Space Coast Conservative Blog-o-Space

Sam's House Grand Opening

Space Coast Conservative — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:00:00 GMT

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. It's your money. Hold them accountable.

Blog entries, but not comments, © Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved.

Education: Prevention of Tyrrany

Space Coast Conservative — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 06:56:00 GMT

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.

Blog entries, but not comments, © Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved.

Freedom's Indelible Ink

Space Coast Conservative — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:04:00 GMT

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!

Blog entries, but not comments, © Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved.

Tea Party Suggestions: Please be proactive

Space Coast Conservative — Mon, 17 May 2010 04:54:00 GMT

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.

• If you do not wish to attend BOCC meetings and speak on spending items, then attend smaller meetings: workshops, budget discussions, etc., and speak against the spending items there. Again, the car pool organizers would be vital here. If you do not wish to be involved in the BOCC or budget discussions because you “don’t do numbers”, then do something else in a County Committee or Board. Request that your County Commissioner appoint you to represent your area. If you get to vote on spending items, vote against them. If you do not get to vote on spending, then vote in the most conservative way possible. Boards and Committees are usually stepping stones for those wishing to become political candidates. Being assigned to Boards and Committees means making political connections. Keep your eyes open and find out who is trying to use it as a stepping stone and what their political bent is (progressive or Conservative). Inform the present of the possible future. (If you live in an incorporated city within Brevard County, do the same things as suggested above for the “County” section, but at your City Council meetings. That’s a given.)

• Become a candidate. If you are the right person for the job, you can do so and be elected, especially in today’s climate. I know it’s scary and that there are a lot of requirements and very little time left (if any) to qualify. But if that is what you are being called to do, go for it. Campaigning between now and August primaries is going to be difficult, but you can do it. Look at all of the people who went to the Tea Parties and request their help with getting you into office. If you have been at the Tea Parties, they may recognize you. If not, show them what you’re made of and stand for lower taxes at all times; before the election, and if you win, after the election.

• If you choose not to become a candidate, be sure to vote for the most CONSERVATIVE person on the ballot, no matter what the party designation is behind the candidate’s name. Conservative people are for smaller government and lower taxes, and that’s what the Tea Party is all about. We all know that there are way too many RINOs in the Republican Party nowadays to believe that the “R” party designation means that they won’t vote for higher taxes (think Mary Bolin and Chuck Nelson on the BOCC: both ran as Republicans).

• Contact your local representatives and tell them that you are forming a group of people who would like to meet with him/her on a regular basis to advise them on what the people are thinking. IF they agree to meet with you regularly, excellent! They’re interested in what their constituents think. IF they don’t agree to meet with you, get together with the group of people and talk about what this representative (BOCC member, Senator, whatever) is doing and discuss your reactions to what they are doing. Take notes on what was discussed and send those notes to the representative on a regular basis. This will let the representative know that they are being watched and whether you think they are doing a good job, a terrible job, or just middling.

• Visit your local representatives’ offices individually (just you and/or your family): BOCC, State and U.S. elected officials should become familiar with your face and with your name. This reminds them that their votes have an impact on individuals, not just groups. It makes it more personal when they see that you have a war injury and walk with a cane and that vote is going to affect your veteran’s benefits; or that your little boy has aspirations to be an astronaut and the space program is important to the future, too. Write to them, call them and visit them. Let them know that you are watching them and that you have the vote and you will use it. Don’t stalk them; just let them know that you are watching their every vote.

NEIGHBORHOOD:

• Start “Tuesday Teas” (use whichever title you wish for them) in which you gather a few of your neighbors (5-10) each Tuesday and talk politics and taxes. These do not have to be Tea Party members, just people who need the information. Have facts and figures ready. Have the information available. Get online and be ready to prove your assertions. Have your computer set up in a convenient location for questions to be looked into immediately. “Fingertip knowledge” is very handy in winning people over to the truth.

• Coordinate a bi-annual Block Party for your street and get Tea Party speakers to come speak at your event. This should not be an election event; it should be an educational event. Tea Party speakers should be from a different area than your neighborhood so that people don’t see it as a “get out the vote” event. This will help with participation and ease suspicions. The Tea Party speaker may get some good feedback and people will talk, but they won’t be able to vote for him/her.

• If you can afford the expense, order pamphlets and books from www.wallbuilders.com and other websites to teach the truth of how America was founded and who America is supposed to be. Wallbuilders.com has one particular pamphlet that talks about “Separation of Church and State” and covers that subject thoroughly (did you know that statement was written in a private letter and taken totally out of context?) that sells for 50¢ each. Twenty of those will cost you ten dollars plus shipping. If you have that to spare, order it and loan it to your neighbors and after they read it, discuss it with them. Then ask for it back and ask someone else to read it. Or, just let them keep it but ask them to promise to pass it on.

• If the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc., have guest speakers, ask if you can come speak to their members and teach them about the Boston Tea Party for a merit badge event. Teach the members about the tax rebellion during our Founding and relate it to today’s Tea Party and what the governments (city, county, state and federal) are currently doing to us.

• Have a garage sale and have information about the Tea Party and what it stands for and what it is trying to accomplish ready to give to anyone who visits your garage sale. Some will not like it; some will not accept it; some will accept it and drop it on the ground right in front of you. Expect that, but at least you tried. With every purchase, have a plastic bag ready to put the purchases in; include your information on the Tea Party in the bag with purchase.

SCHOOLS:

• Get involved in your child’s or grandchild’s school. Volunteer and watch the way the classes are run; what they teach the children and how they teach the children. If you see that the progressive slant is being favored, make a fuss about it and contact the School Board after speaking to the principal if he/she will not make a change.

• Check your child’s/grandchild’s school text books. If they are teaching “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”, excellent! If they are skewing the information and Ronald W. Reagan gets a short paragraph and Clinton and Obama get a few pages of praise, they’re doing it wrong. Make a fuss at the school and at the School Board about the book being skewed.

• Volunteer to teach a class on the Founding Fathers and what they actually believed and wanted for America. Resources are available on the internet – especially at www.wallbuilders.com , www.askheritage.org -- among others. Teach the children the truth about our Founding Fathers and the fact that they started this nation as a Christian nation.

