Sculpture to show that banned books are not always what one might expect - Bozeman Chronicle

“'Banned, Challenged & Censored' is a collaborative piece between Cole, Sara Williams, a retired MSU-Bozeman Library tech, creative artist and folk and classical violinist and Collin Letts, a sculptor who co-founder the Bozeman Sculpture Park. It will be unveiled during a reception and reading at the Bozeman Public Library as part of the events for Banned Book Week.on Tuesday, Oct. 2, from 5:30 to 7 p.m. in the library’s Large Community Room."

This quote is excerpted from article that appeared in today's Bozeman Chronicle. Apparently there is a sculpture that celebrates books that have been banned.

What I wanted to note is the idea that any book should be in the library. This, of course, is not true, because libraries censor all the time. In fact, it's their main activity. Every day libraries select books and reject others based on whatever criteria they deem appropriate. Therefore, you will not find certain reading materials in libraries, like child porn, Aryan Nations literature, or books on how to perform a female circumcision or lynch a black.

Of course, I am not advocating such things, but it is hypocrisy for Ms. Beswick to say she supports all books when she most certainly does not.

"The sculpture will stay at the library for a month and a half before traveling to public libraries in Butte, Billings, Missoula, Helena, Kalispell and Great Falls. The sculpture is “booked,” if you will, through October 2013. Cole said he is trying to find more willing to take it on, free of charge. The $7,500 needed to build “Banned, Challenged & Censored” and cart it around the state was given by more than individual donors and a grant from Humanities Montana. 

“'We as a library will defend the right to have any book in the library,' said Paula Beswick, director of the Bozeman Library Foundation that partnered with the artists on the project. 'Having the sculpture here visually highlights that mission.'”

   

Obama inherited the debacle - FB conversation

FB friend S.B. posted this:

the "beating expectation phase" of the presidential debates has begun -- both sides talking up the other guy, to make it easier for themselves to exceed expectations for their own side.

I'm still waiting for one side to call the other's candidate a master debater.

Me: The chief bait-rigging guy on a fishing vessel.

J.J.: Should be interesting watching Romney evade the questions. That's all I've seen so far in interviews, journalist asks a direct question and Romney evades to some minor pt. never answering the real question. His pat evading answer is, "Oh, we're 50:50 in the polls" I don't know what news feed he's looking at, but Gallup isn't putting him at 50:50. Where do the Republicans find these guys?

R.B.: Gallup or any other poll only represents 1 data point taken with one particular set of methodology. Its better to look at an aggregated picture of what all the polls are saying. (though even then they're all starting to tell a pretty similar story).

J.D.: Why can't Republicans admit that O'B INHERITED quite the debacle from a Republican president...

Me:  J.D., possibly because it isn't true.

R.B.: Yeah. The deficit and the economy were doing just fine before he was sworn in.

Me: lessee, what do senators do again?

R.B.: I think that's actually a question a lot of us are wondering...

Me: Hahaha! Well said. I was referring to Obama's time as senator, and especially, since the democrats took control of the house and senate for Bush's last two years.

J.D.: oh sure...everything that Bush failed at is the fault of the Dems in the house and senate during his last two years...it is to laugh...hehehe

R.B.: Seriously though I do think that its overly simplistic to attribute the 2008 meltdown to one party or president (regardless of my feelings about Bush and Clinton). Certainly the government itself had a role in creating some of the conditions that led to the financial blow up, though the private sector itself was certainly content to play fast and loose on its own, too. No one thing was what caused it, though. That bubble was, by many accounts, almost 16 years in the making between the implementation of various laws and lending policies. Both parties helped make it, as did the private sector itself.

In a lot of ways, there's an important lesson there: None of us are as dumb as all of us.

J.D.: ...dates back to 1939, actually

R.B.: Well, in either event, the deficit and the lead up to the meltdown passed through so many hands as to almost make it besides the point in trying to point the finger at anyone and conclusively saying that X was what caused all these bad things, and that everything was going just fine until X came along and messed it all up.

Me: R.B., you are fast becoming my hero.

R.B.:  Oh, don't let this give you a false impression. I can be every bit the slobbering, mindless partisan at times, but I do try to be thoughtful from time to time.

Me: As can I. I just found it refreshing to read your statement about the general dysfunction of government to be unrelated to party affiliation.

R.B.:  Its not that I believe in the dysfunction of government, per se, as much as I believe in the general dysfunction of groups of people in general. 

Me:  correction accepted and agreed with.

More Government Does Not Mean Less Freedom - By Douglas J. Amy - Analysis

My responses interlaced in bold.

Reproduced here in its entirety for fair use and discussion purposes.

-------------------

"The size and extent of government activity, by itself, tells us nothing about how free or oppressive a society is."

Despite the claims of conservatives, there is no necessary trade-off between government size and the freedom of its citizens.

"FREEDOM!" has always been a rallying cry of anti-government activists (First error, a straw man. Only anarchists are anti-government, and conservatives/libertarians are not anarchists).

Many conservatives embrace and extol the libertarian principle that “Individual freedom and government power are polar opposites. More government means less freedom.”1 For them, the trade-off between government size and individual liberty is inevitable, and this is the main reason they work to minimize government (Straw man two. Conservatives/libertarians do not work to minimize government, they seek to return government to its constitutional definitions, duties, and restraints).

