Space Coast Conservative
http://blog.spacecoastconservative.com
Space Coast Conservative Blog-o-Space

Sam's House Grand Opening

Sam's House Grand Opening on Saturday, August 21st, at 10:30 a.m. on Merritt Island in the Pine Island Conservation Area at 6195 North Tropical Trail. Info on its location is here.

Although it IS a Parks & Recs/EELs project, it is no longer listed on the Brevard County Parks & Recs Central Area website page. Nor is it listed on the EELs Calendar Page. However, I do have a printout about it from an e-mail someone sent around. I wonder why?

In case you were wondering: Yes, this invitation is a bit facetious. I post it to let you know that it is happening, but I want you to know that you are being treated differently than those who would support this effort. Did you get an e-mail from them with the invitation? No? Your money was spent on this project. You paid for it, but you don't get invited to attend, or even have it posted somewhere for you to find? Is that "fair and equal treatment under the law"? I don't think so. If the people in the "Friends of Ulumay", "Audubon Society", "Space Coast Progressive Alliance", or any other progressive, leftists, tree hugging, Scrub Jay worshipping group gets notified to be there, why didn't you?

That's why I posted this invitation. I want you to know that it's happening so you can attend and ask them why you were not notified of the event and you were not allowed to find out about it without my spreading the word. Attend. Ask them. Hold their feet to the fire. << MORE >>

Education: Prevention of Tyrrany

In reading the book, “The Coming Insurrection” by The Invisible Committee I found quite a few things that I saw happening here in America. Used as part of the evidence in an anti-terrorism case in France, this book tells us how the progressives think. They believe in anarchy, completely and totally: until they get what they want. Then everything changes. What is it they want? They want to be in charge.

They don’t want “equality”. That’s for the bourgeoisie. They don’t want “freedom”. That’s for those who think too small. They want anarchy: murder, mayhem, burning whole cities if necessary to put them in charge. They’ll do what they think is needed in order to get it. They will kill police forces, murder innocents (for they are the only innocents; everyone cooperating with the capitalists are guilty), burn, loot, break, steal. Anarchy helps put them in charge and you are the servants who will do as their bidding tells you. Their egos demand it. Their self-gratification, self-aggrandizement craves it; it’s the driving force and their raison d’être. Nothing shall stand in their way. If you think you are part of them – even though they have used you, met with you, applauded you, dined with you — you are wrong. Not only are you wrong, but you are a useful puppet that is to be discarded and thrown away as soon as your usefulness is gone. Some credit Stalin or Lenin with the phrase, “Useful Idiots”. I don’t know who came up with it, but does it surprise anyone that it was either one of those two dictators who coined the phrase? They used people the same way then discarded them as their usefulness came to an end. Their “discarding” meant a bullet through the head, but let’s not get picky. This is, after all, the twenty-first century. No one kills someone just because they are no longer “useful”. Right?

On page 124 of this little blue book, it states, “The circulation of knowledge hierarchy; it equalizes by raising up.” The Committee is talking about planning insurrections, attacks, fires, anarchy, but they inadvertently tell you the truth about their whole philosophy. If you educate the “proletariat” (the working class people), you raise them up. Education equals a better life. The anarchists – the Stalinists and Leninists – don’t want you raised up, don’t want you educated. If you get a better education, then you can figure out what they are up to. You can see through their plans and think things through yourselves. You won’t have to rely on them to tell you what they are doing is “good for you”. You’ll be able to see for yourselves that what they are doing is not good for you, but bad for you and will keep you poor, dependent and without being able to have a future you wish to have unless they “give” it to you.

The Democrats have always hated the idea of allowing school vouchers for the poorest children in any school district. They have fought against a good education for years. If your child is in a failing school in a poor district, your child is stuck. They can no more move to a private school than I can be a quantum physics professor. I don’t know how to do that sort of math; my brain doesn’t work that way. But your child’s brain may, and without interference if given the chance, you could put your child into a private school via vouchers and your child would have a brighter, better future. This is something Democrats don’t want. The less education your child has, the more likely they are to vote for Democrats. Imagine Condoleeza Rice, Dr. Thomas Sowell, Justice Clarence Thomas, or Dr. Walter Williams voting for Democrats. It doesn’t happen because they are well educated and they have the ability to think for themselves.

A quick side note here: Some call the people above “Uncle Toms” because they don’t stay on the Democratic vote plantation and keep “Massah” in power via obedience, subservience and vote. This is not just nonsense, it is stupidity. Any person can be a dolt and vote for people who are going to keep them down, to keep them poor, subservient. It takes a smart person, someone with courage, strength and discernment to not vote for the “Massah”. If the Dr. Thomas Sowells of this world are “Uncle Toms”, then what does that make you: the idiot Uncle Toms? A quick recalling of the story reminds us that it’s a false moniker anyways. After all, an “Uncle Tom” label would mean to me that someone was a person of faith, for that was the main characteristic of Uncle Tom in Harriett Beecher Stowe’s book. So by saying that people are “Uncle Toms”, they are being accused of nothing more than faith in Christ? OOoohhhh. Bad people. Bad. Don’t a lot of you go to church and profess a belief in God, too? Enough of that side note: back to the real subject matter.

