 19th and 20th centuries.

1880-1968
Helen Keller - Social reform, writing and lecturing
Deafened and blinded by a childhood disease, she overcame her disabilities, then worked for the blind and numerous progressive causes.

1928-
Shirley Temple Black - Diplomacy, acting
Becoming a diplomat later in life, Shirley Temple was perhaps the most famous child star in history.

Click this link for the big list so far.

Who's on your list?


DON'T BE BLUE

Media news bias is ratings driven

Just another reason I rarely watch "Prime Time News" or nationally syndicated news shows like 60 minutes, they bend the news to drive up ratings, in some cases they will just make it up.

Why are the major media outlets content to manufacture or bend the hot news stories in order to drive up ratings?
It's because of the mentality of the old saying, "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission"! Unfortunately the bastardized news stories last for days or weeks, if not months, and the asking for forgiveness by broadcast media never happens, or in the case of printed news, it's relegated to the back pages or a footnote.

Trayvon Martin didn’t deserve to be lying mute in an underground box at the age of 17. Nobody does. He committed no offense to warrant such a fate. He was simply returning from the convenience store and chatting on his cell phone with his girlfriend , a scene that could be replicated a million times across America on any given evening. http://themoderatevoice.com/142893/pictures-and-prejudice-in-the-trayvon-martin-case/

Here’s all we know for certain about the killing of Trayvon Martin: George Zimmerman noticed the black teen wearing a hoodie while within the confines of the gated community, tailed him as a suspicious character, stepped out of his car to challenge him (despite instructions from police to keep on moving), exchanged words with Martin and they both ended up on the ground. Someone moaned for help around the moment that the gun went off, and Martin died on the spot.

Was the neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman out for blood or just taking his job a little too seriously? 

Why was the only picture used by ABC, NBC, CBS, the NY Times and every other major newspaper, from when Trayvon Martin was only 14 years old?
The contrasting photos of cute Trayvon and nasty George undoubtedly contributed to the call for vengeance.
Was the exposure on Zimmerman’s photo altered in some versions to make the half-Hispanic killer look “whiter”?
George Zimmerman is multi-racial. In fact, it’s been said that he has black relatives.

For most of the black community and the left-of-center crowd, it’s an open-and-shut case of a light-skinned racist murdering an innocent African American kid for the crime of “walking while being black.” The Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton showed up to make racial politics, just to add fuel to the fire. The fact that Trayvon was wearing a hoodie has catapulted that essential item of hip-hop apparel to unprecedented glory as a political symbol of unjustly maligned black youth. By now, every Trayvon Martin sympathizer and his brother has been photographed wearing a hoodie. Congressman Bobby Rush was even kicked out of a congressional hearing because he showed up wearing a hoodie. He was kicked out because he did not adhere to the dress code for appearing before congress. Dress code? 'That' is a subject for another day.

NBC altered the 911 call by Zimmerman to make it seem as if Zimmerman was race obsessed, and every news story used it as part of their coverage. 

Photographs, videos, and recordings can be indispensable clues, but our biases, conscious or not, have a way of tampering with the evidence.
Neither man was all saint or all villain. Both should be given an equal chance to be vindicated or judged by proper authorities.

NBC News has since fired the producer who was involved in the production of a misleading taped segment about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida. On April 6th, 39 days after the maelstrom, it appeared as a blip in the news, but not on any prime time news broadcast.

The action came in the wake of an internal investigation by NBC News into the production of the segment, which strung together audio clips in such a way that made George Zimmerman’s shooting of Mr. Martin sound racially motivated. Ever since the Feb. 26 shooting, there has been a continuing debate about whether race was a factor in the incident.

Of course the damage has been done in the wake of a rioting public driven to the media frenzy,
 just as they wanted.

Sometimes you just can't help but be BLUE!

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

The puzzle of poverty.

...it is a world where those without enough to eat may save up to buy a TV instead, where more money doesn't necessarily translate into more food, and where making rice cheaper can sometimes even lead people to buy less rice.

More Than 1 Billion People Are Hungry in the World

Oucha Mbarbk lives in Morocco without enough work, money, or food, but with a television, DVD player, and cellphone.
We asked Oucha Mbarbk what he would do if he had more money. He said he would buy more food. Then we asked him what he would do if he had even more money. He said he would buy better-tasting food. We were starting to feel very bad for him and his family, when we noticed the TV, satellite dish and other high-tech gadgets. Why had he bought all these things if he felt the family did not have enough to eat? He laughed, and said, "Oh, but television is more important than food!"

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink!

DON'T BE BLUE

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 CBS, NBC, or ABC. They 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 bent, they 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 anyway. Politicians 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 answer. Give 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 answer, stump 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?                                         

Watch and Learn!

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.

The Story of the Statue of Liberty

The French, Egyptian and American connection.

