Each year the government-controlled Post Office looses money. This past year it lost $3.8 Billion dollars even though it delivered less mail, than the previous year. (Actually 13% less packages). In addition, this loss follows losses in the previous two years 2007 – 2008 of $ 7.8 Billion dollars.
The agency cut 40,000 jobs last year saving $ 6 Billion dollars. It slashed overtime hours too. But none of these measures are enough to render the service profitable or even a break even activity. It does not generate enough money to keep operating – just the opposite.
OK, so what's the point you ask? This is a government run agency. It is costing us more to run than it takes in and is looking for more bailout money. Why do we keep floating it more money? Why don't they increase the cost of the postage?
Special interest groups is the answer. The majority of users are businesses that use the Postal Service for mailings. They don't want price increases for postage. Also the majority of Americans would prefer a cut in service (no Saturday deliveries) to keep postal rates low.
It is argued that no matter what, we should keep the Us Postal Service alive because it is "part of the fabric of the nation." However, it has not kept pace with technology and besides "snail" mail, we have FED Ex, UPS, email, text messaging, and instant messaging on the Internet and cell phones.
This isn't the only government run program that is running a deficit. We have Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security all of which are spending (costing) more than we are taking in and they are all adding to the national deficit. We cannot afford these deficits in bad economic times. They are literally destroying America.
So what are we to do? If the government cannot run these programs without adding more and more to the national deficits, then ask yourself, why should you trust them to run government controlled health care? And, should we continue to bailout the Post Offfice?
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Sarah Palin and the Media
Well she's published her first book (Going Rogue) and beginning a book tour around the US. However, the media just can't stop attacking her. The latest edition of Newsweek illustrates the point:
Of all the photos Newsweek could have used from the political campaign, they chose that one. Why? To sell magazines! Did they stop and think that that photo and its use may be considered Sexist? Hardly, after all, it's only Sarah Palin. Do they even care? (By the way that photo was originally used for the August issue of Runners World.)
Needless to say Sarah Palin is NOT happy with the use of this photo. It was OK to be in running gear for that venue, but really in bad taste when used in Newsweek. What is Newsweek's message? She says "The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention - even if out of context.”
The Christian Broadcasting Networks David Brody had this to say: "You’ve got to hand it to the folks at Newsweek, they have accomplished being biased and sexist at the same time. Quite a feat. This cover has got to be a new low right? They don’t use a photo of Palin on the campaign trail. No instead they take the sexy Runners World photo.” He states further: “Yes she posed for it but don’t tell me they didn’t purposely use that photo to make a point?”
Before you get your dander up, in case you haven't noticed, the media really DOES trash Palin every chance they get because they are afraid of her. Why is this? She's not a typical Washington politician. Instead she represents the middle core of America. She likes guns, she hunts and shoots animals for food, she eats meat, she stands up to special interest groups, she's against abortion (she has a Downs Syndrome child), and she's a christian that goes to church.
Washington politicians aren't anything like that!
Can you imagine what the reaction would be if a similar type photo of Michele Obama was used on the front cover of Newsweek? You know that they would pay the price from the rest of the media for being so blatantly sexist. I guess that they cannot believe that there are conservative women who have conservative principles. It scares them out of their wits. Why can't conservative women be politicians as well?
Of all the photos Newsweek could have used from the political campaign, they chose that one. Why? To sell magazines! Did they stop and think that that photo and its use may be considered Sexist? Hardly, after all, it's only Sarah Palin. Do they even care? (By the way that photo was originally used for the August issue of Runners World.)
Needless to say Sarah Palin is NOT happy with the use of this photo. It was OK to be in running gear for that venue, but really in bad taste when used in Newsweek. What is Newsweek's message? She says "The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention - even if out of context.”
The Christian Broadcasting Networks David Brody had this to say: "You’ve got to hand it to the folks at Newsweek, they have accomplished being biased and sexist at the same time. Quite a feat. This cover has got to be a new low right? They don’t use a photo of Palin on the campaign trail. No instead they take the sexy Runners World photo.” He states further: “Yes she posed for it but don’t tell me they didn’t purposely use that photo to make a point?”
Before you get your dander up, in case you haven't noticed, the media really DOES trash Palin every chance they get because they are afraid of her. Why is this? She's not a typical Washington politician. Instead she represents the middle core of America. She likes guns, she hunts and shoots animals for food, she eats meat, she stands up to special interest groups, she's against abortion (she has a Downs Syndrome child), and she's a christian that goes to church.
Washington politicians aren't anything like that!