As Ronald Reagan once put it: “Runaway government threatens … the very preservation of freedom itself.”2 Charlton Heston, speaking to a college audience in the 1990s, argued that the government had become more than just a threat, that it had already reached oppressive proportions in the United States:

"There is now no aspect of American life, public or private, that the federal government does not invade, instruct and finally coerce to its will. Farm and factory, home and school, university and research center, club and playground – all are overlaid with a spidery network of laws, guidelines, restrictions and Draconian penalties that stifle the spirit, the energy, the creative capacity of what was once the freest nation on earth. In this hemisphere, now that Ortega and Noriega have fallen, the collectivists' sentiments discredited around the world fly best, I fear, in Cuba and Washington, D.C."3

Heston’s views may seem extreme, but it is important to realize that many Americans are concerned about government impinging on their freedoms. Almost a third of us believe that the federal government “poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.” And many people resent it fiercely whenever the government prevents them from doing what they want to do – whether it is riding a motorcycle without a helmet, filling in a wetland on their property, or carrying a gun for their own protection.

Bashing the government in the name of freedom can be a very effective political tactic. (Note the use of the word "bashing." This word was not used for its precision or accuracy, it was selected for its emotional content. However, pointing out the foibles, excesses, and failures of government is a reasonable and necessary pursuit, one which the author does not require the use of hyperbole to describe.

The author will employ this kind of obfuscating rhetoric this entire article.)

After all, freedom is quintessentially American. It is our most basic political value and a fundamental part of our national political identity. We are “the land of the free” as we sing in our national anthem. And so, to the extent that government can be portrayed as interfering with our individual rights and freedoms, it will be seen as bad – as anti-American.

The political right's ability to convince many Americans that there is an inevitable trade-off between government and freedom has been one of its greatest ideological victories. (The political right does this? How about the founders? The Declaration: 

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." 

Thomas Jefferson said: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

There are many more quotes from the founders, and I may track some down later, but suffice to say, it is the founders who established the concept)

In one stroke, it renders illegitimate virtually all liberal policy initiatives.(Can we say, then, that liberals and the founders fundamentally disagree on the role and scope of government?) 

Any effort to expand social programs or increase regulation becomes seen as an attack on freedom. If you value freedom, it is argued, you should strongly oppose any increase in public sector activity. (Straw man number three. Who argues this? Who has suggested that any growth in any sector of government is to be opposed?) 

If you love freedom, you should hate government.(Straw man number four. No conservative/libertarian has suggested that government should be hated. It's these either/or binary equations that are continually tossed out by the Left whenever their precious big government is questioned or scrutinized. 

There is a vast difference between wanting constitutionally-restrained government and hating government.)

What people believe despite the facts - FB conversation

S.B. posted this:

On reflection, the world wasn't ready for the Internet.

R.B.: The internet isn't that big of a deal. I read the whole thing and there really isn't much there.

S.B.: When I see the complete nonsense that shows up in my inbox it becomes clear that people aren't ready to take responsibility for access to (mis)information

Me: Assuming that what we think we know is true really is.

S.B.: No this is more "meta" than that, Rich. Politics or belief set aside, there are traits of information that ought to lead one to question the source, or it's veracity, REGARDLESS of what the message is. Basic information consumer stuff that we all ought to know

M.H.: Next up, Scott's going to be saying that we weren't ready for radio.

S.B.: They're saying things that I can hardly believe

M.H.: Like the world is flat, there are sea monsters, and if we don't stop China, communism will spread throughout the world?

S.B.: Actually I was quoting Elvis Costello from "Radio, Radio"

Me:  If you're commenting on the human races' inability to recognize satire or perhaps a scammer, all that means is that people choose to trust. Cynicism is not automatically a good trait.

S.B.: Cynicism, no. Skepticism -- yes, I think so.

Me: I don't even find much value in skepticism. Skepticism implies that a person will not assent to anything with sufficient proof, proof being defined by the skeptic. As a practical expression, skepticism will not build relationships ("oh yeah, prove it" is confrontational, inimical, and hostile). However, a person with discernment borne of wisdom will lead a successful life and be able to test things.

B.D.: Skepticism and cynicism might not build relationships but it will save you a heck of a lot of time, money, and aggravation.

Me: It's easier to be cynical than to be optimistic, especially in the times in which we live. I don't blame you a bit.

J.P.: Rich is cynical about skepticism :)!

Me: I'm skeptical about skepticism, and I hate haters and won't tolerate the intolerant...

J.P.:  :)

Wis. woman convicted in fetal-abduction deaths - analysis

This story appeared today in the local paper. Notice the tortured way the writer conveys the story, making every effort to avoid imputing personhood to the baby.

The opening sentence tells us two things: 1) a woman was convicted of killing a pregnant woman, and 2) she was also convicted of trying to steal her "fetus." But then sentence two tells us something different. Here we learn the woman was convicted of two counts of first degree murder. We can rightly wonder why the writer chose to convey that only one murder had happened, but then amends it to two murders.

We discover later that the "fetus" is a boy who died as a result of the mother's death, but again, the story gets sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and left-wing orthodoxy. The murderer apparently used an x-acto knife to cut open the woman, who died because of blood loss and asphyxiation. The baby died after. This means that the murderer was found guilty of murder by knife, and another by abortion.

The term "fetus" is a technical term defined as

1) The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2) In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

While technically correct, the pro-abortion advocates prefer the use the term in order to de-humanize the unborn baby. In other contexts, the term is used to distinguish an unwanted baby from a wanted one. This is interesting in terms of the way the article presents the unborn baby. Clearly the baby was wanted, because he is described as "full term." But the writer uses the phrase "full term fetus."

The writer therefore engages in bias by choosing terms in an effort to intentionally create a false perception in readers. The writer attempts to side-step the inconvenient fact that the baby was murdered so that the writing might pass muster with the pro-abortion advocates.

We must conclude that from this incident that killing an unborn baby is murder. The murder conviction re-establishes this in terms of legality. Now we must re-establish this in morality as well.

