What Has America Become?
by Ken Huber Editor small town (Tawas City, MI) newspaper
"Has America become the land of the special interest and home of the double standard?
Let's see: if we lie to Congress, it's a felony and if the Congress lies to us it's just politics; if we dislike a black person, we're a racist and if a black dislikes whites, it's their 1st Amendment right; the government spends millions to rehabilitate criminals and they do almost nothing for the victims; in public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK, but you better not use the word GOD in the process; you can kill an unborn child, but it's wrong to execute a mass murdered; we don't burn books in America, we now rewrite them; we got rid of the communist and socialist threat by renaming them progressives; we are unable to close our border with Mexico, but have no problem protecting the 38th parallel in Korea; if you protest against President Obama's policies you're a terrorist, but if you burned an American flag or George Bush in effigy it was your 1st Amendment right.
You can have pornography on TV or the Internet, but you better not have a Nativity scene in a public park during Christmas; we have eliminated all criminals in America, they are now called sick people; we can use a human fetus for medical research, but it's wrong to use an animal.
We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't want to work; we all support the Constitution, but only when it supports our political ideology; we still have freedom of speech, but only if we are being politically correct; parenting has been replaced with Ritalin and video games; the land of opportunity is now the land of hand outs; the similarity between Hurricane Katrina and the gulf oil spill is that neither president did anything to help.
And how do we handle a major crisis today? The government appoints a committee to determine who's at fault, then threatens them, passes a law, raises our taxes; tells us the problem is solved so they can get back to their reelection campaign.
What has happened to the land of the free and home of the brave?"
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Obama Hates The Military!
Obama's Cuts in Spending
The Main Stream Media (MSM) haven't focused on Obama's big cuts in government spending because it makes him look REAL bad if they do. The Obama administration has proposed defense cuts that require all military families and retirees to pay significant increases in their health care. Proposed increases will total a 79% rise in premiums! 79%!!! That's NOT Chump Change for anyone - especially our military.
So What's the Beef?
Obama's big cuts are designed to increase enrollment into ObamaCare. Military families will no longer be able to afford the premiums and be forced to jump on the ObamaCare band wagon. How's that for coercion?
There's More
In addition to these huge increases in premiums, Obama refuses to touch the coverage of unionized civilian defense workers. Why not? Why did he focus the big cuts on just the military? Answer: They are not in a union! Obama would never think of offending his union friends but ignores the people who defend our freedoms every day!
This disparity between civilian government workers and the military is beginning to cause a real rift between the two groups. There is a backlash developing within the military that is beginning to undermine recruitment and retention/re-enlistments.
Just what in the Hell is our President doing to our military?
What's Next?
Our troops will not receive the equipment or have the manpower to complete their missions. They will receive less consideration than the unionized government workers. Does that make any sense?
Why hasn't the GOP realized that they could bounce Obama out of the White House with just this one issue? They don't have to make Obama look bad - he's already done that to himself!! He has shown his contempt for our military and their families!!
Americans should understand this issue without ANY help from the MSM. It's time to throw this guy out-of-office before he destroys America!
The Main Stream Media (MSM) haven't focused on Obama's big cuts in government spending because it makes him look REAL bad if they do. The Obama administration has proposed defense cuts that require all military families and retirees to pay significant increases in their health care. Proposed increases will total a 79% rise in premiums! 79%!!! That's NOT Chump Change for anyone - especially our military.
So What's the Beef?
Obama's big cuts are designed to increase enrollment into ObamaCare. Military families will no longer be able to afford the premiums and be forced to jump on the ObamaCare band wagon. How's that for coercion?
There's More
In addition to these huge increases in premiums, Obama refuses to touch the coverage of unionized civilian defense workers. Why not? Why did he focus the big cuts on just the military? Answer: They are not in a union! Obama would never think of offending his union friends but ignores the people who defend our freedoms every day!
