From DrHurd; Why the "Fiscal Cliff" is Really a Myth

Lately, we've all heard the "debates" over tax increases here in the US. And while the media is hyping Obama's plan as our one and only means of salvation - and while even Republicans are avoiding the harsh truths of our economic conditions - at least Dr Hurd is still speaking out.

So, I'll share him with you, my dear readers, in the hopes that at least some of you will pull your fingers out of your ears and stop with that silly "LALALALALAAAAA Not LISTENING" bullshit so many of us are doing. Enjoy:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the talk of a “fiscal cliff” come January 1 is misleading.

It implies that there’s something politicians can do to avert disaster in the new year – and that if they do it, all will be well.

The fact is: All is not well. The reason isn’t the sequestration law with supposed spending cuts and tax increases to take effect.

The reason is that the government is spending and borrowing way, way beyond what the private economy has the ability to produce – even if taxes are raised.

You can debate whether it’s worse to let America “go over the fiscal cliff” or to make some kind of bipartisan deal (stacked in favor of pro-Big Government spending and taxation, as always).

It doesn’t matter. Either way, Americans are left with the reality that its government spends and borrows way beyond its means. Tax increases will not help this. Tax increases on “the rich” will help this least of all. This is because “the rich” are the ones who disproportionately spend and invest in the economy, whether it’s job creation, investment in stocks or private enterprises, or spending on luxuries. The more you take away from those with the most wealth, the less...Read the rest here.

(Tweet me to give these folks a million banner views.)
Come visit me on my Yahoo profile!
Pain management an issue?

Mitt Romney hands Newt Gingrich his head over investments

Don't be fooled by Mitt Romney's "innocent" looks. There's some "fight" in that man, especially over his investments. During the Florida debates when Newt Gingrich tried to raise doubts about investments by Mitt Romney, as shared on CNN.com, the ex-governor gave Gingrich a verbal spanking in front of millions—and Gingrich took it.

File:Mitt Romney 2007 profile portrait.jpg
Photo credit: Steve Jurvetson

During the video, the look in Romney's eyes is unmistakable. He was offended and unwilling to take any more of Gingrich's mud-slinging. The tone in his voice demonstrated he wasn't giving memorized lines provided by a speech-writer. He spoke from his gut, and—by golly—the audience liked it. It was a joy to watch someone neuter the Newt in front of so many.

Accentuating Gingrich's faults, as demonstrated in the South Carolina debates when Newt Gingrich exposed himself as a candidate above questioning, is easy. He seems to believe himself above questions which journalists and Americans want to ask. What Mitt Romney did, though, was even better. He showed himself as willing to face off with a little man who believes himself better than the same questions every other candidate has ever endured. Mitt Romney showed the nation he's willing to fight back.

Come visit me on DonPennington.info.

President Obama Rubs America's Gullibility In Our Faces

After shooting down the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have created more jobs and lessened our dependence upon OPEC for our oil, Obama's first re-election campaign ad brags about the effectiveness of his energy policies. *Author scratches head.*

Yeah. That piece made me do a double-take too.

I especially loved how he bragged on – wait for it – Solyndra! For those who don't pay much attention, they're a solar energy development firm in Arizona whom after having received millions in guaranteed loans from the Obama Administration conveniently went into bankruptcy.

You'd think a re-election campaign ad would perhaps, oh I don't know, talk about something he might have done right? But no, not this president. And to think, I was beginning to like President Obama. Then he rubs it in our faces just how big of suckers we all are.

Maybe his next ad will celebrate how big of a success he was at getting Guantanamo closed or how pleasant Joe Biden is. We Americans are certainly gullible to play along.

Come visit me on DonPennington.info.

So, Rick Perry dropped out. Was it from the backlash over “Strong?”

COMMENTARY | With today's resignation of Rick Perry, America breathed a collective sigh of relief that there's now not a Republican's chance at an orgy of the man becoming the next Republican nominee for the office of the presidency. Anyone who would pander so hard for the Christian vote that he would stoop to the level of doing his “Strong” ad on YouTube must seriously be in love with the idea of power.