OTHER:

• Start a phone bank and man it. Be the person who puts together a phone tree and be the person who is the person to contact in case there is an action item, important development, etc., that the Tea Party members need to know about or act upon.

• If you cannot attend BOCC meetings, be the person who organizes car pools and pick-ups for those who wish to attend but have no transportation. This would be a vital service to get the Tea Party voices to the BOCC meetings and keep your taxes down.

• If you are a member of Toast Masters, Kiwanis, Elks, etc., ask to do an informational speech on the Tea Party and on what it is trying to accomplish. Be sure to have facts and figures readily available and proof of any political assertions you may be making printed out.

• Write a blog about what is going on in government, about the waste and spending. Your writing is not like mine and your writing may reach someone that my writing will never touch. This is due to the differences in writing styles. While I hit people on the nose with the truth, some do not like that style, while others respond favorably to it. Your style will be different from mine and your style may reach your neighbor, your friend at church, or whomever that I would never be able to reach. Print “web cards” (like business cards, but with your blog info) and put them everywhere.

• Write letters to the editor about the issues facing us with high taxes, job losses and the impacts it will have on your children or grandchildren (or you). Write not just to Florida Today, but to every printed item in your neighborhood including HOA newsletters, your area freebies (Coffee News, Hometown News, Senior Life, etc.), and any Club newsletters you belong to that may have the slightest possibility of publishing the letter: ‘Tis better to try and fail than never to have tried.

• Something EVERYONE CAN AND SHOULD DO: Get a copy of the U.S. Constitution (even if it’s printed out on your own printer) and carry it with you after you have read it four or five times through. Know the U.S. Constitution. Remember that it protects you more than it does the government.

Blog entries, but not comments, © Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved.

Why I HATE the Minimum Wage

Space Coast Conservative — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 07:37:00 GMT

(NOTE: All names used herein are fictional and do not refer to any known real life person.)

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm

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

Space Coast Conservative — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:14:00 GMT

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

Space Coast Conservative — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:52:00 GMT

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.

A voice rang out from the people of the land,
"America is Freedom! Return to the Law!
Stop changing our nation to meet your desires.
We want nothing of your Socialist ways!
We want America in Founding Fathers' ways!"

"Oh!" Exclaimed obamination, now "understanding"
And he ran quickly to the laws and destroyed them completely
And declared himself King - Greatest and First.
And because "First" none dare call him the "Worst".
He'd rule until death and he'd be their Sovereign.
They'd learn to love him, whether like it or not,
And he'll leave to his successor the wealth of this nation,
The whole world would call him "King obamination".

The flaw in his plan, he saw not a one.
No inkling had he of the folly nor fun,
Others would now have at his expense
For Americans do not bow knees to a prince,
Nor curtsey to queens, kings and the like.

We take not to Duchess "Such and Such" or
"Baron So and So"; no. We prefer our Freedom
To bending and scraping and when obamination, the "King"
Revealed his new plan for our land,
We reeled him in tightly and took back our House,
Surrounding him closely with bars and a guard
Who would not listen to his foolish declarations,
For there was a greater, written for the Foundation.

The moral of the story, if one need it explained,
Is that with an ego as big and as plain,
As the one in obamination, the "King" in his head,
Ruining the country that is supposed to feed you,
Isn't the smartest plan and that you should heed to
Those "little people" who don't want to become
Something besides what our Forefathers had done.
We don't want to be ruled without being listened to at all.
We want our country to be as before;
greatest on earth and it we adore.

Now, obamination, "King" in your head,
The people say "No more taxes" if you wish to eat.
For taxing us more will lead to your defeat.
It may be earlier than you ever planned,
For we rebelled once, again if your plans demand.

America was built on rebels such as us.
Don't push us too hard, or soon you will dread
The things you have done and that went to your head
Will rise again in those "little people" a fire,
That will return to quench your desires.
So stop now, or else you'll learn the hard way
It's not to the "King's fiddle" the "little people" do play.
To the tune of Freedom is our favorite dance,
And dance it again hence we get the chance.
Take not for granted that "all's well" with your world.
It's more than a given that your flag is unfurled.

Soon you shall see the truth of these words,
"Give me liberty or give me death…"
And even if breathed with last breath,
Others will come and take up the banner
And more than enough will fill up the stage
To make the "King" in your head
understand that we rule the land.
Not one man, but many: "E Pluribus Unum",
Not Ruler, not "King", nor any such thing.
'Tis "We, the People" who Constitution brings
To make of this land what is supposed to be.
No room for an "organizer" who would be "King".

Be gone, obamination, to far off shores.
We want no more of your commies galore.
We want back our Freedom and take if we must
But you shall not rule us, nor of our land bust.
Our right, by God, is given to us,
Not from your hand, Alinsky's or Dohrn's;
And from ours it cannot be torn.
It's ours by birthright, not from Pelosi,
Reid cannot grant it, no Rahm can demand it.
God's own hand passed on to us
Our rights as Citizens of this great land,
Not a decree from someone else's hand.
So get not too comfortable in the chair as your "throne".
Your "kingdom" will not support you;
You'll be all alone.

Think now, obamination of the truth:
The "course of human events" not just Nation's youth,
We shall be here to hold you accountable for all of your wrongs
And not just one, there will be throngs,
To make sure you know that "We, the People"
Have finished with patience and wait for the sign
When we will rise up and take back our nation,
Returning her to the Founding Declaration
Of Freedom from tyranny, oppression and taxation
And bringing back our Rights that you can't deny.

'Tis true, it's an old song, an old truth, an old plan.
But more beautiful words were never spoken
Than, "We hold these truths…" and those that followed,
And live by them we shall, no "King" allowed.

Selfish is as Selfish Does

Space Coast Conservative — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:42:00 GMT

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.

Blog entries, but not comments, © Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved.

Don't Call Me "White"

Space Coast Conservative — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:07:00 GMT

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". It does not designate my race (there is no such thing as a "White" race), it doesn't designate my color (and we're all supposed to be color blind anyways), it doesn't designate anything about my origins since those formerly-known-as-"white" do not come from one particular place, just as those who designate themselves as "African-American" do not always come from (ancestrally speaking) Africa.