The Story of the Statue of Liberty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty


While on a visit to Egypt that was to shift his artistic perspective from simply grand to colossal, French sculptor Frédéric Bartholdi was inspired by the project of the Suez Canal that was being undertaken by Count Ferdinand de Lesseps, who later became a lifelong friend of his. He envisioned a giant lighthouse standing at the entrance to the canal and drew plans for it. It would be patterned after the Roman goddess Libertas, modified to resemble a robed Egyptian peasant, with light beaming out from both a headband and a torch thrust dramatically upward into the skies. Bartholdi presented his plans to the Egyptian Khedive, Isma'il Pasha, in 1867 and, with revisions, again in 1869, but the project was never commissioned because of financial issues then troubling the Ottoman Empire.

Soon after John Wilkes Booth was killed by one of his captors, Frédéric Bartholdi (according to legend) was enjoying dinner with friends in Paris. Commenting how good it was that the U.S. Civil War was over and how terrible it was that Lincoln had died, one of Bartholdi’s friends (Edouard de Laboulaye) had an idea. What if the people of France, gave the people of America, a monument to commemorate liberty? And ... what if they gave such a gift during 1876, the first centennial of American independence? France, after all, had played a key role in helping America to win her revolutionary war. Enthused with the idea, Bartholdi visited America and ultimately sketched his conception of such a monument.

The first small terracotta model was created in 1870. It is now exhibited at the Musée des beaux-arts de Lyon. The first reduced scale bronze replica was given to the city of Paris by Americans residing in the French capital on May 13, 1885; the statue was originally located in the Place des États-Unis and was moved to the Île des Cygnes in 1889. It was agreed that in a joint effort, the people of the United States were to build the base, and the French people were responsible for the statue and its assembly in the States. In France, public donations, various forms of entertainment including notably performances of La liberté éclairant le monde (Liberty enlightening the world) by soon-to-be famous composer Charles Gounod at Paris Opera, and a charitable lottery were among the methods used to raise the 2,250,000 francs ($250,000). In the United States, benefit theatrical events, art exhibitions, auctions and prizefights assisted in providing needed funds.

Meanwhile in France, Bartholdi required the assistance of an engineer to address structural issues associated with designing such a colossal copper sculpture. Gustave Eiffel (designer of the Eiffel Tower) was commissioned to design the massive iron pylon and secondary skeletal framework which allows the statue's copper skin to move independently yet stand upright. The good-looking French widow of an important American, Isabella Eugenie Boyer, the wife of Isaac Singer, the sewing-machine industrialist, was called upon to be Bartholdi's model for the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty was dedicated on October 28, 1886 and was designated a National Monument on October 15, 1924.

The Statue of Liberty functioned as a lighthouse from 1886 to 1902. As a lighthouse, it is the first in the United States to use electricity. Birds, attracted by the original torch, sometimes became disoriented from the light of the flame. It was once discovered that more than a thousand had been fatally injured in a single day.
The bronze plaque in an exhibit on the second floor of the pedestal is inscribed with the sonnet:

"The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
' With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

It has never been engraved on the exterior of the pedestal, despite such depictions in editorial cartoons. The first two lines refer to the ancient Colossus of Rhodes. The bronze plaque in the pedestal contains a typographical error: the comma in "Keep, ancient lands" is missing, causing that line to read "'Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!' cries she", and noticeably altering its meaning. The name "Mother of Exiles" was never taken up as the statue's name.

In 1889, Americans who were living in Paris gave that city a smaller version of Liberty. The thirty-five foot monument is located near the River Seine and faces west, toward its sister.
http://www.awesomestories.com/movies/national_treasure/national_treasure_ch6.htm

Hundreds of other Statues of Liberty have been erected worldwide. A smaller replica is in the Norwegian village of Visnes, on the island of Karmøy, in Rogaland County where the copper used in the original statue was mined.

A Statue of Liberty replica at Odaiba, overlooks the Rainbow Bridge in Tokyo Bay. There is a sister statue in Paris and several others elsewhere in France, including one in Bartholdi's home town of Colmar, erected in 2004 to mark the centenary of Bartholdi's death; they also exist in Austria, Germany, Italy, Japan, China, Brazil and Vietnam; one existed in Hanoi during French colonial days. During the Tiananmen Square protest of 1989, Chinese student demonstrators in Beijing built a ten meter image called the Goddess of Democracy, which sculptor Tsao Tsing-yuan said was intentionally dissimilar to the Statue of Liberty to avoid being "too openly pro-American." At around the same time, a copy of this statue was made and displayed on Connecticut Avenue in Washington, D.C., in a small park across the street from the Chinese Embassy.

The sculptor James Alexander Ewing's most prestigious commission was for the carving of the Glasgow City Chambers' Jubilee Pediment, its apex group of Truth, Riches, and Honor, and the statues of The Four Seasons on the building's tower. The figure of Truth also is known as Glasgow's Statue of Liberty, because of its close resemblance to the similarly posed, but very much larger, statue in New York harbor.