----------------------------------

A Milwaukee woman was convicted Thursday of killing a pregnant woman and trying to steal her full-term fetus last year.

A jury of six men and six women deliberated for about an hour before convicting Annette Morales-Rodriguez, 34, of two counts of first-degree intentional homicide in the October 2011 deaths of the mother and fetus. She faces a mandatory life sentence when she is sentenced Dec. 14, although a judge could allow for the possibility of parole. Wisconsin doesn’t have the death penalty.

Prosecutors said Morales-Rodriguez faked a pregnancy, panicked as her supposed due date approached and then lured 23-year-old Maritza Ramirez-Cruz to her house. There, she attacked her and used an X-Acto knife to cut the fetus out, according to the criminal complaint.

Ramirez-Cruz died of blood loss and asphyxiation, and her fetus, a boy, died as a result of her death, authorities say.

Quit attacking the poor - FB conversation

FB friend O.G. posted this:

Why is it that when the 47 % (inluding the poor,elderly and disabled) use IRS loopholes to decrease their tax dept to little or none. they are considered (by the rich) to be leeches or burdens on society for their abuse of government loopholes. When the rich use IRS loopholes to decrease their tax dept to little or none They are considered good business men (women) that are taking advantage of those legal loopholes provided by the same agency. Sounds like the pots calling the kettle names again.

Me: Who does this, O.G.?

L.L. You are so right on about this O.G..

O.G.: Rich this is a compilation of the multiple tweets and comments following any USAtoday, yahoonews , Foxnews, etc... Involving either party leader (when it comes to tax policy). If you go to the comment/tweet following these articles you"ll get to read some rather scathing remarks when it come to those lower income wage earners And their tax status and the burden they are to our economy. You"ll also read some very tolerable and understanding remarks for the well to do whom exercise their ability (legally) to hide income and reduce their tax dept. I just think when someone throws out a blanket statement (like the one Mitt offered) a lot of non-deserving people get caught up in that net. Many of them are probably in his camp. I hope this answers your question.

K.H.: I see this as nothing more the political finger pointing. Both side have ownership in this issue and if they could get to some serious tax reforms and rebuild the entire IRS system to a set amount (like 10%) with no loop-holes, credits or right off..then everyone would be paying their fair share and this hypocrisy can end.

R.F.: I wouldn't put too much stock into comments following political articles. Or the articles for that matter :-).

T.P.: As a conservative, I agree with you. In my opinion, there should be a national sales tax so everybody regardless of their income pays their fair share. The national sales tax should exclude food, medical and other key living cost. By having a national sales tax, all imbedded taxes on business are eliminated thus reducing the overall tax cost to all and would reduce cost overall. PLUS there would be no loopholes!

O.G.: I like that Kevin and I"ve always been for a flat tax Tom.

Me: A blanket statement? He was discussing campaign strategy. He was saying that his message of cutting taxes would not gain votes who pay no taxes.

M.E.: Flat tax is where it's at. Solves all problems. Done and done. And listen, I say less than intelligent things all the time and you don't see me running for president. I know better. I don't think it would accomplish anything by calling everyone "bitches" once provoked by the opposing team. Hahaha

O.G.: Just sayin. Seems their statement is. If you're poor. Your exploiting the system. If your rich. You're taking advantage of it.

R.F.: That's how you heard it - so can't argue it. Everyone applies different filters.

Me: Agreed, R.F.. As a conservative/libertarian, what I hear more than anything is the Left demonizing the rich for not paying their fair share. They're greedy, selfish, corrupt... So when O.G. mentions the poor being attacked, it's like a 180 for me.

Roads and bridges makes everyone a taker - analysis

Someone made this comment on FB, and the point being made is a fairly common position among Leftists:

"If someone uses roads, bridges, dams, sewer, the fire department, the police department, the grid, etc., etc., then you're a "taker." Your bill doesn't even come close to what the collective did to make sure you have accessibility to first world needs. So, I would really like to see the rhetoric stop with those that supposedly pay and those that don't. If someone is silly enough to think that only the rich pay for it, it's time to pull your head out of the illusion your living under."

Point 1): Every single dollar spent on roads, bridges, dams, sewer, the fire department, the police department, and the grid was sourced from the private sector. The government must first take money from someone before it can build a road.

Point 2): Generally speaking, roads and bridges are paid for by gasoline taxes, which means anyone driving a car is, in principle, paying for the road. But the alignment isn't perfect, because someone might have a fuel efficient car and drive a lot of miles, thereby gaining usage beyond the funding they supplied.

But once we have a road, anyone can drive on it. The benefit derived is unequal and obtained without regard to the funding provided on an individual basis. Since this is the case, it is clear that some people are being subsidized while others are paying a greater share than the benefit they derive.

But does this make some drivers "takers?" No, because no one is forced to pay for another's benefit. No tax has been levied against some so that others are subsidized. No equalization effort by government has been undertaken. No allocation of access has been implemented. Therefore, the average driver on a public road is not a taker.

Point 3): Sewers, fire and police are not federal programs. Their existence is not funded according to benefit derived. There is no distribution of wealth being accomplished.

Point 4): There is no collective.

Point 5): The statement "Your bill doesn't even come close to what the collective did to make sure you have accessibility to first world needs" contradicts "If someone is silly enough to think that only the rich pay for it." If one group's bill is lower than the cost, someone else is paying more than the cost. One must conclude that someone who has more money is paying more than their share in order for someone who has less money to not pay the actual cost of the service.