Strictly speaking, since ancestry is a supposed designation for others, then I should be called something besides "white" since I am part Cherokee. If I can consider that portion of me as others can consider their supposed ancestry out of Africa, then I should be called exactly what I requested, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person.", anyways since "red" (as in American Indian: red man) and "white" make pink. Or perhaps I should go for my full great-grandparental designation. I would then be, "Bohemian-Cherokee-British-Irish-American". People can call me that and I would not be offended. After all, that's equal treatment, isn't it? Wouldn't you love to go around asking everyone their ancestry before referring to them?

So, if I can be internationally referred to as "white" even though it is not my desire and it is racist, inaccurate and offensive to me, then I can call others whatever designation I desire to call them. Therefore, I shall refer to whomever I wish as whatever I wish when it comes to race and color designation. If others can do so to me, and they want equal treatment under the law, then I can do so to them unless and until they call me, "A person who is peach-toned with rosey highlights that used to be known as a 'white' person."

Blog entries, but not comments, © Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved.

Nobel Prize Very Revealing

Space Coast Conservative — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:01:00 GMT

I can't get this blog to publish correctly in the homepage view no matter what I have tried. To read the correct version, click on the title and it will take you to where it is showing properly and all the links work. Totally frustrated.

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 video page that is titled, "The History of Political Correctness" (and has anyone ever been more politically correct than obamination and his birds?), you will see the evidence that proves that the Progressive Leftie Liberals are arrogant from the get-go and learn even more arrogance as they progress up the ladder of power and corruption. And, yes, I say corruption because I believe that most are.

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. Who is the leader of America? B. Hussein O. is the leader of America. If "people of all nations" want "American leadership", then who would lead them if not the ACORNed president of America, B. Hussein O.? A boy scout? (Probably a better choice, but not what his arrogant ego is saying.)

So obamination wants to be the world leader? Or should I say he wants to rule the world, is that more appropriate? Considering his way of doing things, his arrogance and his ego (lifelong ego if you read his books), should it surprise us that he wants to rule the world?

It doesn't surprise me. I saw that in the obamination from day one. He has this enormous ego in him, reflected in his wife, and he has a constant need to feed it. Consider a July 30, 2008 article titled, "Obama Arrogance Watch" in which this is the first sentence, "The chorus of voices suggesting that Barack Obama might be getting ahead of himself and more than a little full of himself is growing louder." obamination is quoted as saying (not just a little arrogantly, I believe), "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

Oh, my!

Even in July of 2008 there was an "arrogance watch" over obamination. Doesn't that speak volumes of his own hat size? The recent Olympics debacle as reported on Topix is another example of obamination's arrogance having a detrimental effect. The title of the article? "Danish News: Obama Arrogance Turned Off IOC". It's not just America who has taken notice of his uppity, self-aggrandized state. Other countries are not liking his arrogance and we are paying the price for it.

Do a Google® search for "obama arrogance" and you get about 2,220,000 results. If obamination were not perceived as being arrogant that number would not be that high. Yet, there it is in Google®, undeniably measured in the number of results for that combination of words. Shouldn't that tell people something?

Throughout the entire campaign "season" of last year (and 2007 since that's when "His Arrogance, THE obamination" announced; Feb. 2007), it has been reported that he is arrogant. Not my words, the words of reporters in regular newspapers and magazines. The "arrogant" label is still applied today as he accepts the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing.

It is proven when we look at his acceptance speech. We see that arrogance again in one single statement that his being given the prize is "an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."

World leader, B. Hussein O.; His High and Mightiness, B. Hussein O.; Ruler of the World, B. Hussein O.; Supreme World Being, B. Hussein O. The Ego, B. Hussein O.

Mm-mm-mm.

A slip of an arrogant tongue that speaks volumes.

Blog entries, but not comments, © Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved.

What the Left Has Forgotten

Space Coast Conservative — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:54:00 GMT

The obamination's Czars, advisors, financial supporters, confidants and mentors are either writing books, have written books, or are planning on doing so in the future. All have one favorite theme: the overthrow of America as we know it. Between Bill Ayers, Wade Rathke, Rahm Emmanuel and the rest of the "Radicals for Obama" group, there must be fifty books either already in print, or soon to be.

(Wonderful. More trees taken down for their own glorification and so that they can get some more devalued American money coming into their own pockets. I thought they cared about the environment and they believe that the free enterprise system and profit in America was evil. Oh, sorry. That's all talk. Action is reserved for the destruction of America as we know it.)

One of the books, "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinksy, is one of those books I decided to read in order to "Know thy enemy". It's not fun, but it can be eye-opening. It's an astonishing look into the mind of a "revolutionary"; albeit a so-far unsuccessful revolutionary in thought and deed. So far, I have read the Prologue and have a few thoughts on it which I share here.

To start with, the Alinsky Prologue states:

(Page xix) "As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be -- it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system."

He then says that Dostoevsky teaches that the vast majority of the people should feel lost, frustrated, alienated, powerless and defeated (I paraphrase, of course), that "they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future" with revolutionary change. Without this acceptance of the idea and desire for change -- without the lost and powerless, frustration -- people will not be willing to accept revolutionary change. He says that organizers (could this be "community organizers"?) need to work among those of the lowest income brackets to form alliances with them or "they will move to the right." In other words, if the Liberal Lefties don't court the poor and promise them the moon, stars, a personal son and a chauffeur, then the poor people are going to naturally become conservative. "If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyways, but let's not let it happen by default." Does that tell you something?

Alinsky's point is that the Left should focus on the poorest of the poor, the disenfranchised in order to prevent them from becoming someone who wants to be able to keep what they have via hard work, get more via hard work, and stand on their own two feet. It is this realization -- that the Left acknowledges this reality -- that astonished me the most of all the words in the Prologue. Instead of wanting the poorest of the poor to learn to stand on their own two feet, he encourages radicals to court them, unite them with promises of power or whatever (that all-important "Change"!) and to use them as a united force to attack America's fundamental goodness.