The Statue of Liberty is located in the harbor of New York City, on the Jersey side (but that's another story), on what was originally called the Oyster Islands, which includes Ellis Island, Liberty Island, and Black Tom Island. Both Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty have become powerful symbols of the freedom and opportunity that awaited millions of men, women, and children when they legally immigrated to America from around the world.


Don't Be Blue

CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN

 

Motivated Photos

 

 

 

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




Intentional Misrepresentation of the Health Care Reform Bill.

 

Lawmakers never read the Health Care Reform Bill they mandated into law or else they conspired to hide the 19 new taxes found in the Health Care Reform Bill.

In their zeal to pass a health care reform bill that is designed to make health care coverage affordable and available for more than 95 percent of Americans, Congress hasn’t explained very well the hidden tax bombs that the bill contains.

You will only be allowed to deduct medical expenses in excess of 10% of your Adjusted Gross Income. Currently that number is 7.5%.

If you buy a house and live in it for 20 years and the value goes up over 250k, a 4% tax will be levied on your proceeds from the sale of your house, which will go to cover Health Care costs.

Medicare payroll tax goes to 6.15%.
New Medicare payroll tax of 3.8% will be applied to interest, dividends, capital gains and other investment income for couples making more than $250,000 a year and individuals making more than $200,000. The bill also increases the normal Medicare payroll tax from 1.45% to 2.35% for the same individuals.

3.8% tax on payouts from annuities
Investors who buy stocks and forget about them for more than a year will see an increase of almost 20% in taxes owed in 2010.

If you purchase a wheelchair, you will pay a 2.3% excise tax.

Pharmaceutical companies will be allowed to pass a $3 billion annual fee on to you.

Part of the bills is The Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act (CLASS Act), Americans will find between $150 and $250 taken out of their paychecks each month to cover this program nobody knew about.

Penalties on individuals.
Individuals will pay a yearly penalty of $695, or up to 2.5 percent of their annual income, if they cannot show they have purchased a government-approved health policy.

Penalties on families.
Families will pay a yearly penalty of $347 per child, up to $2,250 per family, if parents cannot show they have purchased a government- approved policy.

2.9 percent tax on medical aid devices.

This appears to be the FIRST - Federal Sales Tax - in the United States.
Tax on tanning. Imposes a 10 percent tax on services at tanning salons. Business owners will collect the tax from customers and send it to the federal government.

The START of..........................

THE - 1st FEDERAL SALES TAX,           (E V E R)

WITH MORE TO COME ! ! !

Don't Be BLUE



UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE AWRY

 

 

This is from 9 years ago AND COUNTING.
We should all look to Malmo, Sweden, as an example of the problems of uncontrolled immigration and political correctness gone awry.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938

Malmö, in Sweden, set to become the first Scandinavian city with a Muslim majority, within a decade or two, has nine times as many reported robberies per capita as Copenhagen, Denmark.

It is interesting to note that these Muslim immigrants state quite openly that they are involved in a “war,” and see participation in crime and harassment of the native population as such.

Some talk of the possibility of a future civil war in Sweden, the country that gave us Bergman, ABBA and Volvo could become known as the Bosnia of northern Europe. The “Swedish model” would no longer refer to a stable and peaceful state with an advanced economy, but to a Eurabian horror story of utopian multiculturalism, socialist mismanagement and runaway immigration.

Although it is not stated, most of the immigrant perpetrators are Muslims. In one of the rare instances where the Swedish media actually revealed the truth, the newspaper, Aftonbladet, reported several years ago that 9 out of 10 of the most criminal ethnic groups in Sweden came from Muslim countries.

The 2010 Jihad in the streets of France looked like the early skirmishes of an impending Eurabian civil war, brought on by massive Muslim immigration and Multicultural stupidity. Law and order is slowly breaking down in major and even minor cities across the European continent, and the streets are ruled by aggressive gangs of Muslim youngsters.

At the same time, Europeans are paying some of the highest taxes in the world. We should remind our authorities that the most important task of the state – some would even claim it should be the only task of the state – is to uphold the rule of law in exchange for taxation. When enough people feel that the system is no longer working and that the social contract has been breached, the entire fabric of democratic society could unravel.

What happens when the welfare state system breaks down, and there is no longer enough money to “grease” the increasing tensions between immigrants and native Europeans? There will be massive unemployment, and tens of millions of people will feel angry, scared and humiliated, betrayed by the system, by society and by their own democratic leaders.

European leaders decided that therefore what they really needed was a European Union that would obviate their need for nationalism.

They took all the wrong lessons from World War II and continue to apply them, while ignoring the only lesson that’s really relevant from World War II, which is that you have to choose good and defend good, and fight with the intention of defeating evil. We have to be able and willing to make moral distinctions and stand up for the good and fight evil — and that is something that both the Europeans and Obama refuse to do.

Nationalism isn’t evil. British nationalism hasn’t been evil. French nationalism isn’t evil. Polish nationalism isn’t evil. American nationalism wasn’t evil and has never been evil. Contrary to Obama’s actions, American exceptionalism isn’t evil.


http://www.atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/



DON'T BE BLUE
(Holding my breath)