Abiding In The King Produces Kingdom Authority - Rick Joyner

Abiding In The King Produces Kingdom Authority - The Path of Life, Part 31

The kingdom of heaven has authority over the earth and over all natural laws. The miracles of Jesus were a demonstration of how the authority of the kingdom of heaven has dominion over any condition on the earth. To the degree that we abide in the kingdom by abiding in the King, we too can walk in authority over any condition on the earth. As we approach the end of this age, this will change from “can” to “must.”

In John 14:12 the Lord said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to the Father.” Jesus demonstrated this with His life, and this is what He has called us to walk in. It is a high calling, and such authority can only come from abiding in the King who is above all rule, authority, and dominion. So our primary goal should not just be power or authority, but the One who has all power and authority. Even so, at the end of this age, His body is going to demonstrate His power and authority to prepare the way for His coming kingdom.

This summer I was given one of the most powerful dreams I have ever had. In this dream, I was given authority over all natural laws. I did not have to obey the law of gravity, but it had to obey me. Except for the dreams I’ve had of being before the throne of God, or seeing the Lord, I have only had one other like this, and it too was about doing the “greater works” that Jesus said we would do in His name. The first dream in which the Lord taught me about this authority came nearly twenty years ago. As Joseph told Pharaoh, the repeating of the dream twice means that it has been established by God (see Genesis 41:32).

After the first dream, I only experienced what was in the dream one time, and it was for encouragement that the dream was a real promise. After the recent dream, I know that the time is short when we will actually walk in this authority. We are about to experience the greatest move of God ever upon the earth and the greater works that Jesus promised.

Before the end of this age, there will be some who say to mountains “be plucked up and cast into the sea” (see Matthew 21:21), and the mountains will obey them. This must be done to prove that His Word is true. There will be those who see every miracle Jesus performed and even more. Some are already growing in authority and will one day walk in authority over every disease or affliction.

This authority of the kingdom will coincide with the gospel of the kingdom being preached. One basic characteristic of those who walk in this authority is that they will be in unity with one another. This authority can only come from abiding in the King, and those who are rightly joined to the King will also be rightly joined to His body.

There is no greater adventure one can have in this life than the true Christian life, and there are no more exciting times to have ever lived on the earth than those we are entering. Even so, the greatest miracle of all will be the unity of God’s people and their love for one another. The miracles will be exciting, but the unity and the love that makes it possible will be even more important and more wonderful. Above all things, and above seeing great miracles, we must pursue loving God and demonstrate this love for Him by loving His people.

From the time that there were just two brothers on the earth, they could not get along. One basically said, “The world is not big enough for the both of us.” People, clans, and nations have been in conflict since. When the church matures and becomes what she is called to, it will be in such unity that the world will marvel. The Lord Jesus Himself prayed to the Father in John 17:22-23:

“The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;

“I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You did send Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.”

As we see here, the glory that will be revealed on God’s people as in Isaiah 60:1-2 and other places is so we can be one. When this happens, the world will know that Jesus was indeed sent by the Father, and that He loves us just as He loves His Son.

Those who experience the glory are bonded in a special way that is hard to describe or understand until you experience it. The glory simply erases the pettiness and lack of forgiveness that separates so many Christians. It is by beholding His glory with an unveiled face that we are changed into His image. Our first calling is to be like Him, and our second calling is to do the works that He did. If we are like Him, we will walk in love, and when we walk in love, He can trust us with the power. For those who walk in love, it becomes the greatest treasure that allows us to be who we were created to be—the image of the One who is Love.

Commentary: Clint Nagel's letter to the editor

Mr. Nagel's letter appeared in the Bozeman Chronicle today. My responses are interspersed in bold:

------

Republican vice presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, states our rights are from nature and God, not from government. (No, the Declaration of Independence states this. Mr. Ryan simply quoted no less than our founding document) 

That may be the case in a perfect world, but this world isn’t perfect. (No one is claiming that the world is perfect. And especially, the Founders weren't talking about a perfect world. They were reacting to oppressive government by establishing eternal truths about the nature of man and why it was just to revolt against the Crown) 

As usual nothing is as simple as politicians claim. (Politicians or not, Mr. Ryan's statement was an accurate quote of the quintessential founding principle of this country) A few examples will make my point as we look at the: 

Native Americans losing their rights to their own land, even to speak their own language 

Indigenous Africans brought over on slave ships and sold into slavery. (Mr. Nagel is proving the case against him. These first two items are examples of government oppressing people and abrogating their rights. The Declaration was written to expressly to deny that government has the power to take away unalienable rights. The fact that our very government sanctioned these very acts points to the truth of the founders' statements, their desire to throw off oppression, and the moral justification to establish a new nation. Mr. Ryan's quote reinforces all of that, in opposition to those today who wish to grow the power of government)

American children working as slave labor in unsafe working conditions. (Again, the existence of oppression and injustice bolsters the founders' claims of rights having been endowed by our creator. Recognizing a truth does not magically eliminate violations of that truth. A stop sign does not prevent people from not stopping. This ought to be a fairly basic concept for someone to grasp)

I could go on and on as there are countless examples in our nation’s and world’s history. (Which is precisely why the founders rejected the idea that government was the source of rights, since it is government that is so proficient at violating them. The founders knew the danger of power, which is why they acknowledged the inherent dignity of all men and denied government the power to violate it)

The problem with his claim is it relates to a perfect world. But in this world we are free only until man or governments run by evil men take it away. (Which is exactly what Mr. Ryan was saying, and what the founders asserted)

It has been so since biblical times. Good governments restore those rights. (And bad governments violate them. But actually, good government doesn't really restore rights. It secures them [makes them safe]. Rights are not removed, separated or eliminated, because they are unalienable. which means they can only be violated. Government either violates rights or it secures them. It does not restore them)

Our government proclaims “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence. (Well, did he just discover this? Then why did he write his letter? But again, he needs correction. When the Declaration was written, there was no government, so the government couldn't proclaim anything. The founders, acting as liberators, joined together in rebellion against injustice and enumerated the basic concepts of liberty.) 