Aren't you surprised that Alinsky acknowledges that the poor will become conservatives ("right") if not courted by the Left? He admits that the poor will become right-wingers if not courted by the welfare pushers! (What is it the Left is not willing to stoop to in order to have power?) Instead of encouraging people to stand on their own two feet, to work hard to get what they want, and to do it themselves, they get them "allied with" the Left in order to have a massive political hammer.

Another astonishing moment is when Alinsky acknowledges any fundamental goodness in America. Even though he acknowledges its fundamental goodness, it is apparently passed over by the radicals -- even Alinsky himself -- as he breaks what I think is the Leftist radical's first rule, "Nothing is good about America." in order to teach radicals how to go about taking away even that one "good thing" he mentions. Alinsky wrote on page xxi,

"Let us in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system with all its repression we can still speak out and denounce the administration, attack its policies, work to build an opposition political base. True, there is government harassment, but there still is that relative freedom to fight. I can attack my government, try to organize to change it. That's more than I can do in Moscow, Peking, or Havana. Remember the reaction of the Red Guard to the 'cultural revolution' and the fate of the Chinese college students. Just a few of the violent episodes of the bombings or a courtroom shootout that we have experienced here would have resulted in a sweeping purge and mass executions in Russia, China, or Cuba. Let's keep some perspective."

Amazing. Admit that America is better than what you and your ilk are working toward changing America into, and then go on with the fight to change America into Russia, China, or Cuba. Isn't that smart?

The truth of the matter is, that it didn't matter to him -- Alinsky or any of the other radicals -- that he has to admit that America has offered himself and others that think like him the opportunity and freedom to do so. Alinsky didn't really want that freedom -- not for all Americans, at least. You and I would be hard pressed to have Alinsky or any other obamination supporter, cohort, advisor, financier, Czar who would stand up and support that right for us: the conservatives of America. Because the truth be known, they don't want to change America so that the underprivileged -- the poorest of the poor, the disenfranchised, the downtrodden -- will be able to have freedom of speech, or any other rights: the poor have those already. What the radicals surrounding obamination want is to use that power -- the power of the masses of the people who will turn right if not prevented from doing so -- to wield what they see as a "majority hammer" and get control of the country.

The Left truly believes that America should be run by themselves and no one conservative should have a voice in it, that none of the Founding Fathers' ideals, words, beliefs should remain in the American lexicon, and that in order to have the perfect world they all dream of that it has to be one in which every nation is part of all nations. We are not talking a U.N. situation here: we're talking one world currency, one world rule -- with the Left in charge.

What even the Left's DNA has forgotten is that the countries Alinsky mentioned above (Russia, China, Cuba) have been at this communist thing for so much longer than they or their grandfathers have even dreamed of and they -- the American Commies -- are such newbies to the game that they don't even rank when it comes to being a power player. China will just as soon kill them in front of their own mothers and children as allow them any rank in the power structure of their forever dreamed of, "New World Order". Russia will rape their wives, daughters and sons in front of them then kill them all in a horrible fire death before allowing them to be part of the ruling class. Their dreams of having a voice in the "revolutionary world" is so much bong smoke that they can't see the truth for the haze. They can't wake up for the ecstasies they envision while their delusions of grandeur fill their itty-bitty brains and their need to change their sheets in the morning is increased tenfold as their imaginings of their rise to the throne of power within the world to come enraptures them.

Well, lah-ti-dah.

It isn't going to happen, Lefties. The power structures you dream of are a bunch of smoke, mirrors, ego and sheet-changing dreams and will never come to pass. You will not rise to the thrones of communist power as you think you will. You will not be welcomed with open arms into the upper echelons of the ruling class as you desire. You will be a worthless worker bee, left to rot and starve because you are considered untrustworthy of the rulers of the new world you helped create. You'll be considered untrustworthy in their eyes because if you can betray your own country -- and in the process, your own mother, aunts and uncles, father, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, cousins and friends and, finally, your own spouse -- how can they trust you?

Wake up and smell the coffee (or should that be borscht?), Lefties. You cannot give America's founding principles the heave-ho and make believe that it's all for the best that we become a world without boundaries and that we'll all sing, "Everything is Beautiful" as we hold hands around the globe with the communist countries that do not have the freedom of dissent even Alinsky touts is America then ignores, and expect anyone in the other countries to think you did something that should put you at the height of the ruling class.

If you think that, name me one -- one -- spy who was feted and glorified for anything longer than an introductory period of glory that made it look like that spy had achieved something wonderful, and who stayed at that vaunted glory place. Name me one spy who gave up America (or any other country for that matter) to the communist countries that was given a glorified position within the power structure, given a substantial living allowance, a wonderful house to live in, and all the respect of the leaders of that country and kept that place of prominence. One. If you cannot do so, then you have to acknowledge that the communist countries won't treat you any better if you try to deliver America to them, hook, line and sinker. You're more likely to be roasted over an open fire in front of the world as the first example of what happens to those who do things their way. We all know that after the glory and when the newspapers leave they take that traitor and fling him into the gulags and ignore his self-aggrandized plea of, "Look what I did for you!"

The rest of us will be left to be repulsed both by your actions and by your grisly death, but we will not mourn nor martyr you. You will have earned your place in history.

Alinsky wrote:

(Page xxiv) "Thus, the greatest enemy of individual freedom is the individual himself."

As it is with the Left's idea of conservatives, so it is with the truth about himself and others like him. Their fates, their places in history and their glory will be determined by their own actions and how they treat, adore, respect, or betray America. I do not think they realize that. I do not think they remember that. I do think they are so eaten up with their own egos that they think it will be different for them. They're special.

Alinsky quoted Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", saying, "It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life." I suppose for the left, the truth of what Communism really is and what it really does is one of those "minor details".

Obama Care: Have You Thought This Through?

Space Coast Conservative — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:48:00 GMT

Those of you who are supporting the Obama care reform (soon to be known as the Kennedy care reform; supposedly to "honor" Ted Kennedy, but actually to take Obama's name off of it so that it won't be as reviled), think of these things:

1) IF this thing goes through, you won't have any more money and you won't be hurting "the rich". They'll still be rich and you still won't be rich.

