Obama(THHO) voters, anyone?

The government you get is the one you allow to happen.

Chat ya later…

Thanks for stopping by, In GOD We Trust, and Wear Red on Fridays!

Tweet

The pResident, Obama(THHO), has vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline, saying that this act of Congress “conflicts with established executive branch procedures”. I’m sorry, who was it that was trying to create law by executive order, regarding border issues? Who is conflicting with whose established branch procedures?

The Forefathers were pretty smart fellas, doncha think?

Chat ya later…

Thanks for stopping by, In GOD We Trust, and Wear Red on Fridays!

Tweet

Quick run through logic town, regarding “pay equality”:

Let’s say that women are, in fact, paid 22% less than their equally trained and experienced male counterparts.

Let’s say that you are the owner of a business.

Let’s say you are in business to make money, and one of the ways to make money is to spend less on things you need.

Let’s say that you have the choice of hiring one of two candidates, both with the same education, time in industry, equivalent track records for return on investment, same age, same height, same weight, same race, same hair color – in other words, everything is identical about them – except one is male, and one is female.

Would logic not dictate that hiring the woman, who is “paid 22% less”, is more cost effective than hiring the man? Both candidates would bring in the same amount of business, or produce the same amount of product, or sell the same number of widgets, so paying less to get that same income makes sense, right?

Except that there are laws saying you can’t do that.

The “wage inequality” is based on – get this – life decisions made by the people involved. The female in the scenario above would make 22% less over her career because she would choose to take time off to start/raise a family, or get married and allow her husband to support her, or one of thousands of choices that a female would make, because she has all these options open to her. Yes, the male could also make those decisions – but most of the time, a male WON’T make those same decisions, would stay in this or a better position, and continue to earn throughout his life.

Think about that for a while.

Chat ya later…

Thanks for stopping by, In GOD We Trust, and Wear Red on Fridays!

Tweet

For this RED Friday, let’s take a look at our favorite subject, GUN CONTROL!

When a home burns down in your community, it probably makes front-page news in the local paper. When a homeowner uses a fire extinguisher to put out a kitchen blaze before it spreads, it may not make the news at all. An incident prevented isn’t seen as an incident. This is why, when the topic of gun-free zones comes up, we need to write letters to the editor and call in to the radio talk shows to spread the truth. – Masaad Ayoob

This is just a quick peek at the well written article on American Handgunner titled The False Hope of Gun Free Zones. I suggest you go read the whole thing.

Chat ya later…

Thanks for stopping by, In GOD We Trust, and Wear Red on Fridays!

Tweet

“There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.” –George Washington (1793)

Washington was saying that if a nation shows weakness, then other nations will not respect it. If a nation shows the slightest hesitation to assert it’s place in the pecking order, then those perceived as below it in the pecking order will attempt to move up by showing the weak nation that they are stronger. And that can mean war, or at least a one-sided attack if the nation showing weakness further erodes it’s position by not responding to the show of force.

“[L]iberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments.” –Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, 1788

Hamilton knew that the three branches must operate individually, within their own constraints. By allowing the Judiciary branch of government to combine with either of the other two branches, then Judges will begin legislating from the bench – in other words, start declaring which rules will and will not be enforced, which rules will and will not be codified. With the cooperation of the executive branch, for example, certain laws which were passed to protect the welfare of the citizens by controlling who was allowed to enter the country, what conditions they must meet before entering the country, and what they must do to remain in the country could be ignored – allowing anyone to enter, for any reason, with no regard to their intentions or the state of their health. (you certainly have not forgotten that administrations have been turning a blind eye towards those coming into this country undocumented? do you know that the documents referred to are supposed to include vaccination records? did you know that in the United States, the decision to NOT vaccinate your children was not an issue, since most diseases the vaccinations were for were no longer an issue and did not become an issue until people from an area where control of diseases was not a medical necessity? when people from an area where no control over these same diseases is exerted go into an area where those diseases had been nearly eradicated, then those diseases will find a fertile area to bloom and grow – in the form of children who, until the interlopers arrived, had no reason to be vaccinated …)

Once any two branches of the government model we live under are combined, then God-given rights will be the first casualty. The first God-given right to be taken away will be the right to defend yourself. Imagine how WWII would have unfolded if the National Socialist Party of Germany had not, in fact, disarmed the citizenry before attempting Krystal Nacht, or the roundup of the Jews? Why do you think that the current administration continues to attempt to remove or restrict the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms? If you can’t defend your right to speak freely, then someone will take that right away. If you cannot defend your property from shock troops coming in and taking it away from you, then someone will take your property away from you.

You appear to be fairly bright. I’ll let you think about these items and connect your own dots.

Chat ya later…

Thanks for stopping by, In GOD We Trust, and Wear Red on Fridays!

Tweet