When someone – anyone — wants you to stay uneducated, to not know the truth, to be ill informed, to not have all the facts, it’s not because they trust you to make your own choices. It’s not because they trust you to make the correct choice. It’s because they think you will choose something that does not benefit them if you do have all the information, all the facts, a better education. That’s how politicians stay in office. Teddy Kennedy didn’t want you to have a better education because he wanted you to not know how inept he was. Check out his voting record on education here Ted Kennedy. I think that speaks volumes. Let’s check someone else’s record Barbara Boxer’s record is that she voted “NO” on School Vouchers and on Education Savings Accounts. Another Democrat? Okay, how about Harry Reid? He also voted against School Vouchers and Education Savings Accounts, so that people whose children were in poorly performing Washington D.C. schools would be unable to move their children out of those schools. Nancy Pelosi joined Reid, Boxer and Kennedy in voting against School Vouchers and Education Savings Accounts. Pete Stark voted "No" on School Vouchers, Maxine Waters ditto. Our current president doesn’t like School Vouchers, either. All Democrats.

In “The Coming Insurrection”, they write about the anarchy that is heading our way. They write openly and – one must suppose – honestly about how they want to destroy our current civilization and create a new civilization of communism; organization without government, just with themselves in charge. This is the talk of someone whose ego has gotten the better of them and who is a dangerous individual. That is why they are on trial in France: sedition is a crime in most countries. When those preaching this kind of anarchy – Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, Bernardine Dohrn, you know: Obama’s buddies, associates and closest friends – try to intimidate others with the idea of their inferiority – and lack of education is in their minds an “inferiority” – and they tell people that they – the “Ruling Class” – know best, know what is “good for you”, they are banking on your lack of knowledge, insight and street smarts. If you keep them in political power, you prove them correct about you. When you continue to vote for those who want to keep you on welfare, keep you on the government checks (W.I.C. program, food stamps, government housing; “free” this, that and the other), you are proving to them that you are capable of being bought. You are proving to them that you are disinterested in having more, being better, being smarter, having a brighter future. All you want is to be on “easy street” and have everything handed to you on a silver platter.

I’ve got news for you, “Silver Platter Boy/Girl”. It’s not free, there is no silver platter and your vote comes at too high a price. When the ultimate goal is reached and they are in power, you will be the first to go, the first “useful idiot” who will be out of their realm. Their eyes will be pained by seeing you and they will discard you as quickly as Marie Antoinette is rumored to have said, “Let them eat cake”. Your entire life will be nothing but dross for them and you will be forfeit. After all, if you are that stupid, you will be a drain on them, on their plans, on their power because they will be continually slowing down to bring you up with the other folks, those who are more educated and who think as they and are willing accomplices, not useful idiots. Your “government teat mentality” will then be hooked upon their “government teat” and they don’t want to feed you when it is their account that pays for it. Otherwise, how do you explain why conservatives give so much more to charitable causes than liberals? Conservatives give 30% more than liberals: don’t you think that trend will continue once they are controlling the world as well? Leopards don’t change their spots. Do you think that just because you are somehow “special” that you will be the exception rather than the rule, and they will enjoy taking care of you when they are in power? Look in that mirror again, “Silver Platter Boy/Girl”. You ain’t that special. After all, “People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.” If you are voting for those who believe in “social justice”, you are more than scre**d.

Stop and think, people. If you want to believe that those who are saying, “We’ll take care of you, vote Democratic” are actually going to take care of you, you are wrong. They want to keep you stupid, down, attached at the wallet to the government and to keep you subservient, therefore controlling you. After all, when someone is paying for everything you have because you’re too lazy, or inept to provide for yourself, if that’s not controlled – puppetted, your definition of “Uncle Tommed”, under their thumb – I don’t know what is.

Get a good education. Fight for it. Prepare for life via a real education. I don’t mean an education that will teach you the same things the Democrats are doing and telling you and controlling you with (preparing you to control others the same way: that’s tyranny, not leadership). I mean an education that will teach you to stand on your own two feet, think for yourselves, think critically, think logically (not circular logic; not illogic), and to be ready to argue with your betters for your point of view, beliefs and political stances: and win. If you can do that, you have a great education and you are ready for this world and ready to lead in it, not just sit back and allow others to dictate for whom you should vote.

Tyranny has many faces: the first shown is a lack of education, for tyranny will always use that as a whip against you. If someone is trying to prevent your education, you know their wishes for your future are not good and that, sooner or later, it will come down to tyranny with you on the receiving end.

Freedom's Indelible Ink

Our Declaration of Independence written by our Founding Fathers and sent to King George III of Great Britain, states in part,

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.”

Our Founding Fathers were intelligent, thoughtful, insightful men to have understood (without psychiatrists or sociologists) that people, on the whole, will put up with a lot more than they should because people understand that it’s not easy, “prudent” or a “light and transient” (brief) thing to change a form of government for little matters. One doesn’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

Our Founding Fathers also realized that they had been putting up with a lot of guff – big guff — and they made a list of all the grievances they had against King George III. That list is included within the Declaration of Independence. The list of grievances is twenty-nine items long: a lot of guff to tolerate from a tyrant so far away. One is left to wonder if King George III had been closer – say in Washington, D.C., for instance – if the Founding Fathers would have suffered evil so patiently. After all, if they had been near enough to go talk eye to eye, toe to toe with the man and make some demands of him, would they have tolerated those twenty-nine usurpations?