This disparity between civilian government workers and the military is beginning to cause a real rift between the two groups. There is a backlash developing within the military that is beginning to undermine recruitment and retention/re-enlistments.
Just what in the Hell is our President doing to our military?
What's Next?
Our troops will not receive the equipment or have the manpower to complete their missions. They will receive less consideration than the unionized government workers. Does that make any sense?
Why hasn't the GOP realized that they could bounce Obama out of the White House with just this one issue? They don't have to make Obama look bad - he's already done that to himself!! He has shown his contempt for our military and their families!!
Americans should understand this issue without ANY help from the MSM. It's time to throw this guy out-of-office before he destroys America!
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Prepping Is Evil
Ok For Big Government
In case you haven't noticed, it's all right for the government to have long-term food storage, Strategic Oil Reserves, stockpile of nuclear weapons, underground bunkers like Cheyenne Mountain, and that's reasonable and good. It's OK for the government to have a 20 year food supply, underground reservoirs, underground water storage and so on ad infinitum. It's OK for the government to be prepared for emergencies.
However, when the shoe is on the other foot, and you are the one who has an underground shelter, a storm shelter for hurricanes or tornadoes, firearms, and water and food storage, it is now considered by many (including big government) to be bazaar behavior. See the paraodox?
Homeland Security
If you haven't been following the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), you need some quick updates. Janet Napolatano's department issued a report warning that returning veterans are potential "Terrorists" as are any members or participants in the Tea Party movement. (The report ignores the OWS movement completely as a threat to the country). It also describes anyone that has food storage for several weeks or months also as potential "Terrorists."
Other bulletins issued by the FBI are directed at service repair people to notify the FBI of individuals who have reloading equipment, hoarding of food supplies, arsenals of guns or other weapons, or unusual water storage.
It's true that one of the government's main duties of to protect it's citizens. But isn't this going overboard in the WRONG DIRECTION?
Doomsday Preppers
There is a new TV show on NATGEO that is called "Doomsday Preppers." It shows various individuals who consider themselves "Preppers" for various reasons. Some go to extreme in their activities, but none are really "wackos." They show a typical prepper family and how they have prepared for a specific emergency. Then NATGEO rates their chances for survival by a panel of "experts." It's worth viewing because it shows several valid ideas on survival methods and things to consider during emergencies. Ironically, most people NEVER think about these things until it's too late!
Shift In Direction
So why the sudden interest in these activities? People in America are beginning to feel uncomfortable. They are beginning to recognize that the government can't protect them against disasters and national emergencies.
People are beginning to realize that it is THEIR responsibility to take care of their families and become self-reliant and NOT BIG GOVERNMENT! We learned that from the Katrina Hurricane disaster. What a concept!
Action To Take
If you get NATGEO on yout TV, watch a show and see if any of it makes sense. If you don't have it available, do a search on the Internet for "Preppers" or "Doomsday Preppers" and you will discover a wealth of information at your disposal.
It's better to become informed of e possibilities you may face in an emergency BEFORE it happens.
In case you haven't noticed, it's all right for the government to have long-term food storage, Strategic Oil Reserves, stockpile of nuclear weapons, underground bunkers like Cheyenne Mountain, and that's reasonable and good. It's OK for the government to have a 20 year food supply, underground reservoirs, underground water storage and so on ad infinitum. It's OK for the government to be prepared for emergencies.
However, when the shoe is on the other foot, and you are the one who has an underground shelter, a storm shelter for hurricanes or tornadoes, firearms, and water and food storage, it is now considered by many (including big government) to be bazaar behavior. See the paraodox?
Homeland Security
If you haven't been following the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), you need some quick updates. Janet Napolatano's department issued a report warning that returning veterans are potential "Terrorists" as are any members or participants in the Tea Party movement. (The report ignores the OWS movement completely as a threat to the country). It also describes anyone that has food storage for several weeks or months also as potential "Terrorists."
