Life, liberty and the pursuit of bigger government? Can you try again, please?

How does one go from small government to the massive joke we are now under? It's called power-seeking folks all palling around and taking from the rest of us who wish to think for ourselves, and enjoy some idea of freedom. Freedom is an illusion, they say. Sadly, it is becoming more and more an illusion these days.

If you want the government to help you, be careful what you ask for. The government should be there for LIMITED reasons. Not for what it's been turned into for the last 60 and more years. This could have been a time to pull back from the big gov't that Roosevelt started. Instead, we're going even farther into it. Not just the Democrats to blame, mind you! This has been ongoing for a long time. Remember that, and remember it, too, when you vote, and when you have a chance to have your views known.

Smaller the government, the bigger the freedoms for ALL. The poor will always be poor is the government is walfaring them, and corporations will always be greedy so long at the gov't rewards it.

Shame.


Click the link at bottom to read the whole piece. This is from GetLiberty.org.

Forgotten Founding Wisdom

By Howard Rich

“Sacred and undeniable.”

That’s how Thomas Jefferson originally described the basic American rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Of course, Ben Franklin changed these to “inalienable” rights, and a printer’s error resulted in them becoming “unalienable.”

Still, the meaning was clear. Or at least it was 233 years ago—when the U.S. government existed as a “necessary evil” that lived within its means, not a self-perpetuating Orwellian nightmare propped up by trillions of dollars in bad debt.

At its inception, American government was created to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—and yet sadly, today it is more often than not a force against these elemental American rights.

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined,” James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45. “Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Really? Then how are we to explain the unprecedented centralization of power we now see in Washington D.C. -- a process fueled by billions in unfunded mandates and strings-attached bailouts?

Get the full story here.

jR, aka AirFarceOne (twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Fatherlessness: A hole no government can fill

Obama, according to this article, said that an absentee father "leaves a hole in a child's heart that a government can't fill". Seriously?

WHO, pray tell, would WANT a government, a bureaucratic organization that maintains streets, oversees laws, arrests criminals and such, should take the role of a FATHER, exactly?

He spoke at length about how his father, Barack Obama Sr., left home early. The future president was just 2 at the time and saw his dad only once more, at age 10, a short visit that still left a lasting imprint.

"I had a heroic mom and wonderful grandparents who helped raise me and my sister, and it's because of them that I'm able to stand here today," he told a throng of youngsters and leaders of community organizations. "But despite all their extraordinary love and attention, that doesn't mean that I didn't feel my father's absence. That's something that leaves a hole in a child's heart that a government can't fill."

In candid terms, Obama said he promised himself he would not repeat his own father's mistakes.

"Just because your own father wasn't there for you, that's not an excuse for you to be absent also. It's all the more reason for you to be present," Obama told the young men in his audience.

"You have an obligation to break the cycle and to learn from those mistakes, and to rise up where your own fathers fell short and to do better than they did with your own children," Obama said. "That's what I've tried to do in my life."

An estimated 24 million American children are growing up with absent fathers, and a disproportionate number of them are African-American. Those children are at higher risk of falling into lives of poverty and crime and becoming parents themselves in their teenage years.

Don't worry, I'm with the government, and I am here to father you. *Groan*

Can we please have a real democracy when all this economic strife is over? PLEASE?

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Created in a heat of politically motivated outrage, right here on Blogger.

WOW they are crazy

Chris Matthews is half the fool he was many years ago, and he can only manage the same-minded, and kiss-ups from the NBCs, on his Sunday show, I notice. He is unfunny, yet insists on being "funny" and has his own fawning pals, like some has-been comic who still somehow garners big paychecks. Stunning just how far NBC and MSNBC have plummeted into so much of the one-sided commentary and misleading so-called "journalism".

I guess they THINK they are the anti-Fox News, but that's such a joke, and I despise bias on either side, take it personally that the self-centered liberals ruined (for me) what I had once hoped would be and considered to be my career industry.