When Obama started out with all the promises of “Hope” and “Change”, it would have been nice to have had some sort of notification as to what sort of “Change” he would bring. Socialism and/or Marxism are not welcome entities within a free country: and America used to be free. When we have someone who is trying their darnedest to restrain freedom, to destroy our future, to tax us into oblivion — Cloward and Piven and the Weatherman Underground plans being put into effect – we obviously have someone in the White House (now known as the “Red” House), we cannot trust. Obama is doing things similar to the things that King George III did that brought about the first Revolution, the first call to freedom.

Ronald Reagan once said, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

I wonder what Reagan would say if he saw what our country has done to itself just twenty-one short years after he left the Presidency. We have gone from an icon of freedom, hope, strength and purpose — whose strength brought down the Berlin Wall and brought the fresh breeze of freedom to a suffocating people — to a Marxist who hates America and wants to make Reagan’s quote a success in the latter part of the second sentence: give our children “the first step into a thousand years of darkness.”

Considering the list of twenty-nine things King George III was doing wrong, we see that Obama is doing (at the very least) eleven of the same reasons that America’s Founding Fathers – and the people of the Colonies at the time – declared their independence from King George III and his tyranny. When the time was right for America, the people rebelled. In a long, hard fought war, we lost many battles, but in the end, freedom won and King George III was defeated. The cry of freedom rising in the hearts of many here determined that they would no longer live subject to anyone who would do the kinds of things King George III was doing.

The cry of freedom is rising again today. You can see it in the Tea Party movement: not just in their numbers, but in their diversity, their creativity, their strength of heart. When the human heart realizes it lost some of the freedom it had formerly known – via 9/11 and “Homeland Security” measures, or via a Marxist tyrant – every heart yearns to return to that former freedom. Once experienced, freedom leaves an indelible mark upon the human heart and that mark cannot be taken away, covered over, or ignored. It shines in the darkness like a beacon of hope, delight and energy that takes away our breath and makes us determined to recapture the freedoms that were lost. Freedom’s indelible ink remains upon us from the days of Ronald Reagan and from those days freedom’s mark beats within us: strong, proud, eternal.

As in the days of the Declaration of Independence when our Founding Fathers heard freedom’s cry and stood to give America that second-most precious gift, today our hearts cry out once more for that sweet, sweet taste, the lingering taste of freedom left by Ronald Reagan. It’s in the dedication, respect and memories we see reflected in the books we still buy about him, the posters we still hang, the quotes we still use. Those words — so simple, so elegant, so true – that brought tears to our eyes, hope to our hearts, and stirred within us the determination to never let that spark of freedom – that unequalled light, that star so bright, that yearning of every human soul – leave this great land.

Our Founding Fathers gave us the tools, the example, the truth. Reagan gave those of us not alive in the time of our Founding Fathers the taste of indelible ink that branded every true American heart and burnt within us an embers’ glow of freedom’s eternal spark. Within the hearts of every true American beats that rhythm of freedom’s cry. The rhythm of patience, of belief that it won’t get worse, of desire to obey the law, but knowing that if it came to it, the law must be broken as our Founding Fathers showed us in the struggle to bring our America into existence and to let that spark burn into a new country, a new hope, a new beginning for freedom’s light.

Ronald Reagan said of America in his farewell address, “After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true to the granite ridge, and her glow has held no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.”

As freedom’s indelible ink has left its mark, Ronald Reagan’s message was freedom’s true voice, its Liberty Bell cry of “Let Freedom Ring!” American hearts are now hearing that cry. They pull restlessly at the bit and paw anxiously at the ground, awaiting that time when we can stand no more and the Declaration of Independence’s phrase, “Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed” will give way to the very next sentence in that august document of liberty:

“But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”

There are others out there who have freedom’s indelible ink upon their hearts. Others who know that “it is the Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government”. As long as we have that spark and are willing to stand up and fight for it, to fan it into a great, roaring flame that beckons once again to those throughout the earth who would be free, there will be no tyrant powerful enough, no “Change” permanent enough, no “Hope” strong enough, to prevent freedom from once again shining in this land.

Freedom calls and every human heart answers, whether in actions, words or just a silent, still desire because tyranny rules the land, every heart answers. It is the inborn cry that God planted and little experiences of the slightest kind – music that stirs the heart, a poem that lights the spark, a blog that rings the bell – bring that spark of freedom’s indelible ink to life and hope is born.

Indelible ink and freedom’s call delight the soul and mortal heart. For freedom comes from God and it is His desire that we live free, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” (John 8:32), is the call of freedom straight from God’s own plan. That is why it calls so persistently to those who will listen, to those with indelible ink. Freedom’s call, freedom’s mark, freedom’s spark stirs and beckons and God smiles because He is the One who gave it.

We have suffered the evils of Marxism and tyranny’s plans being implemented long enough. Freedom’s indelible ink calls and an answer it demands!

Tea Party Suggestions: Please be proactive

Many of my readers know that I have been what some would call “critical” of the Tea Party movement. While I support their cause wholeheartedly, I have never thought that getting together at a rally where nothing is actually done besides a support system and a lot of “feel good” speeches accomplished anything except emotional support. While emotional support for those who are in the Tea Party may be a good thing in keeping them from feeling alone, it does exclusively that: emotions. Emotions are not actions and that is what I have always thought the Tea Party should be about. After all, if your numbers have Congress and the MSM afraid of you, why waste that fear? Why not put that power into action and do something with it? However, I saw very few Tea Party activities besides rallies and speeches; and neither of those things accomplishes anything. Therefore, in order to encourage Tea Party members in their activities to make a difference, I have the following suggestions for getting active and doing something.