Other bulletins issued by the FBI are directed at service repair people to notify the FBI of individuals who have reloading equipment, hoarding of food supplies, arsenals of guns or other weapons, or unusual water storage.
It's true that one of the government's main duties of to protect it's citizens. But isn't this going overboard in the WRONG DIRECTION?
Doomsday Preppers
There is a new TV show on NATGEO that is called "Doomsday Preppers." It shows various individuals who consider themselves "Preppers" for various reasons. Some go to extreme in their activities, but none are really "wackos." They show a typical prepper family and how they have prepared for a specific emergency. Then NATGEO rates their chances for survival by a panel of "experts." It's worth viewing because it shows several valid ideas on survival methods and things to consider during emergencies. Ironically, most people NEVER think about these things until it's too late!
Shift In Direction
So why the sudden interest in these activities? People in America are beginning to feel uncomfortable. They are beginning to recognize that the government can't protect them against disasters and national emergencies.
People are beginning to realize that it is THEIR responsibility to take care of their families and become self-reliant and NOT BIG GOVERNMENT! We learned that from the Katrina Hurricane disaster. What a concept!
Action To Take
If you get NATGEO on yout TV, watch a show and see if any of it makes sense. If you don't have it available, do a search on the Internet for "Preppers" or "Doomsday Preppers" and you will discover a wealth of information at your disposal.
It's better to become informed of e possibilities you may face in an emergency BEFORE it happens.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Guest Article - $9.00 Gas Coming?
Obama's Driving Americans out of Cars
By Terence P. Jeffrey
"Barack Obama is now achieving a vision that environmentalist ideologues could only dream about in the 1970s: He is driving Americans out of their cars.
In the three decades since American voters threw Jimmy Carter out of office, there have been only two years when Americans did not drive their cars and trucks more miles than the year before.
The first, according to the Federal Highway Administration, was 2008, when George W. Bush was president and the nation was in a deep recession. The second was 2011, the third year of President Obama's term in office.
But Obama may be accomplishing something more significant than presiding over a single year when Americans decreased the miles they drove. Since 1970, the FHA has tracked the "vehicle miles traveled" by Americans each year. It peaked in 2007.
That year, Americans drove a record 3.031 billion miles. In 2008, as might be expected in a severe recession, American curtailed their driving, going only 2.976 billion miles.
But the American urge to drive has clearly decelerated since Obama took office. In 2009, Americans drove only 2.977 billion miles, virtually no change from the 2.976 billion in 2008. In 2010, they drove 2.998 billion, still less than the 2007 peak. And, in 2011, they drove only 2.962 billion.
That is the fewest miles Americans have driven since 2003.
One reason Americans are driving less is obvious. On Jan.19, 2009, the day before Obama's inauguration, the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline was $1.83 per gallon. Since then, it has more than doubled. On Monday, it was $3.71.
Do rising gas prices distress the leading intellects in the Obama administration? There is good reason to believe the opposite.
John Holdren is Obama's White House science and technology adviser. In 1973, he joined with population control advocates Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich in writing an environmentalist manifesto titled "Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions."
It called for government action to find "alternative activities" for the auto industry.
"In the transition from a cowboy economy to a spaceman economy, manufacturing industries will have to undergo vast changes," Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote. "The largest manufacturing industry in the United States is the automobile industry, and its product is a dominant factor in the depletion of resources and the destruction of the environment. The industry therefore makes a particularly suitable case study for economic change."
"We believe a federal task force should be established immediately to do the planning and to lay the groundwork for dealing with the automobile problem without great disruption to the national economy," Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote.
"Such a task force might be part of a larger institution with the responsibility to devise policies for making the transition to a stable, ecologically sound economy. The task is enormous, but it is both possible and necessary. In the short term, alternative activities must be found for various industries, including those related to the automobile."
In the same book, Holdren and the Ehrlich's promoted economist Herman Daly's idea of imposing "depletion quotas" on natural resources — which would drive up their prices.
