Happyg's Blog

Instead of embracing and highlighting the real education reform already occuring in the District of Columbia, Barack Obama instead chose to send his children to PRIVATE SCHOOL. Why is that Barry? Oh, I know you'll say it was Michelle's decision, but it doesn't wash Barry. This was an opportunity for the nation as a whole to be exposed to the radical changes that Ms. Michelle Rhee is demanding of the DC public shool district. Or was that what you are afraid of?For those of you who haven't heard about the best kept secret in public education reform, I suggest you Goggle: Michelle Rhee and see why I'm pissed.

I would like to take this time to thank all those who have served to protect this great nation. Your service, sacrifice and selfless acts of courage and patriotism have allowed the citizens of these United States to remain free from tyranny and the other evils of this world since it's inception. May God bless America as she marches into the twenty-first century. May our fine young men and women retain the values of our forefathers, who understood that freedom was not free and was indeed, "worth fighting for". May they never allow the voices of those who dismiss evil as merely "criminal" to hinder their efforts to eliminate it from the face of this earth. The Good Lord has relied upon these United States for centuries to combat evil where-ever and when-ever it raised it's ugly head. May he see fit to allow us to continue that effort, which began long ago with those brave enough to fight for freedom. May God grant peace on this earth, but only after all evil has been extinguished. May he embrace the hearts and souls of those who will do his bidding and the family and friends who also make those sacrifices. The Lord has a special place for those who serve his fellow man. Thank you all, from the bottom of my heart. God Bless.

Until recent years, what has always distinguished these United States from third world nations and dictatorships has been the peaceful orderly transition of power that takes place every fours years. This is done by a process in which every American citizen of age, who has not disqualified him/herself by illegal activities, is allowed to participate in the process by casting his/her one vote. In recent years it has come to the attention of many American citizens that there are some organizations in America who willfully discard our one citizen-one vote system, with a "vote early and vote often" theme, a mantra of long ago times in the Chicago of the 60's. Or has it returned? The right to vote in America, by "Americans" needs to be preserved. I hear constant calls from the Democrat party that requiring a voter "ID" would be a financial burden on the most needy. Fine, I'll concede that point. But in these recent weeks I've seen our government give away a trillion dollars to to try to "save" America. Can anyone argue that a few  billion more to insure that our elections are not tainted wouldn't be "worth" the investment. It is time to insist that only Americans can vote in America. And that each citizen votes only once. America is worth saving, but let's get the basics right first.

The biggest asset that this country has ever had has been the brave men and women who fought and sacrificed for this great nation's survival during WW2. They were the generation who grew up through the depression years and went on to bring America back to her place of prominence in this world. As they enter their twilight years America needs then one more time. They need to remind Americans of who we are, what core values made this country strong and vibrant, and what being an American means. As we face these uncertian times we ask ourselves if this is the America that brave men and women throughout our history have fought and died for. Does this nation that has shunned personal responsibility, in any way representative of what being an "American" meant throughout our history? Our country is at a crossroads. We need the guidance and wisdom of those who have walked that walk. Is the America of the 20th Century worth saving? And if so, which candidate best represents the core values of the America they once saved. Please ladies and gentlemen, once again our nation needs your service. Please vote for the candidate which best represents the values you lived by. Thank you for your dedication to freedom. May God bless America in the 21 Century.

This bailout "plan" seems to have the country divided in two. 50% demand we do nothing and let market forces run it's course and the other 50% think the government should control the market forces anyway. I have to tell you that after hearing all the tales of "impending doom" I think maybe a meshing of both ideas may have to be the solution. Here's mine:

Since the major concern of this crisis is to stabilize the future of our economy, it seems to me that this $700 billion dollar proposal should be immediately passed with the following changes.

(1) Without question there will be no executive who is allowed to make anymore than 50 times the average employee of any corporation that will be enhanced by the remainder of this proposal.