Please take these suggestions in the spirit they are offered: not as a criticism, but as a list of things people may have the time, be willing to make the effort, and have the wherewithal to do without having to do it all themselves, and without having to feel as though they weren’t cut out for one particular item that every Tea Party member is already doing because there are no other ideas put forth. I try to run the gamut of ideas that require differing amounts of effort, money, time, personal nerves and attendance. Not everyone will wish to do every suggestion; not every suggestion will be right for all. Pick one or more that you are comfortable with and do those. As the Bible says, “And he gave some, apostles, and some, prophets, and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ:” (Eph. 4:11-12). No one person is supposed to be everything. Choose which you will do and follow through with all your heart.

The list of possibilities:

GOVERNMENT:

• Start attending Brevard County Board of County Commission meetings and speak against items that would mean the BOCC voting to spend your money. This is a necessary step to help lower taxes at home. Remember, with the manned space program (so far just the manned) shut down, there will be fewer people to pay for the things the BOCC wants to spend money on. There will be fewer homes occupied and there will be fewer people paying property taxes in order to fund those BOCC votes. It’s your money; do something to protect it. There should be no fewer than forty or fifty Tea Party members at each BOCC meeting and at least that many at the Budget meetings.
<< MORE >>

Why I HATE the Minimum Wage

(NOTE: All names used herein are fictional and do not refer to any known real life person.)
Back on October 24, 1938, when the Federal Government set the first minimum wage at twenty-five cents per hour people lost the right to negotiate for themselves how much their time and effort were worth. It was no longer an "experience counts" and hard working employees make more verses inexperienced, or lazy workers thing. It became "everyone starts at the same rate" and no choices were offered.

That amount rose steadilly and became a source of discrimination in 1961 when there were different categories of workers: "large retail and service enterprises as well as to local transit, construction, and gasoline service station employees" or employees of farms or "nonexempt" workers. Depending upon where you worked in 1968, you could be paid as much as forty-five cents more per hour because the minimum wage dictated so. Does that sound like a fair practice?

Nowadays, it's an exception between the nonexempt workers and the exempt workers and the federal government participates in age discrimination: "A subminimum wage — $4.25 an hour — is established for employees under 20 years of age during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer." If you are a day over twenty, you must be paid — according to federal law — $7.25 per hour. That's a three dollar difference decided by one day. Is that fair?

Did you know there were differences? There are.

The thing that minimum wage earners do not seem to understand is that they could be worth more if they negotiated on their own behalf. When people get high-powered, high paying jobs, it isn't because the federal govermnent was involved and decided what their wage was going to be. It was because they knew their education, their experiences, their insight, their qualifications made their services more valuable than a government set wage. They walk into a potential employer's office and know that they want $80,000 for their base pay, full benefits including medical coverage, vacation pay and flex time (or PTO). They get it there, or they move on to a company that will pay them what they think they are worth (or they have to re-evaluate their self-worth).

Let's say that Sam Smith went to Harvard and got his degree in Mechanical Engineering with secondary studies in Business Management. He graduated in the top twenty percent of his class and he has some work experience but it was working at a fast food restaurant and a paper route when he was in his teens. He's now twenty-four and he's going on his first job interview since he was sixteen. He walks into the "Manufacturing X" company in time for his appointment, gets shown in and shakes hands with the personell manager and the department head he would be working under. They talk and the "Manufacturing X" company likes what they see. Do they offer Sam Smith minimum wage because this is his first job in years and he's basically starting over, and it is the government mandated wage? No. He gets to say what he is expecting to earn. They get to say, "Well, yes, we can do that," or, "Sorry. We could offer you fifty. Would you take that?" It's then up to Sam Smith to decide his own value.

Same holds true with someone just getting their first job at a fast food restaurant, a grocery store or a car wash. Ken Kirk is perpetually punctual, hardly ever gets sick, is good at making change, is driven to succeed and is shooting to be promoted at least once (preferably twice) within the next six months. Lenny Ladd walks into the same establishment, has a track record of working for a similar establishment, but has been sick often, has a history of putting nominal effort into his work and sometimes was as much as $5.50 off in his drawer count at the end of the day because he has a problem making change. There are two identical jobs available. Ken Kirk talks to the manager and impresses him very much. Lenny Ladd has experience and the manager needs experience. They both get hired and they both get paid minimum wage for the first six months of employment.

Problem is, the manager has to pay Lenny Ladd the same wage as he has to pay Ken Kirk when it is Ken Kirk who has made a huge difference in the first two weeks of his being employed and Lenny Ladd has done just about nothing extra. Due to the minimum wage, there is no money to give Ken Kirk a raise; nor can Lenny Ladd be fired because a second worker is definitely needed; even if it is a nominal worker. Ken Kirk has to wait until there can be more money in the budget for his raise. Six months pass. Ken Kirk has been noticed by other employers and he is being offered other jbos. Loyalty makes Ken Kirk want to stay; money makes him want to go. Ken Kirk makes a decision to stay for two more months, just in case things get better. Two months later, Ken Kirk is still making minimum wage and Lenny Ladd is getting lazier.