"That is, upper limits would be placed on the total amount of each resource that could be extracted or imported by the United States each year," Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote. "This would not only directly reduce the pressure Americans place on the resources of the planet, but would also automatically generate a trend toward recycling and pollution abatement."
"And depletion quotes on fossil fuels and fissionable materials would encourage the frugal use of energy," they wrote.
"Limiting the amount of energy available would, of course, also tend to limit the size and number of automobiles, encourage the use of mass transit and promote the substitution of efficient high-speed trains for energetically wasteful short- and medium-haul jet airplanes."
Obama's future science adviser was so taken with this idea that he suggested along with the Ehrlichs that prohibiting certain types of advertising would be justified.
"Both before and after depletion quotas are established," they wrote, "ways must be found to control advertising."
"Its most dangerous abuses might be halted by legislative action," they wrote. "For instance, it could be made illegal for any utility to advertise in such a way as to promote greater demand for power. Also, references to size, power or sexual potency (direct or implied) could be banned from automobile advertising."
Not long after Obama took office, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood described a policy initiative that would encourage denser urban neighborhoods and mass transit systems as "a way to coerce people out of their cars."
Energy Secretary Steven Chu said last week his department's goal was not to reduce gas prices, but "decrease our dependency on oil."
As president, Obama has subsidized electric cars and mass transit and even bought General Motors — while refusing to approve a pipeline to bring oil from Canada into the United States. His new energy plans calls for ending what he terms $4 billion in annual tax "subsidies" to oil companies. What he means is he wants to raise taxes on the source of gasoline.
At least he hasn't called for banning references to size, power or sexual potency in auto advertising."
By Terence P. Jeffrey
"Barack Obama is now achieving a vision that environmentalist ideologues could only dream about in the 1970s: He is driving Americans out of their cars.
In the three decades since American voters threw Jimmy Carter out of office, there have been only two years when Americans did not drive their cars and trucks more miles than the year before.
The first, according to the Federal Highway Administration, was 2008, when George W. Bush was president and the nation was in a deep recession. The second was 2011, the third year of President Obama's term in office.
But Obama may be accomplishing something more significant than presiding over a single year when Americans decreased the miles they drove. Since 1970, the FHA has tracked the "vehicle miles traveled" by Americans each year. It peaked in 2007.
That year, Americans drove a record 3.031 billion miles. In 2008, as might be expected in a severe recession, American curtailed their driving, going only 2.976 billion miles.
But the American urge to drive has clearly decelerated since Obama took office. In 2009, Americans drove only 2.977 billion miles, virtually no change from the 2.976 billion in 2008. In 2010, they drove 2.998 billion, still less than the 2007 peak. And, in 2011, they drove only 2.962 billion.
That is the fewest miles Americans have driven since 2003.
One reason Americans are driving less is obvious. On Jan.19, 2009, the day before Obama's inauguration, the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline was $1.83 per gallon. Since then, it has more than doubled. On Monday, it was $3.71.
Do rising gas prices distress the leading intellects in the Obama administration? There is good reason to believe the opposite.
John Holdren is Obama's White House science and technology adviser. In 1973, he joined with population control advocates Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich in writing an environmentalist manifesto titled "Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions."
It called for government action to find "alternative activities" for the auto industry.
"In the transition from a cowboy economy to a spaceman economy, manufacturing industries will have to undergo vast changes," Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote. "The largest manufacturing industry in the United States is the automobile industry, and its product is a dominant factor in the depletion of resources and the destruction of the environment. The industry therefore makes a particularly suitable case study for economic change."
"We believe a federal task force should be established immediately to do the planning and to lay the groundwork for dealing with the automobile problem without great disruption to the national economy," Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote.
"Such a task force might be part of a larger institution with the responsibility to devise policies for making the transition to a stable, ecologically sound economy. The task is enormous, but it is both possible and necessary. In the short term, alternative activities must be found for various industries, including those related to the automobile."