(2) All "paper" that contains pension or annuity fund monies shall be secured up to 80-85% for all instruments that have yet to be activated. All "active" plans (Currently distributing payouts) will be returned to a 100% level. If these funds are bundled into complex futures or other promissory notes they are to be "unbundled" under an emergency declaration ridding them of valueless assets. All remaining assets will be re-valued and returned to the markets under more "visible" terms.  If this results in the overall loss of 15% or more from any pension or annuity fund, the remaining balance will be secured up to the 85% level by the $700 billion fund.

(3) Return the qualification level of mortgage loan applications back to it's historic levels by demanding a 20% down payment and 25-30% of income ratio. (Sorry ACORN)

(4) After securing the pension and annuties of all Americans to an 80-85% or higher level, they are to unbundle the rest of this paper and let the free market bear the losses. In a free market, market forces need to be allowed to fluctuate without interference from governmental demands. (Requiring loans to people who can't afford them). Historically our market forces operate properly. Only when impediments are put in place does this market not operate in the best interest of our economy.

(5) And finally, energize our economy with another immediate stimulus package that will jump start our economy and return confidence to the American public.

Now I know some of these proposals will be met with resistence, but our main priorities need to be to protect our pension and annuity markets. Wall Street is by nature a gamble. Sometimes those who gamble win, sometimes they lose. It's always been that way. There is no reason why Americans, many who by no choice of their own invested in this paper, should lose their retirement income. We are Americans. We will solve this crisis. Those who committed crimes must be punished severely by hard core prison time. This attack on our American economy was an act of sedition. It cannot, and should not be tolerated.

Well, here we go again. Now our State House is about to fiost upon all citizens of these United States their distorted views of who participants are in a legal "marriage". It's bad enough that when you travel people look at you like you're some kind of freak when you tell them you're from Massachusetts, but now they'll probably assault us. Is it time for a Federal Amendment? It appears so. When four radical judges can create "new law" and then subject the whole nation to their whims, how far can anarchy be? Make no mistake, the day before these radical judges created new law, every citizen of Massachusetts had EXACTLY the same marital rights. Civil unions with all the perks? Absolutely. Call it marriage? NEVER.

As Tom Brokaw played softball with the presumptive nominee, he never could bring himself to ask those really hard questions. No "Russet-like" press, just an instinctive recoiling as his "guest" digressed to other far less specific topics. Why is it that our MSM won't ask this man any tough questions? Or, better put, when they do, why don't they demand answers? Below are just a few examples, maybe I'm wrong. You be the judge.

When Obama was asked whether or not the "surge" worked, he said, 'well, we just don't know'. Really? Brokaw then let him drift into a dialog suggesting that it was the Sunni's who 'caused the real turn around, even before the surge had started'. Really? Come to think of it, they did have a change of heart. Now the question should have been, "But Mr. Obama, if you had your way all our troops would have been gone long before they had their "change of heart", so do you think that we could be talking about leaving Iraq if we followed your plan?" Brokaw alluded to something like this, but once again, allowed digression.
It appears the "peace candidate" now is a big fan of "surges" and now wants to surge into Afghanistan. Really? I thought he was going to bring all the troops home? Brokaw, nothing.
He know wants to put Pakistan on "notice" that the US will target areas in their country if there is "actionable intelligence" and Pakistan refuses to act. Really? Can you say World War 3. Here's an important fact that Obama needs to know. THE PAKISTANI PEOPLE WILL NEVER WELCOME U.S. COMBAT TROOPS ON THEIR SOIL. IT WILL CAUSE THE PAKISTANIS TO UNITE AGAINST THIS NATION, BOTH THERE AND HERE AT HOME. THIS MAN IS A FOOL.
The bottom line is that Barack Obama isn't even close to being ready for prime time.

Every election the abortion issue raises it's ulgy head. The far left wants to kill babies, even when they survive the procedure, the far right wants to make sure no one has the choice to start with. What it all boils down to is that the best case scenario for the pro-life side is that this issue is sent back to the states to decide on a state by state basis. The best case for the pro-abortion side is that nothing happens at all.
This election may result in the appointment of at least two new SC judges. If so, the question that will most assuredly be asked during nomination will be, "do you think Stare Decisis applies to Roe v. Wade". The question that I have is, why does the left always invoke Stare Decisis (settled law) when it comes to killing babies, but not when deciding who the participants are in a marriage? Any thoughts?