2) IF this thing goes through, you'll be taxed for it and your money will help pay for Rush Limbaugh's health care (Rush is uninsured because he chooses to be). Do you really want to help pay for Rush's next hearing implant? No? That's what will happen if this thing goes through.

3) IF this thing goes through, the rich (like Rush) won't suffer or be unable to get medical care that you can't. They'll still be rich. They can get into their private jets and fly to whichever country they want and get whatever kind of health care they want. You won't be able to get into your private jet or even fly first class and get whatever health care you want. So how is this making the playing field level for you?

4) IF this thing goes through, you'll be taxed for it even if you don't join it. Yep. They'll take 2.5% of your gross pay (that's pay before taxes) of your paycheck, plus the regular taxes as a fine for you not signing up. Then when you do sign up, your costs will go up because you are a member and using the services. It's actually going to be cheaper for you to NOT sign up.

5) IF you don't sign up for this thing, it will be cheaper for you. Problem is, will the hospitals and doctors be able to treat you if the government has taken them over? Are you happy with the treatment you get from the IRS? The government owns that. Are you happy with the treatment you get from Health and Human Services (HHS)? The government owns that. Are you happy with the treatment you get from any government entity? If not, why support the government taking over your doctor and your hospital?

6) IF you think that this whole thing won't be as bad as it's being painted, you are wrong. So very, very wrong. I have written (so far) three pages to get the truth out about this thing. They are available here:

http://www.spaceoastconservative.com/healthcare1.html
http://www.spaceoastconservative.com/healthcare2.html
http://www.spaceoastconservative.com/healthcare3.html

I have also posted the whole bill so that you can read it for yourself. It is available here:
http://www.spacecoastconservative.com/HR3200.pdf

Read it for yourselves. Read it. Be informed.

And then stand up and take our country back from this bill. This bill takes away as much of your American and God given freedom as any one bill can.

Stand up, America. Stand up and take back your country! Post a sign in your window, on your lawn, on your car! Take back America!

Then, Impeach Obama!

Blog entries, but not comments, © Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved.

Left's Hypocrisy Shows Again

Space Coast Conservative — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:44:00 GMT

Aren't you sick of the hypocrisy of the Democratic party and their leaders? I am.

I found this little ditty in one of my resources for the "Know thy enemy" approach to things that I take:

"You may have seen it: An angry mob in Texas carrying fake tombstones with Rep. Lloyd Doggett's name on it. Signs with an "SS" symbol on it calling Obama a Nazi. A cardboard version of Rep. Frank Kratovil hanged in effigy outside his district office by "Teabaggers" in Maryland." [my italics]

Yep. There it is again. That hypocrisy that they are so infamous for. See it? See that "Teabaggers" statement that is actually a sexually explicit smear on those who attend[ed] the Tea Parties across our nation?

That "Teabaggers" term is a sexually explicit smear on you because "teabagging" is a practice done by some who are.... Well, let's keep it nice and say that the missionary position is not their favorite sexual position. I think we all know by now that the thing they are referring to is a sexual smear. I also think we all have figured out that it is a smear based on a particular sexual practice. That group of people is a favorite target of the liberals who like to smear anyone who disagrees with them. It's not the only smear they use.

I've heard it said about so many conservatives nowadays that it is now expected. I know when someone is disagreeing with me that it is bound to happen: "That's so gay!" or "He's so queer!" or "X is a fag!" Why is it that the homosexual community puts up with the left's use of that kind of "defense" of their positions? Rush Limbaugh is wrong to them so they get to call him "gay"? Since when does that make sense?

The left is supposed to be okay with people being gay, and yet every time someone disagrees with them, wins an argument with them, or proves them wrong, predictably, the first words out of their mouths is, "That's so gay!" I thought the left was the political side that was on the side of homosexuality and were the ones standing up for the rights of homosexuals. Why is it okay for them to promise to stand up for "Gay Rights" and at the same time, every time they're angry at someone, shout the sexual epitaph, "You're gay!"?

Still, the left's favorite smear on anyone is that particular phrase in one gender or another, or with one pronoun or another, but always ending with "gay, queer or homo". When I want to think of someone standing up for my rights and being the political party I associate with, I don't think I'd be happy if the first slur out of the mouths of my own side was, "You're so heterosexual!" I'd be saying, "Yeah. So? I thought that was what you believed in and stood for!" What is it that the liberals/progressives/left aren't getting in that hypocrisy they are doing? Why are people of any sexual preference tolerating that sort of behavior?

The practitioners are many: Perez Hilton http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/25/perez-so-sorry-for-gay-slur/, cartoon characters on "The Simpsons" http://www.tmz.com/2008/11/04/nelson-owes-milhouse-apology-for-gay-slur/, James Caan's son, Scott http://www.hollywoodbackwash.com/scott-caan-apologizes-for-gay-slur/, Janeane Garofalo http://www.newsblaze.com/story/20090418123756lill.nb/topstory.html and the list goes on. And then there's the "casual" use of the terminology that the left participates in. They drop "gay" into a sentence as though it were not inflammatory or as though it were Paris Hilton saying, "That's hot!" It rolls off of their tongues as though it meant nothing for them to use it.

I know many, many conservatives, or at least those right of center. I have yet to hear any of my friends, family or acquaintances drop those kinds of phrases into their speech patterns. I hear it from the other side, but not the conservatives and yet we -- conservatives -- are supposedly the problem for the homosexual community. We are supposedly the "hate mongers" the people who can't abide those who are "not like us" or who are not conservative Christians. We hate them and despise them and we want them all dead if you listen to what the left is saying. But is it the every day conservatives who are using that kind of language? No. We hear the left using it much more often -- we're talking to the power of ten here -- than the right does. Even though that is true, the right pays the price.

Think about this: How long has the left been promising to make things right for the homosexual community? How long have they promised bright, sunny skies filled with nothing but good things in the future and the homosexual community will have everything they wish for and it's all just wonderful? I enjoy the comedy of Jeff Foxworthy, but I see him use less gay stuff than Jeff Dunham and Foxworthy is much more conservative than Dunham. But I see Dunham do a whole routine about his Prius, his Chihuahua and how gay he looks driving the Prius while holding the dog. Is that what the homosexual community thinks is funny? The fact that Perez Hilton throws gay slurs around as though they were nothing, and Janeane Garofalo does the same and that's okay? Why the hypocrisy?