He just about had a chance for the nomination too, until that ad came out. In a nutshell, he told America he'd inflict his personal religious beliefs on everyone else, whether we wanted to be a Christian or not. It's not that Rick Perry (or anyone) doesn't have a right to believe as he sees fit. It's that he wasn't “Strong” for what he said. He was wrong for what he said. And his poll numbers showed it from then on out.

When he decried “gays serving openly in the military,” he was disrespecting men and women who were serving at the time he said it. He was telling some of the very people who were currently fighting overseas he had no use for them.

When he accused Obama of “waging a war on religion,” he simply wasn't acknowledging the truth of the matter, in that there isn't one. All Obama's done to be accused of “waging a war on religion,” is to recognize that Christianity isn't the only religion in America. (Heck, some of us practice no religion) What Perry was really whining about was that his team wasn't so all-powerful anymore.

When Rick Perry said he “wasn't ashamed to admit he was a Christian,” millions of minds in America thought “How brave to admit he's a Christian in America.” Try that in Saudi Arabia. Now, that would've shown some balls.

When Rick Perry did his “Strong” ad on YouTube, he actually managed to get more “dislikes” (747,612 as of this blog posting) than Rebecca Black's “Friday.” He set a record for disapproval on YouTube. History will show that his message in that particular ad was the down-turning point for his campaign. I'm just glad we got to see what sort of a bigoted turd he was before he got the job. Now, on to destroying his endorsement, Newt Gingrich.

Come visit me on DonPennington.info.

Ron Paul is Facing Something Less Than a Conspiracy

COMMENTARY | According to The Washington Post's Mention Machine, the media has only mentioned the name Ron Paul 2,821 times - but as of January 17, 2012 - his name has been invoked 266,874 times in general. Still, the headline reads as if it's Mitt Romney's big week. Right. Obviously, Romney may be the media darling, but it's Ron Paul who's the people's candidate-of-choice among the Republicans.

Anybody else also notice it was Ron Paul who received Senator Tom Davis' endorsement? In a powerfully-worded statement on SenatorTomDavis.com, he states "I'm endorsing Ron Paul because enough is enough. Despite this wave of unprecedented government spending, our unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent for the last 34 months and 146.4 million Americans - one out of every two people in this country - are now classified as poor or low-income."

Before he chose to endorse the Texas Congressman, the Senator's endorsement was "vital." Now, conveniently, it's not all that important. Is there anything the Libertarian candidate can win which doesn't immediately get downgraded to unimportant? Has there been a debate, poll or survey where Ron Paul has done well, but another candidate's horn gets tooted? No, not one. Why?

My guess is it's not a conspiracy, in any way. A "conspiracy" would imply some sort of secret plan to engage in criminal behavior. And all of this is not the criminal behavior - the criminal behavior is reserved for after a candidate wins the office. No, this is no criminal conspiracy.

From what I've surmised, the media - every website, newspaper, radio and television station in America - is no longer in the news business. They're now strictly advertising - all advertising, all the time. And while Ron Paul is popular among the voters of the U.S. because he has honesty, consistency and more than one good idea, other candidates simply bought their favor. Mitt "Waffles" Romney is in the pocket of every media outlet he can be. Nothing personal. It's just business.

It's understandable. Every business on Earth must pay their employees, bills and also earn a profit. So, saying and doing what a sponsor says is their job, like it or not. But, has Romney spent enough to guarantee he'll out-shine a candidate who makes all other politicians look bad in comparison? Or, will Ron Paul offering a good plan trump the power of the almighty dollar?

Come visit me on DonPennington.info.

Have We Been Unfair to President Obama? Exposing Three Myths

Here we are in yet another election cycle. With November 2012 coming sooner than we'll really be ready for, we're going to have to once again choose who holds the Oval Office and the nuclear codes. So far, the incumbent President Obama has had the position and in spite of what many may claim, he hasn't done too terrible of a job.