As he continues to express his visions for increased hostilities in Afghanistan and Pakistan, someone needs to tell Barack the truth. and here it is:

Pakistan has it's own set of special circumstances. The SWAT area has been under attack from the Taliban for almost a year now. It's Muslims killing Muslims because the moderates will not adhere to the radical extremists. But each and everytime a moderate speaks up, he is killed. Just the other day another moderate Mullah was gunned down because he proclaimed that the radical "islamists" were not Muslins at all.
For all their problems, my best source, (A former reporter from Pakistan) informs me that the Pakistani people as a whole would not welcome US or any other involvement. He did say that an armed "civil war" type of effort must occur within their borders to rid the nation of the many ISI and other military types that have embraced both Al qaeda and the Taliban. He also noted that funding may also be coming from India. He explained that while India's population is mostly Hindu, by sheer numbers the amount of Muslims in India exceed that of Pakistan. Violence is on the horizon, and they don't want us to help. Someone needs to inform Barack, he thinks it's a good idea to intervene.

Happyg
Jul 12, 2008 | 10:41 AM

What little we do know about Obama is disturbing to normal Americans. He comes out of the city of Chicago long known for it's ties to organized crime and union manipulation. His associates have been known to speak disparagingly not only about white Americans, but about our government as a whole. Some in the past, have even been considered "terrorists" against this nation.

Mr. Obama's years in the Illinois Senate showed him to be pro-abortion, even in the third tri-mester and that he favored gun control. Although he now seems to favor the right for citizens to bear arms, but only if certain cities can remain gun-free zones(?) Go figure???

 I could go on to the FISA Bill that he swore he would oppose, yet just recently voted for; or his "firm" committment to END THE WAR IN IRAQ IN SIX MONTHS, which now also appears to be just more hype. Or just say "No" to drilling. But what I "fear" the most about Barack Obama is his 130 "present" votes while in the Illinois Senate. His recent recantations, coupled with his history for not being able to take a position, leads this reasonable man to believe that Mr. Obama cannot make a sound decision under pressure that he will not waver on. Our country is at war and our enemies only understand violence. His thoughts of using rhetoric, with the threat of increased rhetoric as a way of defending this nation was tried during the 90's. It was a miserable failure. And so too, would be an Obama Administration.

I guess today we found out which direction Meet The Press is headed. Brokaw coddled two Democrat governors and the most liberal Republican governor, all in one show.

Speaking of Moyers, a couple of years back he sign off on NOW stating that he was pursing some interests in the "private" sector. How'd that work out Bill? Not so hot I guess. A year later you were back at the public trough spreading your socialist/communist views every chance you get. But you did get to drop off  the NOW slot to that other socialist David Brancaccio. And now you are two. Who says our government doesn't sponsor terrorism?

Considering that this post was already pulled down once at Foxboston, I guess the original title is quite appropriate. Rarely Seen In Our Media..... Jun 24, 2008 | 01:28 PM PST
Category: Political Report This Post

Rarely Seen In Our Media.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

Everytime I hear a Democrat talk about protecting pensions, as a union member, I know they aren't talking about me. You see, while our Democrat "friends" are more than willing to harness the free labor and lucrative funds that our union leaders reap upon them, when it came to protecting our rank and file union member's pensions, they didn't feel that our union pensions deserved at least the same oversight and accountability standards that they demanded for all other Americans. Don't believe me? It's all in our US Congressional Record. (Dated July, 10, 2002, Senate pages- Sarbanes/Oxley debate) After hearing about HALF A BILLION DOLLARS IN UNION PENSION FRAUD AND ABUSE IN THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 2002, each and every Democrat Senator voted against extending Sarbanes/Oxley to cover our union pensions. Senator Sarbanes stated that 'we already have in place what we consider adequate safeguards. A year in jail, and or a ten thousand dollr fine. Democrat politicians like unions alright. Oh, not the rank and file, just the mob bosses that fill their coffers with member's monies while they steal the rest.