Fox News is red with embarrassment for MSNBC, due to how clear their bias is on discussion and commentary shows. Janeane Garofalo was on Olbermann weeks ago, was the most offensive I've caught (on YouTube or somewhere) any of these horrendous soap-box Hollywood liberals ever be in a highly public stage (word gets around about the crazy talk, but this was there on the show itself, not an anecdote). (She was thrashing Tea Parties as being purely, simply full of anti-black racists, that the whole thing was not at all about taxes, gov't spending, or anything, just an excuse for rednecks to be racist in public. Stunning, horrible, offensive, miserably out of her element idiot, she is.)

After that humorless tirade, I eagerly wanted to see her whiney little computer geek character on "24" this season die -- just for some joyous make-believe comeuppance. (I was disappointed.) I'm sure she is dead ... on the inside. Sure seems like it. Certainly, mentally, she's thoroughly contorted.

I don't have cable now, thanks to some tough months, and I don't think I want it back. Just limits me to a few channels and HULU, etc., online, and keeps me away from the moodily pontificating boobs on news programs. I can live with that. Did that while I lived elsewhere, for most of the years. Healthy!

So... Newsweek. Gag! They had that truly lame effort to sell magazines, "We are all Socailists now". It was a nothing article. I read it online. Like a fart in church, and not even a loud one. Har!

TIME is another great example of a pack of fawning roadies doing magazines. I had subscription for a year -- got it sorta free (NWA flight miles were to expire, so we got lots of magazines). I was eager to see it end after all the stupid adoration this year! You;d think it was exaggerating, but I was seeing it in every issue, just about. Amusing, were it not for so many go-along sheep believing what these drunken shepherds tell them to believe.

You should catch, online somewhere, the McLaughlin Group show of this past week, and the way Eleanor Clift of NEWSWEEK was going with both fists in favor of Obama and his apology tour of Arab nations and such. Simply stunning, how cozy it seems so many are in MSM -- with a utopian myopia.

My decision of late is to avoid the news as much as possible. I know what I know, let the loud mouths ruin someone else's day, not mine. Local news, I read some stuff online, and otherwise, the world can rot. For now. I needed a loooong breather from the divisiveness that the election and the economic crisis has brought out. It is too much about amateur pontificating on subjects, rather than interviews with true experts.

Saw rerun of the March 2009 interview with Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernanke on 60 Minutes (also can catch that online), which I avoided first time it aired. Was the most plainspoken, fact-involving, emotions involved but not hysterical thing on the economy I've seen in a long, long time. It made sense, and he seemed sincere. Stunning, seeing what he is and what he's up against. For me, with a view from business education and long interest in economic things, it was a very good perspective to hear. He is THE MAN on economic matters, and far more "safe" than blowhards like Obama, etc.

We need more professionals, like Bernanke, and less blowhards, in every walk of life. Especially as essential leaders.

Just some of my thoughts of late.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (on Twitter)

Ultimate Fighting: solar cooling versus global warming

Nothing's funnier to me than an atheist follower of the Green Movement or Climate Change activism. "I think God is a cruel lie, but unproven theories and reasons to hate industry and people having jobs, and civil expansion, are AWESOME!" That said...

TG Daily - Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change

Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon tells us that Earth has seen a reduced level of sunspot activity for the past 18 months, and is currently at the lowest levels seen in almost a century. Dr. Soon says "The sun is just slightly dimmer and has been for about the last 18 months. And that is because there are very few sunspots." He says when the sun has less sunspots, it gives off less energy, and the Earth tends to cool. He notes 2008 was a cold year for this very reason, and that 2009 may be cold for the same.

As of today, there have been 15 days in a row without any sunspots. In 2008 there were 266 days scattered throughout the year without sunspots, and in 2007 there were 163 days without sunspots. These are the #2 and #9 fewest sunspots years seen since 1911.