I would much rather live in a country where our government tries to restore rights, rather than the alternative. Mr. Ryan should reeducate himself. If he wants to be vice president, he’d better understand why our government exists. (Mr. Ryan simply quoted the Declaration, which Mr. Nagel just did himself. Is this evidence that Mr. Nagel needs reeducation? One wonders if Mr. Nagel might be reacting to something else Mr. Ryan said. If not, then it is pretty clear that it is Mr. Nagel that needs reeducation, because he doesn't seem to understand some basic concepts about the nature of man and the founding of the country.) 

A response to Richard Benert regarding Steve Daines

Every once in a while this fellow appears in the letters section of the Bozeman Chronicle, and every time it seems like he can't put a logical point together. My responses are interspersed in bold:
--------------
He writes: Steve Daines recently told the truth-challenged Republican Convention that “government doesn’t create jobs.” Nor can government create wealth, according to a recent letter by a local Daines supporter, defending Daines’ “Less Government, More Jobs” theme. This kind of thinking (government VERSUS jobs and wealth) ignores reality. (Note the insertion of the word "versus," used to modify the meaning of the quote so as to serve Mr. Benert's purposes.)

First of all, a country’s wealth can’t be measured only in dollars and cents. When hatred of government (A fallacy right off the starting line. The Right does not hate government, it wants limited, constitutional government. It is an oft-repeated talking point of the Left whenever criticism of government manifests that the Right hates government, usually tied to the inane Somalia Argument.) 

leads to unalterable opposition to all new or increased taxes, (If there is one thing republicans have done over the course of decades, it is back off regarding their supposed opposition to increasing taxes to the Left. That is what the Left calls "compromise," a highly valued principle, so long as the Left isn't doing the compromise.) 

down goes our system of social services and schools, (Apparently, these are the only things government does, and thus the only things that can be cut. A persistent leftist strawman designed to divert the conversation.

It sounds to me like Mr. Benert is taking the position that ever-increasing taxes is the only way to have a system of social services and schools, which is another way of saying that the only reason that social programs are going bankrupt is because of the stingy taxpayer refusing to fund them adequately. 

Oh, and it is worth mentioning that schools are funded by state and local taxes, so what the feds do is a separate issue.) 

along with our natural and cultural environment that constitute our true wealth as a nation. (Now this is novel thinking. I don't think I've heard anyone on the Left claim that government programs are wealth. I therefore am now in favor of taxing the wealthy! 

Ok, anyway. Mr. Benert is substituting concepts here. When we gaze out over the fruited plain, the purple mountains, and the seas white with foam, we are remiss if we do not marvel at their beauty, celebrating the bounty and "wealth" of these grand vistas, the profound blessing God has bestowed upon us. Wealth that was not created by government, of course, and is quarantined from use by the these self-same guardians of all that is true. 

Nor has government created cultural wealth. In reality, one could reasonably assert that government has degraded culture and society by impoverishing the inner city with destructive wealth transfer programs thereby ensuring a perpetual lower class, and a middle class that is reeling from its government-imposed obligations. 

Like cultural wealth, real tangible wealth results from the voluntary exchanges of value between private parties. The government ought to have no role in these private, legal, consensual exchanges, except to prosecute lawbreakers. Wealth comes from the efforts and imaginations of individuals unencumbered by a nanny government.)  

Secondly, countless jobs and immense wealth have indeed been produced through government-sponsored transportation, energy, communication and research facilities. Think of our Interstate highways or the many spin-offs from the military or the moon-landing. (Might we remind Mr. Benert that every single dollar for these grand government projects was sourced from hard-working private individuals? Second, Mr. Benert cannot know that these would not have come about without government. Third, he must recognize that transportation projects like freeways now channel ozone-depleting vehicles all over the country, spewing their toxic brew of greenhouse gases. Fourth, infrastructure is subsequent to business, that is, the entrepreneur began to prosper, eventually hiring people, building a factory, which grew and generated wealth to the point that infrastructure was needed. In other words, a taxee is needed in order for there to be a taxer. 

Fifth, no new jobs resulted from these grand government projects, because tax dollars were taken from private parties so that the government could redistribute that money. These private parties then then had less money to spend on things, less money to hire people themselves, and who then had to reduce their standard of living so that government could go off and recklessly fritter away their hard-earned dollars on all manner of foolish things.) 

The idiotic “We Built It” signs in Tampa totally (and, I suspect, willfully) missed Obama’s ineptly-stated point in this regard. (Inept? If Obama was speaking ineptly, why then is it so outrageous to Mr. Benert that people could then misconstrue his remarks? But really, Obama's intent was clearly stated. He was manifestly hostile to the idea that people, through their own ingenuity and hard work, could make a good life for themselves apart from government programs. Despite Mr. Benert's lame protestations to the contrary, Obama's clear intent was to denigrate hard work and private enterprise, and to elevate government intervention into peoples' lives.) 

A vote for Daines, or any other Republican, is a vote for more austerity and slow recovery. (I wonder if Mr. Benert re-read this sentence before he sent it off. The house, senate, and presidency were controlled by democrats for Obama's first two years. Democrats have controlled large portions of government for decades. And the government of their creation is borrowing 40% of what it spends. We have had 4 straight years of trillion-plus deficits. 