Can you imagine what the reaction would be if a similar type photo of Michele Obama was used on the front cover of Newsweek? You know that they would pay the price from the rest of the media for being so blatantly sexist. I guess that they cannot believe that there are conservative women who have conservative principles. It scares them out of their wits. Why can't conservative women be politicians as well?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Terrorists Trial Venue
Hey, here's a brainy idea! Let's try the guy (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) who conceived the 911 attacks right in NYC! It's NOT important that he was captured in a foreign country. Lets ignore public safety, national security, and illegal evidence and show the world we have nothing to hide. We can make an example of this guy! OH REALLY?
Now we will give him all the rights and privileges of an American citizen. This is just plain STUPID! Now we will have to divulge information on our intelligence gathering methods and other secrets that our enemies want to know.
This trial has already become a joke.
Why would ANYONE want to do this? It sets a BAD precedent for future enemy combatants. Never before has the US ever done this. We are giving full rights to an enemy combatant. THAT'S MORONIC!
Is this a political decision? Is Obama trying to placate his left wing part of the party? What is HE thinking? Is this is a terrible joke or is HE really that stupid? This exemplifies Obama's status of rank amateur in foreign relations and National Security!
This is the worst possible decision that Obama has made. It will be his downfall. The outcome of this trial is unpredictable. (Remember OJ's fiasco?)
Action To Take
Let the White House know your feelings.
Now we will give him all the rights and privileges of an American citizen. This is just plain STUPID! Now we will have to divulge information on our intelligence gathering methods and other secrets that our enemies want to know.
This trial has already become a joke.
Why would ANYONE want to do this? It sets a BAD precedent for future enemy combatants. Never before has the US ever done this. We are giving full rights to an enemy combatant. THAT'S MORONIC!
Is this a political decision? Is Obama trying to placate his left wing part of the party? What is HE thinking? Is this is a terrible joke or is HE really that stupid? This exemplifies Obama's status of rank amateur in foreign relations and National Security!
This is the worst possible decision that Obama has made. It will be his downfall. The outcome of this trial is unpredictable. (Remember OJ's fiasco?)
Action To Take
Let the White House know your feelings.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Weekly Polls
Let's see how we are doing this week. We will visit these figures on a regular basis.
The Rasmussen Reports is an independent electronic publishing firm that specializes in public opinion polling. Here are some current results on some main issues:
Presidential Tracking Poll
This tracks how the President is doing by those surveyed.
This chart is from RasmussenReports.com:
Job Approval Rating Since Election
This shows voter approvals since the election:
Sarah Palin's Values
Republican voters were asked if they shared Sarah Palin's values and here are their responses:
The Rasmussen Reports is an independent electronic publishing firm that specializes in public opinion polling. Here are some current results on some main issues:
Presidential Tracking Poll
This tracks how the President is doing by those surveyed.
- Strongly Approve... 26%
- Strongly Disapprove... 40%
This chart is from RasmussenReports.com:
Job Approval Rating Since Election
This shows voter approvals since the election:
Sarah Palin's Values
Republican voters were asked if they shared Sarah Palin's values and here are their responses:
- Support her values... 59%
- Disagree with her values... 21%
- Undecided... 20%
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Massachusetts Reader's Thoughts
Here are some comments from a Massachusetts resident who would like to remain anonymous. He speaks out about the States Rights topic mentioned in a previous blog and has a few more observations, as well.
"As usual I appreciate your blog content and the effort expended. However, I am apprehensive about liberal states taking back states rights. You lived here in MA and I assume agree that this state is run by nitwits voted in by pinheads. If there is a way to stop the down-slope rush we are experiencing, I don't know what it is.
Governor Duval Patrick is "stealing" money from funds that were created by raising taxes to aid in helping improve the well being of segments of the state. Our representatives do not take seriously approval or disapproval of our concerns. They do as they want and play the game so they will be voted in next election with enough plusses to make it for their next term. Patrick has not insured earmarked tax funds for stop smoking, gambling and alcohol addictions, highway maintenance, programs etc. are used for their intended purpose. He moves the monies to other venues. No one seems to be able to halt this practice. There are not enough voters in these groups to have any effect, so he gets away with it. For the most part the press either doesn't report this or they hide it next to the comics in the newspaper.
Governor Dukakas tried to grab 60 million from fish and game funds when he was the governor, if you remember. There was enough uproar from sportsmen to stop him. I didn't hear liberals telling him to fly straight.
States rights have to be based on our Constitution too and liberal states are as bad as the feds are right now. I have hope that Tea Parties grow and endure.
As for marijuana researchers have developed a form of marijuana that does not get patients high. It is being tested in Europe, in that form, for medical purpose and so far looks to be a viable drug for various maladies. Time will tell. Look at it this way, many of the drugs we use came from plants. Aspirin, quinine, to name two, Ring a bell? Even booze has medical uses.