Earth warming, sun cooling. What kind of climate change should we be watching out for, and why does Al Gore insist on lying about 200-foot rises in ocean levels just to get us to stop using so much oil? Groan.

Dr. Soon's field of specialty is the sun. He explains that sunspots are planet-sized pockets of magnetism with much greater energy output and matter expulsion, some of which strikes the Earth's atmosphere as extra energy from the sun. He says when sunspots are present, the temperature goes up, when they are not present the temperature goes down. He also told a reporter at WBZ, CBS TV 38 (in Boston, MA) that beginning in 1645 and continuing through 1715, there were no observed sunspots. This is the period known as the Little Ice Age.

He also explains that sunspots go in cycles, which are around 11 years. There are periods of maximum activity (called the Solar Max) and periods of minimal or no activity (called the Solar Min).

Around the year 2000, the current cycle had reached its maximum. As of right now in 2009, it is at a period of zero sunspot activity. Still, he explains that no one knows for sure how long the cycles will last, and there are precedents that sunspots can persist for long periods of time, or there can be few or none for long periods of time (as happened between 1645 and 1715 during the Little Ice Age).

Could it be that the universe is more significant than people, and it is less stout (that is, we must protect it, like it's more pliable than we are)? Somebody ask Al Gore his views of a self-correcting planet and universe. Because apparently he's the poster child for all things "science", right? For the current leadership and the sore winners of the recent U.S. election? Will we simply find reason to start a broad-reaching, formal sun worship religion in the U.S.? Hmmm... legislating nature worship -- making Gore's mission complete....

Dr. Soon is an astrophysicist whose field of expertise is the sun for Harvard and the Smithsonian. He said, "The Sun is the all encompassing energy giver to life on planet Earth." And presently it's getting a lot of attention from scientists. He expects that if 2009 is another cold year which correlates to the decreased sunspot activity, that the global warming theories which attribute temperature fluctuations to increases in the levels of atmospheric CO2 will need to take notice.

He says, "If this deep solar minimum continues and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very telling time and it's very, very useful in terms of science and society in my opinion".

So we're set to lower our CO2, except China isn't. I think that's great, it helps. But what is coming? Cooling? Warming? One and then the other? Why is cooling going to still create a rise in ocean levels? Are we just being scammed by some scientists like people in the Middle Ages, etc., were being scammed -- and some today, still, of course -- by a shamelessly power-seeking clergy/political leadership? Is this really just to get us all to behave in the ways they want us to, despite any solid evidence of anything?

Today is not the day that question will be answered. Come back tomorrow....

Not really.

Al Gore as much as has said he's exaggerated all along about "global warming" to get people to react. That's called propaganda: lies to achieve a desired goal is plain old political propaganda. Yet, all these sad little minds adore the Gore.

Just wait for Al Gore to give you your orders, children, for further response to nature's activity. You know -- be a mindless dweeb that blames industry for everything and adores the losers of most elections, so long as they are not Republicans. And good luck with that.


- AirFarceOne (twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Is Cable News overlooking its own loss of newsie-ness?

Fanboy.com » Blog Archive » Is Cable News Twittering Past the Graveyard? A Little Birdie Told Me…

These days to be an anchor on on one of the three news networks gives you the audience of a rock star. More and more the field becomes less about breaking news and more about personality and opinion — and that’s the beginning of their end. While various tech pundits write sermons about the demise of newspapers due to the net, the real story that everyone is missing is that cable news networks are slowing [sic] having nothing to do with actual news.

Uh, yup. More about opinion, angles, telling half a story, and dullardly infuriating a fat segment of the population. Much of the time. Unless one really care so much about news (really care, not just pretend to care, play at caring, etc.) one doesn't respect that journalism, and anything that isn't bluntly presented as opinion, ought to -- simply ought to! -- be balanced. Best effort put forward. I think so-called "new" journalism opened the door for bias that is now wide open. There is, on TV, a lack of journalism and an increase in propagandist activist yammerings.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.