So the next time you hear a Democrat politician talk about protecting Americans pensions, if you're a union member, remember, they're not talking to you.

 

You can't make this stuff up. The "warmists" are now suggesting that the earth will in all likelyhood cool for the next ten years, BUT, that doesn't mean the earth "maybe" won't start to warm up again after that. Of this, they are, err, almost certain? It's truly amazing that these people can even make a statement in public with a straight face. Have you hugged your tree today???

Ocean Cooling to Briefly Halt Global Warming, Researchers Say By Jim Efstathiou Jr.

April 30 (Bloomberg) -- Parts of North America and Europe may cool naturally over the next decade, as shifting ocean currents temporarily blunt the global-warming effect caused by mankind, Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences said.

Average temperatures in areas such as California and France may drop over the next 10 years, influenced by colder flows in the North Atlantic, said a report today by the institution based in Kiel, Germany. Temperatures worldwide may stabilize in the period.

The study was based on sea-surface temperatures of currents that move heat around the world, and vary from decade to decade. This regional cooling effect may temporarily neutralize the long- term warming phenomenon caused by heat-trapping greenhouse gases building up around the earth, said Richard Wood, a research scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre, a U.K. provider of environmental and weather-related services.

``Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,'' Wood said in an interview. ``Without knowing that, you might erroneously think there's no global warming going on.''

The Leibniz study, co-written by Noel Keenlyside, a research scientist at the institute, will be published in the May 1 issue of the journal Nature.

``If we don't experience warming over the next 10 years, it doesn't mean that greenhouse-gas warming is not with us,'' Keenlyside said in an interview. ``There can be natural fluctuations that may mask climate change in the short term.''

CO2 Surge

Carbon dioxide, produced mainly from burning fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas, is the chief pollutant blamed for global warming. Since 1988, CO2 levels in the world's skies have increased by 9.8 percent, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Scientists debate how much carbon can be pumped into the atmosphere before the effects of climate change, including droughts, floods and reduced fresh water supplies, become irreversible. For every 1 million molecules in the atmosphere, about 384 are carbon dioxide, according to NOAA.

Global temperatures can't rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) without risking the worst effects of climate change, according to the European Union. A scenario to stay below that limit suggests that CO2 levels must be stabilized between 350 and to 400 parts per million.

Long-term climate changes in the North Atlantic region affect ``hurricane activity in the Atlantic, and surface temperature and rainfall variations over North America, Europe and northern Africa,'' according to the study.

`Cold Direction'

``Natural variations over the next 10 years might be heading in the cold direction,'' Wood said. ``If you run the model long enough, eventually global warming will win.''

The world will become at least 2.5 degrees Celsius warmer by 2100, compared with the pre-industrial period, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in March.

``We thought a lot about the way to present this because we don't want it to be turned around in the wrong way,'' Keenlyside said. ``I hope it doesn't become a message of Exxon Mobil and other skeptics.''

Exxon Mobil Corp. spokesman Gantt Walton said managers of U.S. oil company ``take the issue of climate change seriously and the risks warrant action,'' in an interview today.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jim Efstathiou Jr. in New York at jefstathiou@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: April 30, 2008 13:00 EDT

If I could find a way to suggest that our Massachusetts elections be monitored for fraud without impuning these United States of America, I surely would.

Why do our elected officials feel that politics should be a "career choice"? Politics were never supposed to be a life long career path, only a way for concerned citizens to give input into our society for the betterment of said society. Now we have senators and representatives who sell their souls to maintain their seats, the public will be damned. Barring demeaning intervention into our election process, how about this style of term limits ?[One six year term for all offices-no lobbying or associating with any agencies who have any access to government contracts for ten years after leaving office]