No I am not a liberal,
all the best,
Mr. Anonymous"
THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT. Your comments are thoughtful and appreciated. The points you raised about Liberal States is well taken. They could mess-up the whole Constitution, once they opened it up for revision!
"As usual I appreciate your blog content and the effort expended. However, I am apprehensive about liberal states taking back states rights. You lived here in MA and I assume agree that this state is run by nitwits voted in by pinheads. If there is a way to stop the down-slope rush we are experiencing, I don't know what it is.
Governor Duval Patrick is "stealing" money from funds that were created by raising taxes to aid in helping improve the well being of segments of the state. Our representatives do not take seriously approval or disapproval of our concerns. They do as they want and play the game so they will be voted in next election with enough plusses to make it for their next term. Patrick has not insured earmarked tax funds for stop smoking, gambling and alcohol addictions, highway maintenance, programs etc. are used for their intended purpose. He moves the monies to other venues. No one seems to be able to halt this practice. There are not enough voters in these groups to have any effect, so he gets away with it. For the most part the press either doesn't report this or they hide it next to the comics in the newspaper.
Governor Dukakas tried to grab 60 million from fish and game funds when he was the governor, if you remember. There was enough uproar from sportsmen to stop him. I didn't hear liberals telling him to fly straight.
States rights have to be based on our Constitution too and liberal states are as bad as the feds are right now. I have hope that Tea Parties grow and endure.
As for marijuana researchers have developed a form of marijuana that does not get patients high. It is being tested in Europe, in that form, for medical purpose and so far looks to be a viable drug for various maladies. Time will tell. Look at it this way, many of the drugs we use came from plants. Aspirin, quinine, to name two, Ring a bell? Even booze has medical uses.
No I am not a liberal,
all the best,
Mr. Anonymous"
THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT. Your comments are thoughtful and appreciated. The points you raised about Liberal States is well taken. They could mess-up the whole Constitution, once they opened it up for revision!
Monday, November 16, 2009
Who Killed the Constitution?
By Thomas E. Woods Jr. and Kevin R. C. Gutzman
For the Constitutional "scholars" out there, this is a book review about the Constitution of the United States. It documents how it has been attacked, abused, and ignored throughout history up to the Bush Administration. Americans worry that our Constitution is dying and that we need to try and stop this destruction. What these authors point-out is the fact that the Constitution is "already dead" and that it died a long time ago. Sounds cynical, but after reading you will discover it is true.
Today's awareness of the crisis we face in America is really the culmination of decades of Constitutional offenses by both Democrats and Republicans. Government is getting too big and it is not representative of the American people. And, these "crimes" against the law of the land are not just exclusive to Congress but also have been committed by United States presidents and Supreme Court justices too. All of these individuals have forsaken and rejected the idea that the Constitution has a fixed meaning limiting the power of the US government. This idea (limited government power) was the exact purpose of the Constitution! The Constitution was meant to serve as a limitation on the federal authority as a guarantee of federalism.
Founder Thomas Jefferson feared that the government could become what it is today. He believed that government would become arbitrary and deteriorate. He believed that the new government would fall just as the Roman Republic collapsed when the ruling class began to ignore the Roman Constitution. Jefferson feared that a republican system would fail and degenerate into tyranny. In other words, there cannot be enduring freedom where the government is not bound by a constitution.
The authors take you through a series of twelve concrete examples in history of not only when, but how the Constitution was breached and ignored. They describe how the Federal government defied the Constitution and explain that these are not the only examples that could be cited. However, they chose what they considered the landmark breaches.
This book is a non-ideological approach detailing the facts to support their arguments. It is a must read for those who want more enlightenment on American history and the Constitution.
For the Constitutional "scholars" out there, this is a book review about the Constitution of the United States. It documents how it has been attacked, abused, and ignored throughout history up to the Bush Administration. Americans worry that our Constitution is dying and that we need to try and stop this destruction. What these authors point-out is the fact that the Constitution is "already dead" and that it died a long time ago. Sounds cynical, but after reading you will discover it is true.
Today's awareness of the crisis we face in America is really the culmination of decades of Constitutional offenses by both Democrats and Republicans. Government is getting too big and it is not representative of the American people. And, these "crimes" against the law of the land are not just exclusive to Congress but also have been committed by United States presidents and Supreme Court justices too. All of these individuals have forsaken and rejected the idea that the Constitution has a fixed meaning limiting the power of the US government. This idea (limited government power) was the exact purpose of the Constitution! The Constitution was meant to serve as a limitation on the federal authority as a guarantee of federalism.