I don't believe in much in life, but I do believe in being fair. And, if President Obama isn't re-elected on the basis of the issues, that's fine. I don't believe in re-electing anybody, really anyway. Still, even though I've done what I can to support my guy Ron Paul, I think we Americans should consider the job President Obama's actually done so far.

I've heard three major complaints from those who don't like the president, and at one time I bought into them too, until I started looking into the stories myself. Those three topics which wrankle the most cankles of the Tea Party movement in the US are: Obama's “apology tour” in his early presidency, military spending and of course, jobs. Let's look at them, shall we?

President Obama myth number 1) Obama went on an apology tour when he first became president. - This just doesn't pan out. According to Washington Post's Fact Checker blog, as a new president, Barack Obama was expected to travel the world and meet with heads of state of other nations, so it wasn't an “apology tour,” but simple diplomacy. As well, any quotes used against him were taken out of their original context.

President Obama myth number 2) Obama cut military spending and weakened Americn defenses. - This one is blatantly wrong. Anyone making this claim (Mitt Romney) needs to be aware that military spending is – in fact – public knowledge and therefore easily checked. Herp Derp.

According to U.S News and World Report, not only has military spending not been cut, under President Obama, it's gone up – significantly! In 2008 the Pentagon spent $594 billion then $666 billion. And in 2011, it was $739 billion! If you can convince me the increases are a cut, I'll eat my nacho hat.

President Obama myth number 3) Jobs - Holy crap, where do I begin? This might upset some folks, but when President Obama first took office, he actually was straddled with the after-effects of former President Bush. Just because he had taken the Oath of Office didn't mean there were any policies in place yet. Again, according to the previously referenced U.S. News and World Report article, the president has ended up creating an estimated 3 million private sector jobs over the last 22 consecutive months. (Actually, the businesses doing the hiring are the job creators. But that's a fine point which seems to confuse some folks so I'll just play with the same terminology folks are used to.)

Granted, all of those jobs aren't the type which might feed a family and fund the dreams of an Ivy League education, but when times are tough, even a part-time job can make all the difference. The jobs are there. Corporations are turning profits under President Obama. The economy is recovering. Granted, I might've done it differently, myself. But it seems like America is almost working again.

Come visit me on DonPennington.info.

Top 5 Reasons Ron Paul Should be President in 2012

I have a lot of difficulty imagining a system so borked as ours allowing a guy like Ron Paul to survive a victorious presidential campaign. He simply has far too many financial interests threatened by his proposals. He's too honest. He's not crooked enough. Many have even called him naive.

I'll even agree with having some issues of my own with the guy. I don't really think he'll succeed in keeping every campaign promise. And if he lets our school's science classes get screwed up with creationist's demands to be included in curriculum, he'll have done a terrible disservice to our youth.

But even with all of these factors considered, we could still stand to learn a few things from him. Hear my 5 reasons I feel we should give him the job for four years, at least, and feel free to comment on the video page. I don't block comments or video responses.



Come visit me on DonPennington.info.

Religious Bigotry Raises Its Ugly Head Again

FIRST PERSON | For the life of me, I just don't understand the reasoning behind insisting on inflicting my own personal beliefs on everyone else around me. But, then again, I am an atheist. In spite of what readers may hear from the media and from the pulpit-of-their-choice, I'm not out to wreck your religion. I'm just one of millions who wants to live my life in peace. I simply have no need for a God. Life itself is fascinating as it is.

Mankind has lived with one form of mass religion or another over the centuries and we've finally reached a point wherein we non-believers are not burned at the stake just for questioning the church. Still, we find ourselves chastised by Conservatives on TheBlaze.com for doing nothing more than demanding secular government and real science being taught in our tax-funded schools.

At the end of the above-referenced article, the author asks "Will a growing list of non-believers attempt to influence elections here in America as well? While Christianity is still somewhat of a litmus test here in the U.S., there's no telling what the future holds as secularists continue to grow in both numbers and boldness." Sorry, Mr Hallowell. Article 6 of our Constitution prohibits a religious test for those seeking office, and that's the point. We are not a theocracy.