During the Bush years, we had an huge upramping of spending, spending which has continued unabated despite the supposed "recovery."

The results of all of this is, of course, our present situation. With Mr. Benert's beloved president/savior at the helm, we've already had austerity and slow recovery. That is, PERSONAL austerity, not government austerity. Government in no way has been austere. It has cut back on nothing. It has done without in no way. 

Yet for some puzzling reason, Mr. Benert believes that a vote for the party NOT IN POWER will continue the slow recovery. Wha...?) 

Our economy needs investment. (Again, we've had trillions of dollars of redistributive government "investment," with nothing to show for it but a national debt of $16 trillion, 17% true unemployment, and neighborhoods being laid waste by crime and poverty. And he wants more!) 

If the private sector won’t invest, government must. (He states this as if it were axiomatic. But if ever there was a text-book refutation of this vapid Keynsian idea, it is all around us right now. 

Oh, and would it be prudent to ask why the private sector isn't investing? The private sector will be much more conservative with its dollars in times of uncertainty, and rightly so. 

Businesses do not know how much obamacare will cost. They do not have confidence that duly executed contracts (like mortgages) will not be summarily revised by government. They can't be sure that if they issue bonds in order to expand or hire that government won't come in and nullify the bonds (like what happened with GM). 

Government and its leftist cheerleaders cannot seem to acknowledge the truth about the country's perilous financial condition, let alone make progress in reversing its course. In fact, people like Mr. Benert want to increase the pace to destruction! So no one should be surprised that business is tending to sit on the sidelines.) 

Jobs created through growth in the public sector and wisely-issued contracts with private businesses do create wealth, Mr. Daines. (Reasserting your point does not establish it, Mr. Benert. You've offered no evidence at all except bare assertions. To the contrary, the evidence is all around us that what you advocate has failed, and failed spectacularly. 

It is funny that Mr. Benert uses the phrase "wisely-issued," given the monumental failure of such collaborations, including green energy companies like Solyndra. I would challenge Mr. Benert to produce one significant "public/private" collaboration that did not produce significant waste, fraud, abuse, and/or criminality. Oh, and by the way, isn't what Mr. Benert is advocating also known as "crony capitalism?" 

So what we have read from Mr. Benert is to correct the record for "truth-challenged republicans." Irony is truly lost on the ironic.)

Public education and socialism - FB conversation

R.W., a FB friend, posted this:

B.R.: Can you explain this? I'd like to hear what the conservative position is, and generally what this cartoon means.

R.W.: Yes, you see the child or KID as it is refered to, represents education in general. And the Unions are demanding more money from the tax payers (on the phone) or "Education" is going to suffer. The conservative position is the teachers should be taken out and shot. Chicago is broke. Unemployement is a critical levels and these idiots turned down a 16% raise when people I know are getting 2% and LESS! IF they have a job at all! Takes real BALLS but the Democrats in Chicago will problably cave because the teachers unions pump millions into democrat campaigns.

B.R.: Okay. But the person on the phone is the National Endowment for the Arts...

R.W.: National Education Association = NEA

B.R.: Ah that's less crazy. Thanks.

R.B.: Yep, it's the teachers fault. Good one.

Me: Yup, teachers are never at fault. Good one.

B.R.: Honest question: has the GOP always been anti-union, or is this a recent thing? I really don't remember so much animosity toward teachers before these last few years.

Me: I can't speak for the GOP since I'm not a republican, but I think most people on the Right like the concept of unions as a free market expression of consolidating power to further a cause. However, the quasi-socialist, corrupt, break-you-if-you-don't-yield attitude of a lot of unions is horrifying. Google "Trumka quotes" for a sampling.

B.R.: And do you think the NEA is one of those unions?

B.R.: And how are unions socialist? You know me; I disregard labels like that unless there are valid comparisons each time. Thanks Rich

Me: I was a public school teacher for 5 years. I am absolutely certain.

Me: Quasi-socialist.

Me: Do teachers advance based on productivity, merit, or results? Or do they advance based on years of service?

B.R.: Okay, can you tell me which socialist tenets that unions subscribe to? I don't know how teachers advance, I'm not part of that system. What I do know from reading a lot, knowing teachers, and the universal joke circulating since my birth, that most public school teachers don't make as much money as they deserve.

Me: Did you google "trumka quotes?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p71oypj6hHM



S.H.:  Both FDR and AFL-CIO founding President George Meany opposed public sector unions. Here's why they're fundamentally a bad idea: In the private sector, companies who are in negotiations with a union are negotiating with their own money. That places a built-in limit on how much the company can give up - if they give up too much, they go out of business, and *nobody* has a job. But the "management" role in negotiations with public sector unions is typically filled by elected officials, who are *not* negotiating with their own money. They are negotiating with the taxpayers' money, which some of them seem to regard as a limitless resource.

This is a clear recipe for corruption. The public sector unions contribute heavily to elect politicians who are more likely to give them what they want because they want to keep those campaign dollars coming in. There's no down side for the politicians, because it's not their money that they're giving away, and, frequently, the bills (e.g., for those unfunded pension liabilities) won't come due until long after they've left office. As an aside, if you really want to scare the hell out of yourself, just Google "unfunded pension liabilities" and do some reading about the time bomb that's ticking out there.

The teachers' unions are just as guilty of this behavior as any other public sector union. In addition, teachers' unions are almost universally opposed to any attempt to be measured on how well they do their job, as most of us are. Compensation is nearly always based on things like seniority and how many continuing education credits they've earned. Example: my former daughter-in-law was a teacher in the Everett school district. She was a great teacher, and the students loved her. She was laid off strictly on the basis of seniority, and ended up having to move out of state to find a job.

