Thursday, December 26, 2013

Why People Vote Democratic

My wife has a friend that is a devout Democrat, so I asked her one day why she voted Democrat, this is what I got!

Willie P

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Phil Robertson has a better Perspective on Life than all Democrats & Most of Society

Capitalism vs Socialism

A Public Service Announcement for the Holidays!

With the holidays fast approaching, I would like to share a personal experience with my family & friends about drinking and driving.  As you may know, some of us have been known to have brushes with the authorities from time to time on the way home after a "social session" out with friends.

Well, three days ago I was out for an evening with friends and had several beers, followed by some shots of tequila.  Feeling jolly, I still had the good sense to know that I may be over the legal limit.  That's when I did something that I've never done before.  I took a cab home!

Sure enough, on the way home there was a police road block.  However, since I was in a cab, they waved it past.  I arrived home safely without incident.  This was a real relief, and a complete surprise, because I had never driven a cab before!  I don't even know where I got it, and now that it's in my garage, I don't know what to do with it!

I'm just sayin!

Willie P

If you voted for Obama - - -

Perverted Liberal Logic!

Fun Fact about the Obamas!

Convoluted Thinking

How Liberals and Conservatives are Judged!

Future Bedtime Story in America

Monday, December 16, 2013


Bill Neinast

Labels can be, and often are, pejorative.   One of those words is radical.

Oddly, in the news media, that pejorative term is used only for Republicans. Tea Party advocates, for example, are routinely referred to as radical. 

Even more odd is that the current definition of a radical is “advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social reform; representing or supporting an extreme section of a political party.”   

Advocating for thorough or complete political or social reform sounds more like class warriors than Republicans.  So why they are always called progressives instead of radicals?

Progressives are defined as a group, person, or idea favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.  

So, according to the press, Tea Partiers who advocate a smaller government that stays out of our bed rooms and claim that we are “TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY” are radical.  Class warriors, however, who want an ever growing socialist government involved in every aspect of our lives for which we are not paying a fair share of taxes are progressive.  What could be more incongruous?

Now that the press has identified the philosophies of the two major political parties with power in the nation’s capitol, what can be expected if one of the two is in total control?

A  radical government would strive to return to the philosophy of the Founding Fathers.  That would mean a smaller federal government with most of the rule making returned to the state and local governments.

There would be no more federal involvement in things like local school curriculums and ratings.  

Senators and Representatives would be expected to spend more time in their home states and districts than in Washington, D.C.  While back home, they would get first hand experience of living under the rules, regulations, and laws they impose on others.  Just as important, while living with their constituents, they would get real experience in knowing what the people they represent need, want, and desire.

The most important aspect of a radical government is that it would operate under a balanced budget like the one required under the Texas Constitution.  That balance would be maintained by controlling the spending side of the ledger instead of saying, “Hey!, let’s buy that.  We can pay for it by raising taxes on those yokels back home who are not paying their fair share of taxes.”

A progressive government sounds so much better than one of those harsh radical things.  Just look what you get under so called progressive rulers.

Although the problems of socialism are apparent throughout the world, progressives want to get to that heavenly state as quickly as possible.  

The Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, is the current and best example of that thinking.  Progressives think that their henchmen, better known as bureaucrats, know best what kind of medical insurance you need and direct you to buy it.  If you cannot pay for it, the bureaucrats will pay for it with taxes taken out of the pockets of those workers who are not paying their fair share.

They will also use those free flowing tax dollars to pay unwed mothers to have more children so they can receive more federal largess.   Those poor unemployed people also need continuing help.  The progressives will keep extending the unemployment payment deadlines as long as necessary to keep the unemployed from moving to areas begging for employees.

Why worry about the budget?  Just keep buying whatever the bureaucrats desire.  Do not worry about having enough income from taxes to feed those desires.  The Chinese are always, or at least have been up to this point, willing to loan us whatever money we ask for.  

So what, if the Chinese foreclose on those loans by taking over the country?  They are socialists, and therefore would give us the best type government we could hope for.  

That’s what progressives want.  Total control of everything and everyone from Washington.  This includes total ownership of the property and wealth of the country so that it could be redistributed on a “fair” basis so long as that fairness included a larger share far the hard working bureaucrats.

So here’s the perspective.

 An Etymologist, or one who studies words, might disagree with the meanings given to radical and progressive in this item.  As described here, the pundits seem to have hung wrong labels on the two political movements. 

As discussed here, progressive government has a better ring to it than a radical government.  Reality, however, is a better sounding board than the writings or musings of political pundits.  In reality, radical government activities favor individuality.

What’s your choice? 

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Perspective - The Virtues of the ACA aka Socialized Medicine

IN PERSPECTIVE by Bill Neinast

Some class warriors should be ashamed of themselves.  Those are the ones who were clamoring for “fairness” through socialistic control and distribution of the nation’s wealth.  When they started getting exactly what they were pleading for, they turned tail and began attacking those who were granting their wishes.