Some of us in this world find it terribly unjust to live under the thumb of someone else's religious dogma. We are the ones disgusted by a politician's pandering to the religious of society in order to score votes. Sadly, in the minds of many, the biggest crime committed by we secularists and humanists is doubting the claims made by those referencing some sort of divine authority. Here in America, we've had thousands and thousands of political leaders who claim to be acting under some sort of religious authority - all the while selling out their fellow countrymen time and again for their own political aspirations. Evil is as evil does, my friends.

We atheists are just as flawed, human, and likely to screw up as any other person is. So, why the problem with someone running for office, based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof? Does the God who demanded 9/11 be committed have any good answers? No. Does the Almighty who told the Pope to shelter pedophiles have any solutions? Not likely. So, let's try hiring our elected officials based on what they can do for the country, and not because they pretend to hear some spiritual voices. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the topic. My sponsors only ask 5 seconds of your time first, and then, speak your mind!

Come visit me on DonPennington.info.

Famous Quotes About Sarah Palin, the Candidate

We don't really know for sure, if Sarah Palin is going to also throw her hat into the already crowded race for the G.O.P. Presidential nomination, but in a report from ABC.com, former Bush adviser Karl Rove made the prediction she would. We can't really know for sure if she's going to announce her candidacy until she does, but imagine if she did. What kind of a candidate would she make? There's only one way to have any sort of an idea, and that's to look at what kind of an effect she had as McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election.

In response to her political gaffes on the McCain campaign trail in 2008, we have:

"If Palin were a man, we'd all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she's a woman - and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket - we are reluctant to say what is painfully true."

-Kathleen Parker, Nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group

Then there's a fellow Republican from her home state of Alaska:

"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president? Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

-Lyda Green, State Senate President

Admittedly, those first two quotes could just be the natural course of politics-as-usual. So, let's hear from someone who worked closely with her:

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone. She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else. Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

-An anonymous McCain adviser, from a CNN report

Ouch. Well then, let's hear what Conservative commentators have to say about candidate Palin. Mind you, David Brooks is as conservative as conservative can be:

"[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party."

-David Brooks, Conservative Commentator for The New York Times

What list of famous quotes would this be, without the musings of funny man Jon Stewart?

"Actually, when I think about it, Alaska's also near the North pole, so she she must also be friends with Santa." (In response to a Fox News commentator's remarks during the 2008 campaign, about how she knows international relations, because Alaska is so close to Russia.)

-Jon Stewart, from the Friday, August 29, 2008 episode of 'The Daily Show'

Thus far, we've seen a few quotes on Sarah Palin which mentioned her personality, and the viability of the woman as a presidential candidate. So, what is the amazing appeal she holds over so many? We might have the answer right here:

"I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it."

-Rich Lowry, in The National Review

Could it be, so many relish the idea of a presidential candidate, on nothing more than charm and good looks alone? She certainly has those qualities, and she has them in boat-loads, too. But to not only be a viable candidate, the one who knocks an incumbent out of power, it's going to take a lot more than good looks and a charming personality.

And once won, it would take a lot more, in order to handle the job-at-hand of running the federal government of the world's greatest superpower. Perhaps the G.O.P. Might want to focus more on the candidates currently running, already.
Some more thoughts for Sarah Palin.

Patriot Depot

Dr Ron Paul tries again to warn America of an impending financial collapse and other troubles

In yet another attempt, Dr Ron Paul is trying to warn the citizens of America of the impending financial crisis which is set to befall us all. He has tried time and again to help us see the direction this great nation is heading, and as is so often the case, we ignore him in preference of the latest celebrity gossip.

In spite of the efforts of this one, good man - and others like him – my fellow Americans are headed for unprecedented levels of political and financial turmoil, the likes of which will make our last Great Depression of the 30's look like a Sunday picnic. Yes, we the privileged populace of the United States have neglected our responsibilities in lieu of little more than the mental candy fed to us through the idiot-box we call television.