Even though Ken Kirk absolutely loves working there, and loves what he is doing he decides to leave the company because he can't see himself going further up the ladder due to Lenny Ladd's employment costing his employer equal pay for less work than Ken Kirk was putting into the job. Ken Kirk leaves his employer and makes two dollars more per hour at his new job because of his positive work attitude, drive and contribution to his employer. Lenny Ladd is still at the store and still making minimum wage with his boss trying to decide whether Lenny Ladd is worth it because the boss can't find anyone else to take the job.

Ken Kirk's decision was right for him only in the dollar and cents mode. Emotionally, Ken Kirk felt like a traitor because he respected his boss and had a fond attachment to him. He felt resentment toward Lenny Ladd for costing Kirk his dream job, and he considered his first job a failure because of his decision to leave and he carried that with him the rest of his life.

This isn't as far fetched as you might think. There are employers out there every day who have a similar situation: go-getters who cannot be given a raise due to minimum effort minimum wage employees who take up pay and space and do just about no work. Yes, they could be fired (as long as it's not a union job), but they would only be replaced by someone else making a minimum wage and the people who deserve more money wouldn't be receiving it because of that minimum wage being forced upon the employer. The employer is stuck with the inability to reward good workers for their effort; or to discipline bad employees for their lack thereof. Money is supposed to be a good motivator, but for some it is not. Firing those who do no work only begins the cycle again and means training another new worker and making the HR department work harder to do the processing out and in. Training time means down time and that means money lost; at least with the slacker he was already trained, even if he's producing 3/4 of what he could be doing.

Minimum wage is a trap for both the employer and the employee. There is no negotiating, no figuring out what you are worth, what the job is worth. It's here: take it or leave it because this is what the government says we have to pay. Minimum wage depletes creativity (who wants to be more creative and make more effort than the Lenny Ladds of this world and still receive the same pay?), depletes initiative, depletes drive. It's a job that will pay you no matter what as long as you show up and you can always get another job that will pay you that same amount as a newbie, so why bother with effort?

Minimum wage is a vacuum of despair. I heard so many people at my last job complain that they were "stuck" there because they couldn't get anything better (no matter what their pay was). I have heard so many people in other jobs decry their pay because they "couldn't do better". They never tried. They heard that the minimum wage job they were in was basically their only choice because if they changed jobs, it would just mean downtime and they'd be paid the same thing at the new job — no matter how long it was between jobs — and they are raising three children on that minimum wage job and it's hopeless.

Even though minimum wage is said to be ensuring a "living wage" for everyone, it is a farce. With gas, food, electricity, water, housing costs as high as they are, the "living wage" has never been a "living wage": never. In 1938, at twenty-five cents per hour, the minimum wage earner made $520 per year. The average cost to raise a family of four with food, shelter and clothing outstretched the minimum wage: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qzYG5SZLOzgJ:www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1987/06/art4full.pdf+1938&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgzOGdPhSQvG9Q8-m7gwy5yw17fBER8ZEgRpE-tbP1XEC8R3tICjBXcP8uTGwANMk4-MdP7TVdRzWAqHjb7Fb4ftP12Ex11tJqb7Itvu-fmtpvGTtJTWHAe8HE98B2ftrnwM4ho&sig=AHIEtbRwQZcrf5jM0JYAKRwW9fAIjJm3Sg (see the chart on the third page) and it has every year since its inception.

The minimum wage is an useful, however. It keeps people believing that if they rely on the government to do things for them — to "give" them health care, to "pay" for their car, to "demand" a living wage for them — then all they have to do is show up at work and do minimal work. They don't have to meet standards and they don't have to work hard to get ahead. They will — probably at the next big election cycle — get a raise automatically when the minimum wage goes up to buy more votes for re-election. Very useful for those who are willing to keep people down and to keep them ignorant of the true price of their vote and of their own willingness to let others do things "for" them. Remember, it's not always "for" you. When it is a politician doing it, it's usually "to".

What I sent to Hillary Clinton

Secretary Clinton,
 
Your website and the article at CBS News (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/62698) said that "citizens" are allowed to write in and tell you what we think about America's human rights record. That I will do.
 
Since its inception and the U.S. Constitution, America's human rights record has been better than any other country on earth. We wrote laws that enabled people to benefit from the sweat of their own brow and to toil on their own land and keep the things they grew for themselves, or to sell what they grew for a profit; to manufacture and benefit from their labor and to create and benefit from their creativity. We tried to keep government out of the way of the people's prosperity and freedoms.
 
We have a record of standing up for the little guy — domestically and abroad — and always responded when asked for help. We respond when a country is attacked and requests assistance: whether the attack be from another country, or from "Mother Nature" and our help is always in the nature of trying to do what is right.
 
We have a record of admitting wrongs and righting them. When slavery was finally abolished (Thank you, President Lincoln, Republican.), we corrected a wrong that was a shorter duration here than in any other country on earth. In fact, there are still today countries that have slaves of one sort or another and America takes a stand against such a practice.
 
We have a record of helping the political prisoners and political targets of tyrants and dictators — except of those currently running America: this administration — and offering them a place of safety and political freedom to speak as they wish and to stand against their tyrannical government back home.
 