Founder Thomas Jefferson feared that the government could become what it is today. He believed that government would become arbitrary and deteriorate. He believed that the new government would fall just as the Roman Republic collapsed when the ruling class began to ignore the Roman Constitution. Jefferson feared that a republican system would fail and degenerate into tyranny. In other words, there cannot be enduring freedom where the government is not bound by a constitution.
The authors take you through a series of twelve concrete examples in history of not only when, but how the Constitution was breached and ignored. They describe how the Federal government defied the Constitution and explain that these are not the only examples that could be cited. However, they chose what they considered the landmark breaches.
This book is a non-ideological approach detailing the facts to support their arguments. It is a must read for those who want more enlightenment on American history and the Constitution.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Voter Discord
The House of Representatives just passed historic legislation on healthcare and celebrated joyously. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and her "comrades" are truly happy. Now they await for the US Senate to approve it so it will become the law of the land.
Meanwhile 52% of all Americans are not that jubilant. Support for the plan has remained stagnant for months (in spite of Obama's speeches) and yet Congress is still tying to pass something-anything called "healthcare". The idea being that once passed, it will never be rescinded. They have even threatened to force passing the legislation in a special vote referred to as the "nuclear option" which only requires just over 50 votes in the US Senate.
Why this discord of opinion? Didn't Congress hold town meetings all summer and discuss the planned government healthcare program? Didn't the constituents (taxpayers) voice their opinions and send Congress the message that they did NOT want socialized medicine in America? Didn't you hear cries about the deficit and the burden we are placing on future generations?
Constitutional Power
What law gives Congress the right to legislate our healthcare anyway? Isn't this a valid question that someone should ask? Does Congress have the Constitutional power to control OUR healthcare? No they do not. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress this power. They just assumed it and no one has bothered to question this authority. This has been going on for over a hundred years. Little by little, Congress has assumed more and more power at the expense of the Constitution. Now Congress believes that it can do just about anything they want to do. We are noticing it now more than ever before because we have a President who is extremely left of center in his political philosophy. He is trying to restructure America according to HIS ideas of what America should be by ignoring the Constitution and moving quickly.
When will Americans wake up and realize this is America and not a socialist empire or totalitarian state? What would happen if Congress blindly goes forward ignoring Americans and pass this legislation and the individual states refused to implement it? That's exactly what many states are doing with medical marijuana laws. And guess what? The Federal government has backed down and won't enforce the Federal laws. Isn't this food for thought?
What about state's rights anyway? Isn't it time for the states to challenge the Federal government since it is ignoring the will of the people? Isn't it time to stand up and be counted?
Action To Take
Urge your state representatives to support legislation to take-back individual state's rights from the Federal government. We need to call for a Constitutional convention to change the laws to give the states MORE control over the Federal government. This requires 2/3 of the states to do so. Our work is cut-out for us. However, we CAN do this!
Meanwhile 52% of all Americans are not that jubilant. Support for the plan has remained stagnant for months (in spite of Obama's speeches) and yet Congress is still tying to pass something-anything called "healthcare". The idea being that once passed, it will never be rescinded. They have even threatened to force passing the legislation in a special vote referred to as the "nuclear option" which only requires just over 50 votes in the US Senate.
Why this discord of opinion? Didn't Congress hold town meetings all summer and discuss the planned government healthcare program? Didn't the constituents (taxpayers) voice their opinions and send Congress the message that they did NOT want socialized medicine in America? Didn't you hear cries about the deficit and the burden we are placing on future generations?
Constitutional Power
What law gives Congress the right to legislate our healthcare anyway? Isn't this a valid question that someone should ask? Does Congress have the Constitutional power to control OUR healthcare? No they do not. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress this power. They just assumed it and no one has bothered to question this authority. This has been going on for over a hundred years. Little by little, Congress has assumed more and more power at the expense of the Constitution. Now Congress believes that it can do just about anything they want to do. We are noticing it now more than ever before because we have a President who is extremely left of center in his political philosophy. He is trying to restructure America according to HIS ideas of what America should be by ignoring the Constitution and moving quickly.
When will Americans wake up and realize this is America and not a socialist empire or totalitarian state? What would happen if Congress blindly goes forward ignoring Americans and pass this legislation and the individual states refused to implement it? That's exactly what many states are doing with medical marijuana laws. And guess what? The Federal government has backed down and won't enforce the Federal laws. Isn't this food for thought?
What about state's rights anyway? Isn't it time for the states to challenge the Federal government since it is ignoring the will of the people? Isn't it time to stand up and be counted?
Action To Take
Urge your state representatives to support legislation to take-back individual state's rights from the Federal government. We need to call for a Constitutional convention to change the laws to give the states MORE control over the Federal government. This requires 2/3 of the states to do so. Our work is cut-out for us. However, we CAN do this!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
