movealready's Blog

Way to go America....and you know who I'm talking to. You're the person who is so consumed with yourself or you family that you have to be first in line fo a Thanksgiving day sale, the first to stamped through a door to buy your spoiled rotten kid that X-box or PS3. Just to save a few bucks. You're the same person who killed a 35 y/o man with family and friends because of your self serving pig headed belief that your entitled and so are your children. Your the same peson who uses the soft shoulder in traffic jams because you don't care about anything but yourself. You speed in traffic, cut people off. You are disgraceful. You're the person who butts into conversations to interject your question. 

You may not have actually trampled that person, but it's your mindset that paved the way to this mans death.  I'm so small minded, I thought this stuff happened in other countries. What have we become when saving 10% is more important than a mans life. Life truly is cheap. Thank you and good night!

Recently, an effigy of Sarah Palin was placed outside a Hollywood home, after some mild irritation, the episode was soon forgotten.

The question before you today;

If the same type of  effigy was placed with our new President, would it be treated as a hate crime or a freedom of speech protected by our Constitution. Seems to me, we have an interesting new legal dilema that pits race against Constitutional protected freedoms. The reason for the question is where is the line drawn, will the same freedoms/crimes be treated equally.

Fact or fodder. Decide for yourself. But be informed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmRbum9x0nU&eurl=htt
p://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/home/18-headline-it
em/518-shariah-compliant-finance-jihad-with-money <
/p>

I'm saying 7,200  Any guesses?

8:00AM EST

This just in...... Pirate's demand 25 million for hijacked oil tanker containing 100 million dollars worth of oil.

Update

3:00p.m. EST.

 Pirate's told to pound sand, the oil is now practically worthless.

 

Enough with these corporate entitlement programs!!!! We are rewarding poor behavior and teaching our American companies to become reliant on the taxpayers. When companies know they have a "safety net" they will gamble more, risk more and lose more. Then when the bill comes do, we'll have to pay more.

The reasons American auto manufacturers are dead  are as follows; 1) the crushing load placed on the manufacturer brought about the high cost of union labor, and 2) impossible safety/environmental standards the manufacturers must meet in order to sell cars in America.

If we refuse to bail out the auto companies, two things will occur,1) They will file for bankruptcy protection, and reorganize or merge with other companies, and 2) they can get out from under the Unions. Unionized American products, eventhough they may be manufacture to a higher standard can not compete with lower cost imports. Let the Auto manufactures fail, let capitalism work.America is stronger when our corporations compete. Survival of the fittest.

Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts
Carolina Journal | November 04, 2008 | Karen McMahan

RALEIGH - Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers' personal retirement accounts - including 401(k)s and IRAs - and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers' retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.


(Excerpt) Read more at carolinajournal.com ...


If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case.
You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.  -  WINSTON CHURCHILL

Hmmmm a Democrat makes some layoffs, I guess that 's a kinder, friendlier way to not have to raise your taxes. Hey wait one moment.....if I pay the same amount of taxes and the government "downsizes" is this not the same as a tax increase. Following that thought, people out of work means people on social programs, right where the Democrats want you,dependent on them.   On the other hand, if the Democrats of Philadelphia would cut corporate taxes and encourage new business to come to Philadelphia, would these new businesses bring in more tax revenue and jobs........nah, too Republican of a concept.  In the name of helping urban citizens, they would rather keep taxes high, slash jobs sending people to unemployment and call it a good days work. Yeah, this Obama thing is going to be  great.

Too late to change things now, but a good read none the less:

The Repugnance of Socialism

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/the_repugnance_
of_socialism.html

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

"The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without.  They come from within...They come from a peculiar type of brainy people, always found in our country, who if they add something to our culture, take much from its strength.  Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals."
   - Winston Churchill, on Leftists
Earlier this year I read a column in which the writer rejoiced because the word, "socialism," is no longer a scary bogeyman to Americans.  When I Googled the writer and learned he was only 31 and graduated from Columbia, it wasn't hard to figure out how he got it all wrong. 