We have a record of standing strong for what is right, what is good, what is pure and what is best for the people and the people's freedoms.
 
Never overlook those things — our actual record on human rights — when you consider the history of America's human rights record. Until this administration, we were a good nation. We were a nation that tried to do what was best for its people and the people of other countries. We were sincere in our efforts to protect the weak and injured, to help those in need, to promote freedom within our borders and beyond. This administration does its best to reverse all of that. But I hope that it won't last for long. Four years is the most we can take: preferably less with impeachment possible soon.
 
America was founded on "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and that ideal has carried us thus far. Let us not now turn back from it and become a nation that follows Hitler's, Stalin's, Mao's and Che's example into that dark night of murder and starvation for the sake of the power of the administration. America — this administration — needs to return to its roots and return to our freedoms and turn away from the Marxist/Socialist/Communist hateful ideas of those who have already proven it doesn't work for the people. America's record was good. Remember that. America is a good nation as long as it has good leaders. This administration is not "good leaders": Ronald Reagan was.
 
Sincerely,

"Oad" to obamination

In the year of our Lord, 2008,
In front of the world a man filled with hate
Began to run for President of the U.S.
And filled the land with words of excess.

He promised all everything and more than enough
To have what they wanted and with bellies stuffed
They would play on their toys in a house paid in full
By someone besides them; their neighbors would do.

He promised to give whatever was wanted
Including health care free - for his supporters, at least.
The others who opposed him would pay through their teeth
For his word was golden and delivered their dreams

Not exactly when, nor how, nor all;
Just the thimbleful of his word did he deliver,
But it was enough to placate and keep him in power
On their hopes and dreams, he had started to sour.

For now that he had tasted the ultimate power of the land
And been given the Prize from other hands,
He decided that was all that he wanted
His time was too precious to serve those who trusted

And when they cried loudly, he'd throw them a bone
A little thing, really, a single buffalo wing,
To make them shut up and leave him alone,
Quieting the masses became his full art

And when they'd start whining, he'd reply with this start,
"When I ran for office, I promised you this…"
And naming a thing he'd throw out the wing
That was their dream - or at least a small part.

It's a beginning, they'd sigh, and be contented again
With little, small things, beginning to end.
Until months later, when realize they would,
And it became clear (finally) that they didn't get their due.

Hue and cry would set forth and complaints they did rattle,
And on and on the leader had to prattle
About what he promised, though none could contend,
That deliver he had finished not one could amend

The list of unfinished promises and such
The leader had actually given all he had said
On any one thing - not a one - would be named
And there was the truth staring them straight in the face.

The leader had used them, and used them fair well,
For getting what he wanted and no one could tell
Anything he wanted more than the power
To do as he pleased and to waste 'way the hours

Consuming his high end food, wine and steaks,
Flying here, there and shopping trips did take,
So many - so many - that even his friends
Began to notice that their lives were in his hands

For if, in a battle, for one more hurrah!
Their lives were but fodder for the leader to draw
And to use and to discard as only leaders can do
And to ruin and lay waste to, just like you know who.

This leader refrained from doing what was right.
He insisted on doing just as he pleased,
He wasn't interested in laws, rules or promises;
Those were for others, not he, the great liege,

For in his own mind he was all that and more
And everyone must listen, bow and adore
And if they did not, he'd make sure to remember
And punish them later, come June or December.

Then in a fury the people of the land
Decided that enough of the leader was had.
They'd put up with all this, and more than they knew,
And it was time to give the "liege" his fair due.

To their House they did march, signs in their hands,
And demanded a return of their rights in their land.
From the window did look the leader with fascination
"What have I done?" Queried obamination.

"To bring out the ire in these little people?
To make them all hate me and want me to leave?
I've done all I wanted, they've nothing to grieve."
And stare he did nightly into the abyss
Of the people of the land he summarily dismissed.

<< MORE >>

Selfish is as Selfish Does

When I was a kid, the most often heard phrase was, "I want a better world for my children." It was our parents' main goal to make sure that we had a great America in which to raise our children — their grandchildren.

Nowadays, it's more likely to hear parents say something like, "I want health care. I want it now. I want the government to pay for it." The problem with that sort of thinking is that it's not good for your children to have to be burdened with the cost of your desires. That's like saying that you're horny so your child should have sex with you. Not a good idea.

Your children shouldn't be burdened with the cost of your desires. Not for health care, not for sexual satisfaction. And yet, more and more parents are demanding of their children the cost of the parents' desires. Whether those desires be for nationalized health care at an enormous cost to their children and grandchildren, or their parents' desire for "fullfilment" as the mother and father both trudge off to work daily as the child is raised by a multitude of babysitters and before- and after-school programs. If the parents' desire is to have "social justice", the child is stuck with a world in which he or she gets promoted even when not ready, leaving the child feeling panicked due to not understanding the work; or, on the other side, being not chosen for college due to another child's preferential treatment based on "social justice": the children pay the price, no matter which parent is dreaming of "social justice".