My apologies if I'm not being fun enough for you. Even though this posting has nothing to do with Kim Kardashian's latest tattoo, or anything from sports celebrities, I still hope you'll take the time to read what I'm sharing. My neighbors need to be prepared. My friends and family need to be ready. I'd even like to see my enemies make it through the upcoming troubles.

So, if there's ever been a good time to be at least the slightest bit scared, to be unsettled enough to ignore the endless chatter of celebrity news, it is now. Whether any of you want to wake up to the reality around you or not, I'm hoping you'll heed the latest warning from Dr Ron Paul:



“We can evade reality. But we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.”
- Ayn Rand

Patriot Depot

Preying Mantis we Rescued from our apartment

Senator Harry Reid Shoves Both of His Feet into His Mouth Again

Senator Harry Reid Unwittingly Confirms the Need to Let the So-called Patriot Act Expire

Senator Harry Reid (D Nevada), and Senator Rand Paul (R Kentucky) have been in a heated public debate over the re-authorization of the Patriot Act, and in an attempt to falsely demonize those of us who would want to re-claim our rights to privacy and a smaller, less-intrusive government, Senator Reid has unwittingly made a statement confirming the ineffectiveness of the act. Good job there, Harry.

According to a story on The Ticket, Senate majority leader Reid accused Senator Paul, and others who support him of "giving terrorists the opportunity to plot against our country undetected." He also states, "The senator from Kentucky is threatening to take away the best tools we have for stopping them."

In saying so, he's effectively accusing anyone who would want the draconian measure to expire, of willingly helping terrorists. As offensive as this blatant fear-mongering lie is, he went on to contradict himself, and it's just too bad he's not smart enough to realize how big of a gift it is. (Can't help but wonder if he and Joe Biden are related.)

Reid continued with: "We all remember the tragic Fort Hood shootings less than two years ago. Radicalized American terrorists bought guns and used them to kill 13 civilians. It is hard to imagine why the senator would want to hold up the Patriot Act for a misguided amendment that would make American(s) less safe." Did you catch it? Okay, for those of you who support (need) big government taking care of you in every aspect of life, I'll type slowly. Pay attention, now.

Is Senator Harry Reid aware of how ridiculous he is? The Patriot Act was in place when the tragic shooting at Ft Hood occurred. How is this reminder supposed to point out the effectiveness of the act? When Major Nidal Malik Hasan took the lives that he did, alone, the law was in full force-roving wire taps and all.

His was not a case of anyone buying guns without government oversight. The Ft Hood shooting wasn't committed by a Constitutionalist. So, if the Patriot Act did not stop this shooting, how on Earth is this tragic event a good example of the need to reauthorize it? Oh, I forgot. Senator Harry Reid, like so many in DC, is out-of-touch with reality.

Senator Harry Reid is no different than any other politician lusting after more power. When the Patriot Act was passed, wasn't it the Democrat camp which railed against Bush for it? Now that the DNC holds a majority in the Senate, they're staunchly supportive of the Patriot Act. Even though it was passed under the Bush Administration, it's now Democrats insisting on having the use of its broadly invasive powers. Talk about the tables turning.

Although DNC members decried the Patriot Act as a "power grab," having tasted that power themselves, they like it. There's just not a difference between any two average politicians. Power is addictive, and they live from fix to fix, like any other junkie.

Senator Harry Reid simply ignores the truth that our uniquely American freedoms need protection, and not the status-quo. When the Patriot Act was originally passed, the goal was to make it easier for different law enforcement agencies to cooperate in the fight against terrorist attacks. But lately, it's been directed at American citizens, instead. Any act or law passed, which contradicts our Bill of Rights, is just plain wrong.

Did the founding fathers have it all wrong? Can we Americans not be trusted with freedom? Personally, I'd rather take my chances in a free society, than to live in a "safer" prison of any sort. I understand there are dangerous people who hate America as "The Great Satan" in this world. But destroying what has made us a great nation-our freedoms and individual liberties-is not the way to protect ourselves from them. Please, share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Originally published on the Yahoo Contributor Network.

Patriot Depot