Since he had clearly been taught our "revised" history -- the one that glosses over the 100,000,000-grave killing fields of the communists and makes high drama out of the "sufferings" of the Hollywood blacklisted and the McCarthy hearings -- he didn't have a clue about what actually  happened.  This pitiful, Ivy-League indoctrinated writer had reached the false conclusion that Americans used to be scared down to their woolies of the big bad commies, but weren't anymore.

Isn't it hard to believe that reasonably intelligent parents actually pay big bucks for those fancy degrees in poppycock?

Americans weren't scared of socialism, silly.  They found it viscerally repugnant.

One must never mistake repugnance for fear.  The first is based upon reason, the latter upon emotion.

And the reasons for loathing socialism are as clear as the nose on anyone's face. 

No fully-grown human being with a single ounce of self-respect ever wants to be taken care of by others.  No person with dignity will tolerate being told what to do, what to think, how to work or how to be an "acceptable" person.  No free man or woman will tolerate the loss of liberty in exchange for material comfort.

Many generations of Americans vehemently rejected these notions over and over again, not out of fear, but out of the kind of visceral loathing that makes a normal person wretch, gag and grab for his religion and his guns. 

The Lure of the Nanny State

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
   - C. S. Lewis A great many Americans -- perhaps even a majority -- seem poised to hand over vast amounts of their hard-earned money and their hard-won liberties to the promised "collective redemption" being offered by Barack Obama and his socialist band of "progressives" in Congress.  With the votes of nanny-state supporters from all classes among us, their utopian dreams will be put to the test on our own ground and the reach of our federal government will be expanded drastically according to their plans.

But how does this really play out? 

Always and everywhere it is tried.

The Socialist's Lure

One of the simplest realities of life is that the person who pays the bill is the one who makes the decisions.  When that person is you, you decide.  When the payer is a state collective, the collective decides.  And you obey. 

This ain't rocket science.  The freedom to decide is the reason all children finally leave the security of the nest and jump to the ground.  It's innate.  This will to be free.  To decide for oneself.

Consider only these 3 areas of Obama's collective plan for the redemption of American society:

• Obama wants to use a lot of taxpayer money to offer education to children from birth through college.  Free to mommies and daddies.  On the taxpayer dollar, rather than on the parents'. 

The socialist lure:  Give the state your children and the state will relieve you of the burden of educating them and teaching them values and knowledge.  Parents, you're off the hook. 

The result:  The state then makes all the decisions about what your children will be taught, how they will be brought up, what knowledge is important and what is not. 

• Obama wants to bring the federal government's involvement into healthcare to an unprecedented level. 

The socialist lure:  Give the state your money and the power to enforce healthcare for all, and the collective state will relieve you of your responsibility to provide this service for yourselves and your children.

The result:  The state makes healthcare decisions.  Healthcare is then rationed according to need, as decided by the state.

• Obama wants to enshrine positive rights to all citizens that include a guaranteed "living wage" to all regardless of individual work.

The socialist lure:  No citizen will be without the means to live a fairly equitable life regardless of individual delinquency or extra effort.   

The result:  The poor and unfortunate become wards of the state and vastly increase in number. Work incentives plummet.

• Obama wants our politics to be nice, not mean or divisive.  He wants unity.  He wants us all to get along.

The socialist lure:  Peace.  Harmony.  Goodwill to all.  No good guys and bad guys.  All will be nice and we will sing Kumbayah in perfect harmony all over the world.

The result:  Anyone who dissents, who finds error, who sees things differently will be silenced.  This is the only way collectives ever enforce their ideas of "unity."

Progress?  In the memorable words of C. S. Lewis:

"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive." Freedom and individual responsibility are inseparable.

The choice we are facing in this election is simple.  We have freedom only when we accept personal responsibility for ourselves and our children.  If we want to divest ourselves from the responsibility to provide for ourselves, then we also forfeit our freedom to make our own decisions.