Why is it okay with anyone that someone's sexuality is brought up as a slur in the first place, and why is it that okay with those who are homosexual for their supposed leaders, friends, political supporters, etc., use their sexuality as a slur against anyone: gay or not? Why is it okay that the first thing out of the mouths of a leftist is, "You're gay!" but wrong when the first thing out of the mouth of a right winger is, "I disagree with you but I'll fight to the death to give you the right to say what you believe."?

When homosexuals hear their side saying that sort of thing, it should be every homosexual's battle to put a stop to it; especially from the political and Hollywood crowd. When you see Perez Hilton using gay slurs, it should be the duty of every homosexual to make sure that it doesn't happen again. When Ms. Garofalo uses homosexual slurs, it is the right and duty of every homosexual person to say that they won't stand for that any more.

When you see the Democratic Party send out "Action Alerts" that include references like the one above, it should be the goal of every homosexual -- or anyone who participates in that particular practice -- to contact the DNC and say, "Stop using what we do sexually as a slur. It's not your right."

In my opinion, what you do in your bed, as long as it's between consenting adults, is between you and God as long as my family members are not exposed to it and we are not forced to accept it as being biblically condoned. Your sexual practices are nothing I need to know about. But when the Democratic Party starts slurring people who are standing up for what they believe in by sending out their press releases with that "Teabaggers" in it, I think it's time for people to start making the Democratic Party answer to them.

Stand up. Go ahead and make a change. Make the Democrats stop using sexual slurs as part of their normal conversation and as part of their campaigns.

Unions: Not the BEST Thing on Earth

Space Coast Conservative — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:32:00 GMT

I recently received an e-mail from a Republican candidate to replace Kosmas. I approve of replacing Kosmas ASAP, but if I had my choice, I would want someone to replace Kosmas who doesn't stand for unions as strongly as this candidate. I mean, "STAND". He's adamant.

Which is his right. He has the right to think that unions are the cat's pajamas if he so desires. That doesn't mean that I have to think the same thing. He has experience with this union, lots of it. He thinks that the union keeps his industry safer. I understand that it is his right to believe so. He is considered an industry expert and as an expert, perhaps I should consider his opinion.

Problem is: I think for myself. I always do that. Nasty habit of mine. Been doing that -- thinking for myself -- since I was a kid. Bad me.

This expert seemed to think I was bad for doing so, too. He wrote me an e-mail that said as much in thinly veiled hostility. Not a good thing for a candidate for political office. Of course, this guy was defending his profession that he has been in for many years of his life and he is just now trying to get into politics (his words, "not a career politician"). I suppose I understand that. At least, I understand that he is defending his profession against my "false assumptions about some unions". That's also his right considering the First Amendment: not smart as a political candidate (thinly veiled hostility), but his right.

I think the problem I have with all this -- and the reason I decided to write this blog about it -- is that the strength of his convictions may lead to unions having an upper hand with this particular candidate/politician (not "career" politician, but acting like one already). If he has this strong a conviction that unions are a good thing -- think $1,200 bonuses to the Tax Collector's employees IF they approved the union in that office: of course they did and you and I paid the consequences (literally) -- then we have a Republican candidate who is already beholden to unions. That's not a good thing. It has already cost the taxpayers of Brevard County many, many dollars to pay for a Republican who was pro-union.

I have had a problem with unions for a long time, so I suppose that's part of my disappointment in this particular candidate. My history with unions teaches me that they aren't always a good thing; this candidate's history is apparently the opposite. Maybe we are just seeing the same issue from a different standpoint. That's fine and dandy. But when I see a candidate running on the Republican ticket and staunchly defending unions and willing to give up votes in favor of that union, then it does give me pause.

I want to remind people that unions in the past have been a good thing. When companies found out that publicity was even worse than union organizations, they started straightening up. When I had the gall to stand up and tell this particular candidate that unions were not what was doing it for his industry and that he needed to think about what he was saying, he all but lost it. If that is what unions do to people who are in them for long periods of time, it's no wonder union members buy the stupid books that the unions want them to, and go blindly into that dark night and vote for the political candidates they do. Which, I suppose, will get this particular candidate a lot of votes: just not mine.

This candidate says of the union, "It is not some faceless group of back room cigar smoking thugs. It is made up of [people] like me who actively [participate in that profession]." It's not as though I don't understand that. I was actually in a union once, for a very short period of time. I joined it as a civil servant cashier to find out if it could help me get the right to not just be held accountable for the money in my cashier's drawer, but to be able to count the money and to hold the management accountable for the money they said was in my cashier's drawer. Problem is, the union did get me that, but I did all the work to make it happen. I researched the rules, spending my lunches (and sometimes after work hours on short days) reading the regulations and then making sure that management knew of the regulations and would stick to them. Then the union just backed me up a bit. That's what the union did; that is all the union did.

Oh, unless you want to count the fact that they told me I couldn't post union info during my off hours, I had to do it on company time. It was my time, no matter what the union said and if I wanted to do that then, it was my choice. No employer or union can tell me what to do with my off time. But they tried. Thanks, union!

While I was in that union, and was going through training to become a union steward, the one training session I went to was over early and when I asked what I was supposed to do since I was on the clock until later in the day, they told me to go home. I couldn't comprehend that the union -- the thing that was supposed to enforce the rules (and in my mind, abide by the rules) -- was telling me to break the rules. I was on the clock. I was being paid for that time and until (if I remember correctly) three or four in the afternoon and it was only noonish. That was three or four hours the union wanted me to steal from the American taxpayer. I was told several times by union officials to go home, but I went back to work. That caused all kinds of havoc. I got the union into all kinds of trouble and handed in my resignation from the union. I couldn't be a member of an organization that wanted me -- instructed me -- to break the rules. I don't do that.

The thing is, after resigning from the union I still had the ability to count my cash before I went to work (on the clock), I counted each pull they did (and management did as well), and I still got to count the final amount in the drawer at the end of my day (as did management) on the clock. That was my doing, though, not the union's. I did all of that before the union got involved by going up the ladder, not taking "No" for an answer, not giving up, looking up the regulations and knowing my rights.