This complete turn about is seen in the reaction to ObamaCare by those liberals who are losing their medical care insurance, or their favorite doctor, or both as the socialists in Washington take control of 17.6% of the GDP.

The first problem is the misnomer of the program that is causing all the grief.  The official name is the Affordable Care Act.  One of the Health and Human Services web sites describes this Act as putting consumers back in charge of their health care. 

The Act, however, has nothing to do directly with health care. What it does is require some people to pay, or at least help pay, for others’ health care.  It either provides free health care through Medicaid funded by tax payers, uses tax money to pay subsidies to some who cannot afford all of their insurance premiums, or requires young people to buy insurance that they do not want or need so that insurance companies can afford to provide medical insurance to older people with serious medical problems.

The only effect that use of other people’s money has on medical care is that it will increase the work loads of physicians, medical clinics, and hospitals.  How that will make medical care more “affordable” is a good question.

What it does is make medical care free (Medicaid and subsidized insurance) for many more.  As with anything that’s free, lines at the trough holding the goodies of free medical care will swell.  Now when junior just has the sniffles, he will be rushed off to the doctor because it’s free.

I know this from experience.  I lived with “socialized” or free medical care for 27 years of active duty in the Army.  Friends would take their children to the clinic for the sniffles and admit that they would not do so if there was a charge for the service.

A battalion surgeon told me that he could cut his work load in half if he were allowed to install a lie detector at his front door.  He knew whenever a unit was scheduled for field exercises or some other unpleasant activity simply by the number of soldiers from that unit waiting at his doors when they opened each morning.  It was so much easier and more pleasant to sit in the doctor’s waiting room than to face the rigors of a tent in the summer heat or freezing rain.

Some of the ardent supporters of socialism are already beginning to realize exactly what the socialization of medical care means for them.  As that movement begins to affect them personally and directly, their ardor for big government taking care of everything is beginning to wane.

Those who have had their medical insurance of long standing cancelled because it does not include some coverage that know-it-all bureaucrats in Washington now require are beginning to criticize the authors of this latest step in socialization.  Their chorus of criticism is being joined by other class warriors who are learning that their doctors of long standing are no longer available to them because they are not among the physicians allowed by socialized medical care.

The unhappy socialists are finally beginning to understand why one of their gurus, Nancy Pelosi, said the law had to be passed before they could read it.  If even the most obtuse had waded through the reams of paper needed to print the law, maybe they would not have been so eager for its enactment.  Now they are joining Republicans to grumble about this intrusion of the government into their private affairs.

Conversely, Republicans should be ecstatic about the Affordable Care Act.  There could be no better example or teacher of the loss of freedoms that are characteristic of big government. Every adult who does not qualify for a free medical care program paid for by the government or someone else, is experiencing first hand what it means to have the government direct exactly how he will care for himself and his family. 

He is now required to have medical care insurance without regard to whether he wants it or thinks it is not needed.  The insurance has to be paid from either his pockets or his neighbors‘ pockets.    The insurance must cover specific conditions without regard to the possibility of need, e.g., a 60 year old woman required to have maternity care coverage.

When the costs and effects of ObamaCare finally register with every adult, there should be an immediate revulsion of the thought of socialism.

So here’s the perspective.

The Affordable Care Act gives class warriors exactly what they clamor for on a daily basis.  So they should quit complaining.

Republicans, however, should at least welcome the hands-on training for living under socialism that the Act provides.  That may slow the continuing shift in that direction.

Does Government Produce Wealth?

Unemployment and Minimum Wage - Hmmm!

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Mandela Eulogies Present Some Interesting Insight into How Political Leaders are Viewed Upon their Deaths

The death of a prominent politician and world leader always brings glowing remembrances of his/her most crowning moments and the deceased politician often takes on a "god like" (or Ala like if you prefer) image.  Whether the leader was a good leader, bad leader, honorable or dishonorable person, the eulogies almost always ignore facts and highlight any and all positive events in their life.  This is true regardless of the political leaders actual political position or party affliation while serving.  (Hitler is the obvious exception.)

The recent death of Nelson Mandela, the man credited with ending apartheid  in South Africa, is no exception.   The NY Times did an article that provides (surprisingly since it is the NY Times) a balanced view of Mandela's political reign that is worth a read. 

The insight this provides can be seen if, as you read the article, you remember last months articles about President Kennedy's untimely death at the hands of an assassin in Dallas in 1963.  By most observers and accurate historians John F. Kennedy was a mediocre president, whose legacy, were it not for the way he died and the orchestrated efforts by his family in concert with the willing media, would have been but a footnote in history.  His sexual escapades while married put him in the category of sleaze ball adulterer and make Bill Clinton's frolics look benign.  Yet his untimely death ushered in the era of Camelot, with almost mythical remembrances of him and his family that virtually guaranteed the election of every Kennedy who ran for office over the next 50 years.

Makes you wonder what the eulogies of George H. W. Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama look like in the next 50 years!  Do not be surprised!

I'm just sayin!

Willie P