Great leaders have appeared from time to time to warn free people of the innate deceptiveness of the socialists' lures.  Ronald Reagan saw the evil as clear as day.  Reagan's "ten scariest words in the English language":

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." Winston Churchill expounded further on leftist ideology:

"Let them quit these gospels of envy, hate and malice.  Let them eliminate them from their politics and programmes.  Let them abandon the utter fallacy, the grotesque, erroneous fatal blunder of believing that by limiting the enterprise of man, by riveting the shackles of a false equality...they will increase the well-being of the world." John McCain is a leader in the same mold as Reagan and Churchill when it comes to seeing the innate evil within the Marxist lure and its deceptive threat to real peace and any prosperity worth having.  But of these three -- Reagan, Churchill and McCain -- McCain is the only one who has seen firsthand, from the inside, how it is that collective regimes may appear fair and just and unified.

McCain learned the hard way that socialist fairness is a carefully choreographed illusion, that socialist justice is a capricious commodity doled out on a whim by dictators with hard-core boots and clubs.

Unity?  Unity is obtained through coercive means and by taking children very early into indoctrination as model, happy future workers for the collective "good."

So, Obama got his ideas by palling around with radical communist revolutionaries of the 60s.  Obama chose these radicals as mentors and friends.  Obama's own parents were from the same mold as well.  Happy socialists all. 

John McCain spent a good deal of his adult life with radical socialists too.  Five and a half years to be precise.  Only McCain got his education on the merits of communism from inside one of their "utopian" cells under force.

Perhaps never before have Americans had such an easy choice for our next President.  Here's hoping we've raised more freedom-loving patriots than fools.

Or Obama's victory celebration may turn out to be the biggest April's Fools Day we could have ever imagined.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is an independent journalist and a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  She blogs at commonsenseregained.com.

All this time, I have been against Obama and his political philosphies. Now, that he has been elected by the inexperienced youth  of American as well as her urban population I can now say that these election results potentially could be a good thing.

Here are the thought that are kicking around my miniscule little mind.

Racism, in America is dead. Imagine that, we now have a Black President. Good for him, very bad for all of those race mongerers who claim that white America is the reason they have failed. Not anymore baby. You fail, it's not because of racist America, it's because of your lack of effort,knowledge and skill.

Secondly, we can dissolve any form of race based highering. Why, because of the reasons stated above. If you fail, it's not because of racist America, it's because of lack of knowledge,skill and effort.

Now, we can do away with EOE employmnet practices and higher the best person for the job, and now our highering can be done based on skill of applicant,not some race quota.

The next reason Obama's election is a good thing......Now your going to see the damage that can be done when we have an unbalanced political system. The Democrats now hold overwhelming political power in America. They virtually have a fillibuster proof majority. They control both Houses of Congress outright. Now, pair that with the most Liberal President America has ever had and now, just for giggles,throw in a (soon to be) Ultra Liberal Supreme Court.  Now, every evil of America can be dropped at the feet of the Democrats. No pointing fingers at racist America.

The proof is in the pudding. America chose to see what an Ultra Liberal Government would be like, now sit back and enjoy. Obama has to be extrodinarily careful, being so ultra-liberal, he could destroy the Democratic Party. He also needs to be careful with the racial barrier. If he is going to be as disasterous of a President as I expect, it will be a very long time before America votes Democratic or elects a Black President.  The ball is in his court to change my atitude. I am American, I will support our President, but not blindly.

Do Facts Matter? Not to Democrats by Thomas Sowell October 03, 2008 
Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.

Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.

The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing --in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big
risks that could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?

We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.

Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?

Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.

Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs.

Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!

The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.

The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.

But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.

Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.

The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.  

Informative,intelligent concise. A 9 minute documentary regarding the dynamics of politics and greed in our financial system.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1809993/real_reason_f
or_financial_crisis_for_obama_supporters/

This bail out plan is a complete farce. They(government) somehow believes that they can back a trillion dollars of high risk debt with tax payer dollars and all of the sudden these bad risks will somehow become responsible borrowers. LOL!!!!!! We are throwing good money after bad. This will come back to bite us ..........and much harder. Does anybody recall why the Soviet Union is no longer??? That's right, they went bankrupt. Here's how deluded our government has become, they actually believe that they will actually make a profit (for the tax payer) dealing in high risk loans. The Government is pi$$ing on your leg and telling you it's raining.