I also turned in someone there who was embezzling from the place I worked. I got an investigation started and kept the investigating agency informed as to what I knew was happening there. Without a union I did most of this. Without a union I made a change and without a union, I protected those who worked with me from being held accountable for the cash in their drawers when, previously, the cashiers didn't actually get to count the money in their drawers so they had no idea if management was counting it properly or doing anything else wrong.

My point is: It wasn't the union that made me strong enough to change things there. It wasn't the union that made it possible for me to make management obey the regulations. It was my determination. It was me. I did it. I did it because it was important to me and because it protected myself and those I worked with. That's what made the difference. It wasn't the union that made the difference. They had no one in the cashier's section -- no representative, no one who was interested in them -- until I joined and found out that that particular union was interested in making management obey the rules, but not obeying the rules themselves. It was the union who could break the rules, steal from the taxpayer (yes, it was in a civil servant job, so it was taxpayer money) and it was not the union that made things better. It was the determination and resolve of one person.

I am not saying that this particular scenario is reflected in every union. I am saying that unions, to me, are not always the best answer. A candidate who seems to think that a union is the only answer in this particular situation and to decide to do without my vote because of his hostility due to my disagreeing with that particular belief and assertion, is not a candidate I want anything to do with.

Honestly, that candidate is not someone I think should be associated with the Republican Party, either, but considering that I am no longer a member of the Republican Party, I don't think it's my problem. He's your problem now. I won't be voting for him because I don't think he's the right candidate.

Now, all I have to do is find the right candidate. I know it's not Kosmas (although in his hostile e-mail, he suggested it would be). The right candidate to me will be someone who is a True Conservative in the strictest sense of the word. J. Roger Shealy, what you doing for the next few years of your life?

I'm Irritated

Space Coast Conservative — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:44:00 GMT

I’m irritated. I’m irritated with idiot companies that are advertising to us like the following fictitious example:

“It’s tough times. It may get tougher. But you know what? You can get

through it. You can not only get through it, but you can enjoy these tough

times. You can really enjoy them. Spend time with your family. Enjoy

simple pleasures. Don’t think about how this happened or who did this

to you. Just sit back. Relax. Enjoy it. Really. Enjoy it. You have no

other choice.”

I hate that. I think that anyone who wants my business should stop telling me how to react to these times; these difficulties not of our own making. Why should we sit back, relax and enjoy it? It’s ridiculous for a business to have that attitude. What is it they’re saying to us? “It’s tough times, but we want you to enjoy it? Oh, and by the way, spend some of that money you have left after taxes – and higher and higher taxes – on the things we sell (product or service).” And we would want to do that -- why?

When a stupid idiot company tells me to sit back and relax being messed over by an incompetent president and idiot legislature, and spend whatever money I have left on that company’s product, why would I want to do business with a company telling me to enjoy being messed over? Is that not the dumbest advertising “gimmick” in the whole world? That’s like a car dealer telling me to buy an empty shell of a vehicle that has no engine, no features (no bells and whistles) and, by the way, they want me to buy that vehicle for a huge amount and enjoy having that empty shell of a vehicle. Duh. Can anyone say “Idiot Company”?

And, no, the companies I am talking about are not vehicle companies. Related to, yes, but not strictly and not manufacturer. The worst offender, by the way, begins with the letter “A”. Can anyone figure that out?

The worst part of it is that the company hired an advertising company to come up with this idiot idea, and they approved it and paid for it! Talk about stupid! They paid someone to come up with possibly the stupidest advertising idea in the history of creation. It’s not as if they didn’t have other ideas to use, other possibilities. Maybe the same advertising company who came up with stupid also suggested other possibilities; they often do. But someone within the company who chose that advertisement (and other companies who chose similar advertising campaigns) said, “Yes. That’s the message we want to give our customers and potential customers.” Ummm… Major Duh!

Again, the whole idea of it – you’re being messed over and we want you to enjoy that – is so wrong! That, to me, is like the company (companies) telling us that they approve of the tough times, they don’t have a problem with it and they want us to be as happy as they are with the tough times. To me, it’s a subtle, sneaky, way of saying that they endorse everything the government – the incompetent president we currently have – is doing to us. They endorse the higher taxes, the increased regulations, the twenty-five or more czars he has assigned to make rules that we have to abide by although those same czars are unanswerable to us. The company endorses the government spending, the idiot legislation (Cap & Trade, climate legislation, probably socializing healthcare), the ruining of America as we know it. Isn’t that who we want to do business with?

The companies that are doing this kind of advertising are not just wrong to do so, but they should not expect to keep our business – or get any new business – from this kind of advertising. When a company looks you in the face (effectively, since at least one advertises on television) and tells you that they think the tough times you are going through is okay with them, or at least that they think you should enjoy it, make it wonderful, that is a company I don’t want to do business with. How dare they say that they think you should enjoy having less money because of the government? How can they think that you having less money to spend on your children, your plans, your future, is something you should enjoy? Or at the very least, how stupid can they be to tell you outright that they think it’s okay?

Just to give them the benefit of the doubt, I will offer an alternative possibility. Perhaps they are not saying the above, but instead, they are trying to be supportive and saying, “Keep your chins up. It’s going to be okay.” Ummm… Maybe. Slight maybe, but maybe nonetheless. (Yeah, right.)

Listen to the whole message next time the “A” company advertises. Is that a “Keep your chins up” message? Or is it a subtle endorsement of these socialist, incompetent ways of our current Liar in Chief?

It’s up to you to decide with whom you do business. I can only suggest that you watch these companies carefully and that you see what kinds of advertising they do. If they want you to sit back and enjoy these tough times – times that will only get worse – then maybe you should consider what you are going to tell them. You have many options. One of them is hit the road.

Sotomayor: A Problem We Don't Need

Space Coast Conservative — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:18:00 GMT

In a few days Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be brought before the US Senate to go through her confirmation hearing. I have no problem with a female Supreme Court Justice. I have no problem with a Latino(a) Supreme Court Justice. What I have a problem with is the danger that the Senate approving Sotomayor's nomination will bring to the U.S. Constitution as well as the danger few others have thought of.