In the same book, Holdren and the Ehrlich's promoted economist Herman Daly's idea of imposing "depletion quotas" on natural resources — which would drive up their prices.
"That is, upper limits would be placed on the total amount of each resource that could be extracted or imported by the United States each year," Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote. "This would not only directly reduce the pressure Americans place on the resources of the planet, but would also automatically generate a trend toward recycling and pollution abatement."
"And depletion quotes on fossil fuels and fissionable materials would encourage the frugal use of energy," they wrote.
"Limiting the amount of energy available would, of course, also tend to limit the size and number of automobiles, encourage the use of mass transit and promote the substitution of efficient high-speed trains for energetically wasteful short- and medium-haul jet airplanes."
Obama's future science adviser was so taken with this idea that he suggested along with the Ehrlichs that prohibiting certain types of advertising would be justified.
"Both before and after depletion quotas are established," they wrote, "ways must be found to control advertising."
"Its most dangerous abuses might be halted by legislative action," they wrote. "For instance, it could be made illegal for any utility to advertise in such a way as to promote greater demand for power. Also, references to size, power or sexual potency (direct or implied) could be banned from automobile advertising."
Not long after Obama took office, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood described a policy initiative that would encourage denser urban neighborhoods and mass transit systems as "a way to coerce people out of their cars."
Energy Secretary Steven Chu said last week his department's goal was not to reduce gas prices, but "decrease our dependency on oil."
As president, Obama has subsidized electric cars and mass transit and even bought General Motors — while refusing to approve a pipeline to bring oil from Canada into the United States. His new energy plans calls for ending what he terms $4 billion in annual tax "subsidies" to oil companies. What he means is he wants to raise taxes on the source of gasoline.
At least he hasn't called for banning references to size, power or sexual potency in auto advertising."
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
What Is a Progressive?
Defined in Conservapedia
People often get confused by terminology. Words are often used in incorrect ways to add to the problem. Liberals (Democrats) are good at using words to both confuse and win-over people to their side of the argument. Here is the definition of a "Progressive" as taken from Conservapedia.com.
"In US politics, progressive is sometimes used as a synonym for "liberal", used to evade the bad connotation of the latter term. Progressive policies, in political science, are those which make progress towards goals seen as benefiting society. Since all politicians claim that their ideas and policies are meant to benefit the public, calling a policy "progressive" is thus practically meaningless.
Liberals use the term to describe themselves and their policies in contrast to "regressive" policies of their opponents. For example, they'll ask rhetorically, "Do you want to go back to the 1950s?" implying that women were oppressed by being forced to be housewives and men were oppressed by being falsely accused of favoring Communism (see McCarthyism).
The term progressive was recently revived by politicians who considered themselves to be liberal. This revival occurred shortly before the 2006 elections. It was implemented to help distance politicians, mainly Democrats, for the negative history associated with various members of the party at that time. It was also meant to create a belief that conservatives were not able to think of a progressive future for the United States. The most famous historical usage of the term was in the 1890s to 1920s, sometimes called the Progressive Era. During the Progressive Era, politicians of both parties and various ideologies adopted the term, notably Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican who founded the Progressive Party (also known as the Bull Moose Party) and Woodrow Wilson.
While the term has been popular among the media, most of the population still refers to the two major philosophies as conservative and liberal. This is likely because these two titles are familiar to the current population and better recognized. Because of this familiarity it is easier to visualize the contrasts between conservative and liberal than the contrasts between conservative and progressive.
A useful distinction to keep in mind is this: "progressives want bigger and supposedly better government; conservatives want less government.""
People often get confused by terminology. Words are often used in incorrect ways to add to the problem. Liberals (Democrats) are good at using words to both confuse and win-over people to their side of the argument. Here is the definition of a "Progressive" as taken from Conservapedia.com.