Good teachers are indeed worth their weight in gold, and are frequently underpaid. Unfortunately, the teachers' unions stand in the way of preferentially giving those good teachers the rewards they deserve, and that's one of the biggest things that has to change if we seriously want to improve the public school system. And,

by the way, this is why so many conservatives support the concept of charter schools, which typically are not unionized.

R.W.: S.H. just defined socialism for you, B.R.. Because of the Union, all the teachers are paid the same. So the great ones "worth their weight in gold" are cheated out their just deserved compensation, and the teachers that should be strung up are protected and paid too much. In essence, money is taken from those who really earned it, and given to those who didn't. And that is socialism in a nut shell."

Government is owed nothing - Ann Barnhart

From her blog:

"Now let's think logically. The words, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; and render unto the Lord that which is the Lord's” have as a direct corollary the asking of a question. What is that question? Come on. Think. You can do this.

"The question is, what rightfully belongs to Caesar and what rightfully belongs to God? The God part is easy. EVERYTHING belongs to God. Uh-oh. Now we have a mathematical conundrum, don't we? If we believe in God, and we believe in the First Commandment, then “Caesar” is truly OWED nothing. We can CONSENT to pay taxes in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity and freedom, but only if those four specific ends are served by our taxes...

"I don't owe Caesar a damn thing, and it is now to the point where the continued subsidizing of this utterly lawless and illegitimate government puts me in violaton of the

"First Commandment (I AM the LORD thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before me.)
by forcing me to break God's Law - the Natural Law - in order to follow the laws of the state; the

"Second Commandment (Thou shalt not take the Name of the LORD thy God in vain.)
by punishing and imprisoning my fellow citizens (See Lakin, LTC Terry) who attempt to uphold their sworn oaths, and by forcing me to subsidize a government that is, to the man, populated by oathbreakers; the

"Fourth Commandment (Honor thy father and thy mother.)
by actively and consciously destroying the family, discouraging right-ordered marriage through the welfare state, legislating perverted “false marriage” paradigms, facilitating the murder of children by their parents, and pitting society against their parents by encouraging or even mandating euthanasia via ObamaCare; the

"Fifth Commandment (Thou shalt not murder.)
through the “legally sanctioned” and MANDATED taxpayer subsidizing of the holocaust of preborn children via abortion as well as the premeditated murder of thousands of Mexican civilians via Operation Fast & Furious; the

"Sixth Commandment (Thou shalt not commit adultery.)
through the forced “legalization” of sodomite faux-marriage and the discouragement of chastity and marriage itself via the HHS contraceptive and sterilization mandate as well as welfare state; the

"Seventh Commandment (Thou shalt not steal.)
via the government sanctioned, legalized and protected confiscation of private property, the illegal nullification of contracts by the federal government, and the stirring-up by the government of envy and the sense of entitlement to the property of others; the

"Eighth Commandment (Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.)
by forcing me to subsidize and give my tacit approval to the lie of Barack Obama's presidency and the fundamental dishonesty of the Eric Holder Department of Justice, in addition to the mathematical lies regarding the state of the banking sectors and the mathematical impossibilities of the government run entitlement ponzi schemes; and the

"Tenth Commandment (Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.)
by forcing me to subsidize a government that is built on a premise of and is attempting to fully convert to a system based wholly upon coveting the property of one's neighbor and the forced redistribution of private property."

"We must obey God rather than men."

Kingdom Economics - The Path of Life, Part 30 - Rick Joyner

Week 37, 2012

Three major thrusts are now taking place in the body of Christ. The first is unity, and this is making unprecedented possibilities unfold for the church. Those with faith seize possibilities. Those who live by fear instead of faith get left behind. On His last night on earth, Jesus prayed earnestly for the unity of His people. We can be sure that the prayer of the Son of God will be answered. The body of Christ will come into unity.

Benjamin Franklin exhorted the original colonies before the Revolutionary War in America to “join or die.” This is now true for the church. Those with the faith and confidence in their own calling and relationship to the Lord are building bridges with other parts of the body of Christ. Those who are too insecure to do this are fading away. We are in another “join or die” situation, but the positive of this implies, “join and live!” The blessings of unity are truly limitless even to the degree that whatever we ask of the Lord, it will be granted.

We are in the Daniel 2 scenario where the statue that represents the kingdoms of this world is collapsing, but the little stone that represents the kingdom is growing into a mountain, or government, and it will keep growing until it fills the whole earth. Basic to every government or empire is the economy. You can have an economy without a government, but you cannot have a government without an economy. One of the primary ways that the kingdoms of this world are shaking and starting to crumble is their economy. With the coming of the kingdom, we can expect a kingdom economy to emerge that cannot be shaken. As we see in Isaiah 9:7, there is no end to the increase of His government, and the same is true of His economy. The economy of the kingdom has a stock market that cannot go down but will always go up!

The economy of the kingdom is actually the devotion of a large percentage of Scripture because the economy represents very basic human transactions. Some of the most basic principles that drive the present earthly economies are power, fear, and greed. Mixed with these basic drives are principles of the kingdom, and this is one reason why we see the feet of the statute in Daniel 2 being a mixture of iron and clay. For this reason, even with some of the most greedy you will find some compassion and devotion to charity. Likewise, even with some of the most devout, you will sometimes find greed and other evils. Because of the mixture, the feet on the statue may last the longest, but it too will ultimately crumble.

The most basic kingdom economic principle in Scripture is summed up in I Corinthians 13 —love. The basic economic principle of the kingdom is to love God above all things and demonstrate this love for Him by loving His people. The kingdom economy that we will start to see emerge will not have the destructive elements of greed, self-seeking, and the lust for power and control. Those who learn to manage the earthly resources they are entrusted with will always “seek first the kingdom.” Then they will be entrusted with the resources of the kingdom.