The children of today are paying the price of four decades' worth of parental selfishness. Since the sixties, parents have been into "peace, love and rock and roll", leaving the child to pay for the "peace" by not having a missile defense system or enough airplanes to defend them. The child paid first for the "love" because the child had no father in the home and it was "okay" to break social norms of the time and to raise a child without having a husband. "Okay for whom?" was never asked and the child grew up feeling different and intimidated, or followed Dear Ol' Mom and did the same thing and became sexually permissive and wound up presenting Mom with a grandchild to help raise because Mom put herself first, why shouldn't the daughter? Or, why shouldn't the son be sexually permissive, that's the way Mom and/or Dad were, so if it's good enough for them... They pay the price in rock and roll in learning what they live, not what they're told. If Mom and (or) Dad are into the kind of music that is infamous for the drug scene (Jimi Hendrix, etc. for the older generation; I don't know who for the younger), then that's the way the child will grow up. Don't expect your child to not impersonate you in most things, or at least in the big things. As long as they live it, they will learn it.

Nowadays, it's children having children because the parents are too busy working: parents putting their reputation for having nice things is more important to them than having a solid family where the child feels important and knows that Mom and Dad love them. I've heard parents say that they love their child and would do anything for them, but those same parents don't have time to sit and talk to the child who needs advice, who has a heart ache, who has been abused by someone — all in the name of "I have to go to work, I'll see you later." What is more important? Your savings plan for your new car, or the fact that your daughter was just pressured into having sex with her boyfriend for the first time even though she's just thirteen?

Selfish parents think that a bigger, better, more world (bigger house, better car, more designer name fashions, etc.) is better for their children than a small house with an older car and Wal-Mart brands with Mom at home and Dad working to support all of them because they put their children first. It's no use blaming "the world we live in" because it wasn't the world who taught your children that it should be that way in the first place. It was you!

When you have children, it's your job to raise them, not someone else's. When you have children, it's your job to teach them right from wrong, not someone else's. When you have children, it's your job to teach them about sex, not someone else's. When you have children, it's your job to teach them about God and your belief system, not someone else's and it certainly isn't someone else's job to tell them that they can't believe, either!

Putting your children first in this world means not only putting off that BMW until you are retired, but it means having the patience, determination and courage to do what is right for your children and their future and your grandchildren's futures in every instance and every decision you make. That's being a parent. Thinking of the "here and now" and only the "here and now" will do no good for your children's futures because they will be the ones paying the price for you thinking of only the "here and now".

Consider the fact that with health care, it will currently cost the average American family of four almost twenty thousand dollars a year for Pelosi's HR 3962 if the Senate agrees with it and this thing goes all the way through. Think of how much it will cost your children's average family of four in twenty years from now. We all know that the costs of government plans always go one way: UP. So how much will it cost your children when they're thinking of having children? It's estimated at almost twenty thousand annually now, how much more will it be in twenty years? Thirty thousand a year? Do you even make thirty thousand a year? If your child does, what will your child live on, buy food with, do for their children what they want to if all of their money is going toward this nationalized health care plan? How will your child survive? Obama won't be in office in twenty years. Pelosi hopefully won't be in office in twenty years. Who will do for them? You? Will you then pay the price for your current selfishness? If not, then who?

Are we to provide everything for your child via a government program? Is that how selfish you want to be? If that be the case, then what will your child have to pay in taxes in order to be able to have everything from the government? Or, what will your child have to do for the government in order for the government to be so magnanimous toward your child? Do you want your child to do without because you wanted health care now? Sounds to me as though your child will not only do without, but your children's children will, too. If your children have to pay thirty thousand a year for the health care system you wanted now, then how much more will their children pay? Fifty thousand a year? Sixty? Does that sound like a loving thing to do to your grandchildren?

I thought you were supposed to love them, take care of them, prepare for them, protect them, not burden them with your desires. Plan for your children and your grandchildren, not just the "here and now" or your grandchildren will be paying the price for your selfishness.

What will they think of a grandparent who burdened them with so much government debt that their economy is ruined and the cost of bread is twenty-five dollars a loaf? What will they think of a grandparent who made it impossible for them to go on vacations because they can't take time off of work due to their tax burden and the resulting economy? What will your grandchildren think of how you treated them and their futures when it didn't have to be that way? What will they think of you then?

Will they think that you made a mistake? Will they think that you were misled? Will they think that it's all the government's fault, or will they wake up to the fact that it was you who helped push this thing through and it was you who made their lives a miserable, joyless, slavish burden because their freedoms were gone via Cap & Trade, their banks were gone via government takeover, their health care took most of their pay and what wasn't taken via health care was taken in other taxes to pay for vehicle production and unions? What will they think of you as they work fourteen hour days to pay for your desires?

It's not right to be a selfish parent. It's not right to think of only yourself when you are trying to get something from the government. It's not right to think of just the "here and now". You must think of the future for your children's sake and stop thinking only of yourself and your desires.

You consider nationalized health care good for your children's futures? Not when you look at the big picture and the money involved. Not when you look at it objectively and unemotionally. It cannot be. Any time you add a burden to future generations for the satisfaction of the present, you are putting that burden on your children and making their debt to the government bigger each time. There's a number out there that is about $38,000 and is the amount of taxes each child will owe thanks to this administration's plans and deeds. That's not a very auspicious beginning for your child's future. Add to that the health care plans and it's even more debt already owed. When will it end?