"In US politics, progressive is sometimes used as a synonym for "liberal", used to evade the bad connotation of the latter term. Progressive policies, in political science, are those which make progress towards goals seen as benefiting society. Since all politicians claim that their ideas and policies are meant to benefit the public, calling a policy "progressive" is thus practically meaningless.
Liberals use the term to describe themselves and their policies in contrast to "regressive" policies of their opponents. For example, they'll ask rhetorically, "Do you want to go back to the 1950s?" implying that women were oppressed by being forced to be housewives and men were oppressed by being falsely accused of favoring Communism (see McCarthyism).
The term progressive was recently revived by politicians who considered themselves to be liberal. This revival occurred shortly before the 2006 elections. It was implemented to help distance politicians, mainly Democrats, for the negative history associated with various members of the party at that time. It was also meant to create a belief that conservatives were not able to think of a progressive future for the United States. The most famous historical usage of the term was in the 1890s to 1920s, sometimes called the Progressive Era. During the Progressive Era, politicians of both parties and various ideologies adopted the term, notably Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican who founded the Progressive Party (also known as the Bull Moose Party) and Woodrow Wilson.
While the term has been popular among the media, most of the population still refers to the two major philosophies as conservative and liberal. This is likely because these two titles are familiar to the current population and better recognized. Because of this familiarity it is easier to visualize the contrasts between conservative and liberal than the contrasts between conservative and progressive.
A useful distinction to keep in mind is this: "progressives want bigger and supposedly better government; conservatives want less government.""
Monday, March 5, 2012
Bug-Out-Bags (BOBs)
What Are They?
Unfortunately for many Americans during hurricane Katrina, too many people found out too late, that they were unprepared for that type of emergency. A "Bug-out-bag" (BOB) is a back pack, carry case, or pouch used to provide the supplies and tools needed to deal with a disaster. Sometimes they are referred to as "Disaster Survival Kits," or a "72 Hour Survival Kit." Do you have one? Do you need one?
Rationale
If you're like most people you pay hard earned money for car insurance because it is required in most states. You probably also carry some sort of home owners or renters insurance to cover any losses you may incur do to fire or theft. You may also have health and life insurance as well - depending on your age and family status.
Likewise, no one hopes for a disaster, but they do happen. A recent "rash" of tornadoes poses the perfect example. Why be caught short? Being prepared should give you a sense of security as well as, some control over your circumstances - even a disaster! Doesn't it make sense to have a plan on what you and your family will do during an emergency? A BOB is part of that solution.
What's In A BOB?
You can go to a store and buy a survival kit and pay top dollar for one or you can assemble your own. By doing your own, you can customize it for your specific needs and requirements. However, there are several basic items all kits need.
No matter where you live or who you are, there are four things that are essential for your survival, as follows:
Other Ditties
The items mentioned above are the basic items. Please feel free to expand to suit your life and needs. A first aid kit comes to mind. You might require medications or want to include hygiene items. Customize your BOB as appropriate.
You should have a BOB for each person in your family. They all should be able to carry it by themselves. These BOBs should all be stored in the same place together, easy to grab on your way out the door.
When travelling long distances, always bring you BOB with you. Keep a smaller version of a "Mini" BOB in your car at all times.
Finally
There are many sources and references about this topic in bookstores as well as on the Internet (including YouTube). Search for "Bug-out-bags" or "Preppers" for more information. Make yourself familiar with the details for more ideas. Get informed!
Remember that during an emergency it is better to be prepared and self-reliant because this enhances you chances of getting through the disaster. Share these ideas and thoughts with your friends and family members.
Unfortunately for many Americans during hurricane Katrina, too many people found out too late, that they were unprepared for that type of emergency. A "Bug-out-bag" (BOB) is a back pack, carry case, or pouch used to provide the supplies and tools needed to deal with a disaster. Sometimes they are referred to as "Disaster Survival Kits," or a "72 Hour Survival Kit." Do you have one? Do you need one?