Hasn't anything and everything that could be used against this woman already been aired and talked about by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and others?

Maybe. Maybe not.

My problem is with the (now infamous) statement of Sotomayor's that she "would hope that a wise Latina woman would reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

Now, that's a problem!

Why that is such a problem to my way of thinking is that, even if not confirmed, Sotomayor's admission that she makes her judicial decisions based upon her race (and confirmed by some of her Supreme Court now-overturned decisions) and her gender? Because, by this admission, Sotomayor has now opened herself up to having every single ruling she has ever made from the bench open to appeal. Every decision that has had two different genders, races, ethnicities, or socio-economic plaintiffs/defendants in them can now be appealed and brought before the higher courts. In fact, they almost must be appealed due to the fact that every plaintiff or defendant who was ruled against can now say, "I was discriminated against by one of the judges due to my being 'X'." Fill in the "X" with whatever anyone wishes to claim as a reason for discrimination. If a white person was ruled against by the Sotomayor decision, then they have the right to appeal. If the black person, or Latino(a) person was ruled against, they have the right to appeal. If a male was ruled against (especially in a case in which there was a female plaintiff), he has the right to appeal because Sotomayor has clearly stated -- not once, not twice, but many times -- that she uses her own gender as part of her decision making process.

The problem: Gender, race, ethnicity, and income are not law. Any good cop, paralegal, attorney, or judge (and even some very bad ones) will tell you that judges should be making their decisions based on law; established, precedence, constitutional, exclusively --the law. Sotomayor's admission that she takes other things into consideration -- her being Latina and female -- is grounds for appealing every ruling. The only exception may be if the ruling was in favor of a Latina woman against almost anyone else (well, no; even the loser of that case has the appeal right: so every ruling).

In every case in which Sotomayor ruled, the methodology of her ruling can be brought into question. Not an easy thing to do for there are hundreds of cases she has heard during her more than ten years on the appellate court bench. She wrote the majority opinion in 226 of those cases; and the dissenting opinion in 21 cases. This does not limit the possibility to appeal only those cases. She is open to appeal in each and every case she ruled upon throughout her career because she has publicly admitted that she uses a basis other than the law for her decisions.

Consider having a Supreme Court Justice who must plead "Conflict of Interest" every time one of those cases comes before the US Supreme Court. That -- considering Sotomayor's ten-plus years on the appellate court bench -- would add up to no less than a part-time US Supreme Court Justice being paid full-time wages to recuse herself from all of the appeals of her own rulings! That, to me, is a ridiculous situation. It's like hiring a full-time employee and then finding out that, through their own idiocy, they can only work part-time (or less) and that you must continue to pay that person as though they were doing the whole job they were hired to do!

Absurd as it may sound, that is what B. Hussein O. and the Democrats in the US Senate want us to do: ignore Sotomayor's public words and ignore the fact that every ruling she has ever taken part in is now open to appeal and review and to go ahead and accept her nomination as something that is a good thing. After all, she's Latina and she's got years of experience (allbeit bad experience; experience nonetheless).

Already two-thirds of the rulings Sotomayor has taken part in that have come before the US Supreme Court have been overturned by the US Supreme Court. That's four of six Sotomayor rulings that have been taken all the way to the top that have been overturned by the US Supreme Court. That's not a good record. If you were a student in high school and you only got one third of the answers to a test correct, that would give you an "F" on each test. That's an astonishingly bad record. That's worse than most high school kids do on their FCATs!

Do you really want a US Supreme Court Justice with such a bad record? Do you want a US Supreme Court Justice who can't even get a grade as good as your kids' grades on their FCATs? Isn't that telling?

Considering the fact that Sotomayor has such a bad record in her "tests" (for an appeal to the US Supreme Court really is a test of the rulings of the lower courts), and the fact that in any upcoming appeals -- and there shall be many -- of her previous rulings for which Sotomayor shall have to recuse herself and become a part time US Supreme Court Justice (something never done before in the history of the US Supreme Court), and that we would be paying her a full-time salary, don't you think it's a bad idea to confirm such a disaster in the making?

I think that Sotomayor has opened for herself a can of worms and is ready to deny those worms as loudly and strongly as she can to any and all who will listen. She is ready, willing and able to rely on the majority of Senate Democrats who support the ideas of affirmative action and progressivism (liberalism, communism, socialism: call it what you will, it is all boiling down to the same thing: destroying traditional America), who support whomever B. Hussein O. wants as US Supreme Court Justice (no matter how bad the train wreck their confirmation will create), who defy the wishes of the American people ("We, the People, are the Senate's bosses, although few if any Democrats admit to that currently) and she will accept the help of those Democrats and gleefully accept their confirmation.

It is not the U.S. Constitution she will be drawing upon to make her US Supreme Court rulings. It is not the laws written by our Congress and signed into law by the past presidents. It is not precedent Sotomayor will be using to make her rulings while she sits on the highest bench of the land. Sotomayor will rule based upon her experience as a "wise Latina woman" and consider herself more capable of doing so than some of the other Justices, because after all, they may be just a "white male who hasn’t lived that life." Considering the self-flattering nature of the statement, and the racist/sexist nature of the statement, you can look forward to America and American law going into a whole new realm that has not been part of our system since the 1960s. Instead of Sotomayor's nomination to the US Supreme Court taking America another step closer to being color/gender/ethnicity/whatever-blind, it will take America back to the 60's and back to the idea that you must be "X" in order to fit in and to be considered equal under the law.

I think America deserves better than that. I call upon our elected representatives in the US Senate to do the right thing and to deny Sotomayor's confirmation. Tell Sotomayor that the law is the law and it isn't her ideas, her experience as a "wise Latina woman" or her apparent dislike of "white male[s]" that makes US law. Tell Sotomayor that the US Constitution is the right of the American people and we will not be denied the opportunity to have judicial rulings based upon that instead of her "Latina woman" wisdom.

Ask yourself this question: How wise is any judge who goes out and makes public speaches that impugn every ruling she has ever been part of and opens them all up to appeal?

Call your Senator today and tell them to say "No!" to Sotomayor.