In today's America, your child has the option to be whatever he/she wants to be. There have been people all across this land who started with nothing and rose to power, prestige, leadership positions, riches even because of their God-given talents, determination, drive and intelligence. They didn't rely on the government to get them there; they relied upon themselves. If they needed help, they went to family, friends and — if nowhere else could help them — the government as a last resort. People who dream big and aspire to be something can accomplish their goals and dreams in today's America. In tomorrow's America — with health care, Cap & Trade, etc. — that won't be even remotely possible. Why? Because no matter what aspirations your child may have in your selfish tomorrow's America, the government will have to step in and take most of their money, delineate what they can and cannot do because of Cap & Trade emissions laws, prevent them from living where they wish to live because a gopher turtoise was just found on the property's border and work will be the focus of their taxpaying lives.

All of this is the result of your selfishness; your "here and now", live for today attitude. To think that it could have all been prevented if you had stopped, thought about the future and thought about how it will effect your children and your children's children. To think that your children could have lived in a FREE America, instead of one that is burdened with debt, extreme environmentalist laws, and no hope for making it better, or getting out of it, all thanks to your selfishness.

I think your children deserve better. That's why I have my website, write this blog and encourage parents to have Mom stay at home with their children during their school years. Because it's selfishness that will bring about a worse world for our children, not a better world. Selfishness is demanding health care reform now so that you can feel better about yourself later. How you can feel better about yourself bringing all of that upon your children and grandchildren, I do not comprehend. But you will. My question is, will you even see what you have done as your child works so hard for your desires?

How selfish are you? Will you think of your children? Or will you say, "I want it and I want it now!"?

It's simple. Think of their future tax burden. Think of their lives and how they must live them in order to pay for your desires. How long will they have to pay for you? Wouldn't it be better to have just said, "No. I'll find a better way. I don't have to do that now."?

Grandpa, Grandma, Mom, Dad and Aunts and Uncles: do not burden the younger generations with your desires. Have mercy. Have mercy.

Don't Call Me "White"

Well, I've reached my limit. I'm so fed up with the idea that I have to kowtow to someone else regarding what words I can use in this "free" country, that I have decided to rebel. I will not use the term "African-American" unless and until I am given the same considerations.

If I have to use the terms that keep changing (used to be "negro", then it was "black", then "African-American" [even though born here, thus making people AMERICAN-AMERICAN), then others have to refer to me as the term I choose. Fair is fair, right?

So, I have decided that I shall from now on be referred to as being — not white — but "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person." If someone can't refer to my race as what I want them to refer to me, then they better not refer to me at all, or I'll take offense. It has to be my way, or the highway. After all, I have rights, too. I am going to take offense and be upset if anyone refers to me as anything besides, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person."

Why, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person."? Because I can. I can change it at my whim and I can make it known throughout the world (internet gives internationality, right?) and if someone screws up and calls me "white", then they're hate mongers. They're race baiters. They're racists because I'm not "white". I am, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person."

Don't the rules apply equally to all of us? Isn't that what everyone wants: equal rights? Well, if that's going to be the rule, then why should I put up with someone using an erroneous color designation as my race delineation? I will no longer stand for that! I am not "white". Even my teeth are not "white" since I can apply a treatment that will make them "whiter". That means that they are not purely "white": off-white, maybe, not "white". So why should I be called "white"?

It's a racist thing to call me "white".<< MORE >>

Nobel Prize Very Revealing

P>As obamination (cough cough) "won" the Nobel Peace Prize today, everyone except himself wondered "Why?" He didn't say, "What? What are you talking about?" when he was told. He said, "I am humbled," as though he thought of himself as worthy, or as though he wasn't totally surprised.


Speculation was rampant as to why the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee would choose obamination. One of the most oft heard speculations was about obamination's apology tour and how he was so apologetic for "American arrogance." Actually, I have no problem with him apologizing for arrogance, but I do have a problem with him apologizing for the arrogance of anyone besides himself, his wife (on a scale of one to ten I'd giver her about a thirteen), and his ilk's arrogance. Those of his "bird" (as in "birds of a feather flock together") are as arrogant as anyone has ever been.


In fact, if you watch the video on my <a href="www.spacecoastconservative.com http: videopage.html%22%20originalAttribute='%22href%22%20originalPath=%22%3CA%20href="' originalPath="

The supposed "arrogance" of America is not in thinking that we are right to defend ourselves against attacks — external or internal — any country has the right to do that and most (except the Norwegians, Swedes and perhaps France who usually refuse) would defend their own right to do so. That is not arrogance. The arrogance of America is in the Left's ideology and in their desire to have everyone agree with them, think like them, accept them, give in to them, etc. That is arrogance: arrogance cubed!


When your whole idea is to make others shut-up and not disagree with you because if they disagree, then they are the ones who are wrong, when your whole history shows that it is the mindset, the power point, the teaching of the Left since the 1920s, then the arrogance obamination is apologizing for is apparently his own and that of those birds like him.


Consider his Nobel Prize acceptance speech. He said that he views his win as, "an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."


Sorry. Was that a slip of the tongue? Did he just say that it was an "affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people of all nations"? He did, didn't he? Is he saying that he views this Nobel Peace Prize as an affirmation that "people of all nations" want "American leadership", i.e. himself to lead them?


Well, my, oh, my.


The official press release of what obamination said quoted him as saying the Nobel Peace Prize was "an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations." So he's saying that he wants to rule the world. Right? That's what he said. People of all nations want American leadership.<< MORE >>