Rationale
If you're like most people you pay hard earned money for car insurance because it is required in most states. You probably also carry some sort of home owners or renters insurance to cover any losses you may incur do to fire or theft. You may also have health and life insurance as well - depending on your age and family status.
Likewise, no one hopes for a disaster, but they do happen. A recent "rash" of tornadoes poses the perfect example. Why be caught short? Being prepared should give you a sense of security as well as, some control over your circumstances - even a disaster! Doesn't it make sense to have a plan on what you and your family will do during an emergency? A BOB is part of that solution.
What's In A BOB?
You can go to a store and buy a survival kit and pay top dollar for one or you can assemble your own. By doing your own, you can customize it for your specific needs and requirements. However, there are several basic items all kits need.
No matter where you live or who you are, there are four things that are essential for your survival, as follows:
- Water - You can only live about 3 days without ANY water. The average person needs 1 gallon per day - minimum just for drinking! Your BOB should have some water and some means of purifying and, boiling, and filtering water from your surroundings. You also need a container (plastic bottle) to hold the water once it is fit to drink.
- Food - Your BOB should contain a 3 day supply of food. This can be canned foods (with the opener), freeze dried foods, MRE's (Meals Ready To Eat), dried pasta, granola bars, whatever you like. Also have some eating utensils like plastic knives, forks and spoons or the universal "spork" Also something like paper plates & cups would be helpful.
- Shelter - A small plastic tarp (5'x7') can be turned into a tent for shelter or be used as a blanket.
- Fire - Fire provides you with heat, light and a means to warm or cook your food. Know how to start a fire with minimal things at hand. You need a waterproof container to hold matches. You need dry kindling like cotton balls soaked in Vasoline. You may want a BIC lighter as backup.
Other Ditties
The items mentioned above are the basic items. Please feel free to expand to suit your life and needs. A first aid kit comes to mind. You might require medications or want to include hygiene items. Customize your BOB as appropriate.
You should have a BOB for each person in your family. They all should be able to carry it by themselves. These BOBs should all be stored in the same place together, easy to grab on your way out the door.
When travelling long distances, always bring you BOB with you. Keep a smaller version of a "Mini" BOB in your car at all times.
Finally
There are many sources and references about this topic in bookstores as well as on the Internet (including YouTube). Search for "Bug-out-bags" or "Preppers" for more information. Make yourself familiar with the details for more ideas. Get informed!
Remember that during an emergency it is better to be prepared and self-reliant because this enhances you chances of getting through the disaster. Share these ideas and thoughts with your friends and family members.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Were Americans Duped?
Police Say Probable Cause Exists...
On March 1, 2010, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio claimed that after HIS 6 month investigation regarding President Obama's birth certificate, that he has "probable cause to believe that forgery and fraud have been committed".
In addition, more disturbing evidence indicates that yet another fraud may have been committed with President Obama's draft card registration. The sheriff reports that in good faith he cannot report that these documents are authentic!
THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE! Was a crime or two committed to help elect Obama into the highest office?
Listen to the Sheriff's press conference.
Who To Believe
We have not supported the "birther" movement in the USA. However, when a highly respected law enforcement official makes these statements, it makes us wonder. Let's see the hard evidence that Sheriff Joe has discovered to make him believe this allogations. We need to see more proof before jumping on the band wagon.
On March 1, 2010, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio claimed that after HIS 6 month investigation regarding President Obama's birth certificate, that he has "probable cause to believe that forgery and fraud have been committed".
In addition, more disturbing evidence indicates that yet another fraud may have been committed with President Obama's draft card registration. The sheriff reports that in good faith he cannot report that these documents are authentic!
THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE! Was a crime or two committed to help elect Obama into the highest office?
Listen to the Sheriff's press conference.
Who To Believe
We have not supported the "birther" movement in the USA. However, when a highly respected law enforcement official makes these statements, it makes us wonder. Let's see the hard evidence that Sheriff Joe has discovered to make him believe this allogations. We need to see more proof before jumping on the band wagon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