When we begin to tap into the resources of heaven, there will always be an overflow. We see this when the Lord released resources by blessing the little boy’s lunch and feeding five thousand people with it and still having baskets leftover.

The Lord will bless many things that He will not inhabit. It is time to increase our vision beyond His blessings to His presence—becoming His dwelling place. The first mention in Scripture that God even had a house was when Jacob laid down to sleep and saw a ladder reaching into heaven with the messengers of God ascending and descending upon it (see Genesis 28:12). This is the first and most basic revelation of what the house of God is supposed to be—the place of access to heaven where God’s messengers are constantly entering the heavenly realm, but then descending and bringing back to the earth the evidence of heaven’s reality. The authority of the kingdom of heaven has power over any earthly condition, including disease and poverty.

Those who understand the heavenly vision of what His house is called to be will, like Abraham, leave everything to wander in places where they do not even know where they’re going, but do know what they’re looking for—the city that God is building. The impact of this vision on their lives was remarkable. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all fabulously wealthy in the things of this world, even to the degree that they provoked kings to jealousy at times. Even though they had the means to build the most beautiful palaces, they were content to live in tents. Why? They were consumed with a heavenly vision so great that it made any earthly dwelling boring in comparison.

Have you had this vision? There is only one basic requirement to havie it—desiring Him to have a house that is greater than your desire for your own house. This is the result of loving Him above all things.

If Jesus returns, kill him again - FB conversation

B.C. posted this:

Is this where our country is headed?

President Obama's Democrats booed God last week at their convention. LIKE and TAKE ACTION to defeat Obama and his party's anti-God extremism.

B.S.: ‎"Good luck with that"...that is what I would say to this fella if I could talk to him. The first time: He, Jesus, came as a lamb; Round two: Ain't gonna be quite so much like the first. And besides: this guy would be shocked to know that he won't be able to kill a glorified, resurrected body.

C.L.: Not sure of this kind of hatred. Pic looks out of context, with the flag of Jordan in the background...

Me: Um, yeah. There's a web address on the sign, dude.

C.L.: Have you been to the website, Rich? The person in the photo does not represent the website. Nor does this have to do with Obama. It is disingenuous to connect 'anti-god' with one party or the other.

Me: I did not claim he represented the website or that he was connected with obama or with any particular party.

C.L.: Then, my bad. Not sure now what your post meant.

Me: Maybe you didn't see this link on the website: http://www.if-jesus-returns-kill-him-again.com/index.html

A Response to Gail Richardson's letter to the editor

Here's Corrine Kerber's letter, followed by Gail Richardson's response to her, with my commentary interspersed in bold. Note that Ms. Richardson's does not respond to anything written by Ms. Kerber.

---------------
In answer to Mr. Keeler and his political success ideas for the Republican Party, you dug deep to find these Romney slips. There are so few you must search for them. He doesn’t drink, smoke, use drugs ... not popular attributes today, are they.

Today those favoring Obama are more in favor of drug use, abortion, and in the name of woman bashing, insurance to pay for birth control by the Catholic Church. The government has no business meddling in church affairs ... none. Where did you get the “making it hard for poor and infirm to vote” idea?

A few of Obama’s “qualifications” are:

A. His early mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party member.
B. George Soros ... a billionaire who “owns” Obama.
C. His associates include Rescoe, Ayers, Soros, Mahr and numerous other shadowy people.
D. Remember Rev. Wright ... who Obama never hard derogatory words from in the 20 years of attending his church. Yeah right!
E. Community organizer ... a “job?”
F. Collecting votes from illegals.

We’re lucky our children have escaped your liberalism.

With all the lies coming out of Washington this week, this one stands out: The “forgetfulness” of Obama about General Electric’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt and his outsourcing electronics technology to China. Besides this, GE has more than 200 plants in more than 40 other foreign countries. I’d say this is major outsourcing. Mr. Immelt happens to be one of Obama’s major contributors.

Is this not outsourcing, by a very wealthy Democrat? Hmmm, could this be why General Electric paid no U.S. taxes last year?

I cannot imagine why Mitt Romney hasn’t gotten angry enough about this, plus all the other lies and nonsense the Democrats are tossing out, to stand up, fight back, and get this election back on track.
---------------

Ms. Kerber has spent so much time listening to Rush Limbaugh and Fox’s scurrilous lies about President Obama that some facts may have escaped her (Scurrilous: Given to the use of vulgar, coarse, or abusive language; foul-mouthed. 2. Expressed in vulgar, coarse, and abusive language. This is the typical hyperbolic rhetoric from the Left. And Fox News is the omnipresent bogeyman tossed out there as if the mere mention of it is sufficient. This technique is the logical fallacy known as Poisoning the Well.) 

The U.S. economy (growth, job creation, stock market performance) has done better historically under Democratic presidents. (The real measure of this would be to compare the make-up of various congresses, since it is congress that holds the purse strings. Two examples that point to this as a more relevant measure: 1) Bill Clinton's economy didn't begin to turn around until the Republican takeover of congress in 1995. 2) the touted low growth of spending under Obama can be attributed, at least in part, to the Democrats losing the House of Representatives to the Republicans in 2010 [after they allocate the huge spending increase in 2008-2009 to Bush, of course]). 

Taxes have been higher on the wealthy and income disparity lower. (Except they haven't. The top 10% of wage earners have never paid a higher percentage of income tax than they do now. And there is a difference between marginal tax rates and actual tax paid, which means that actual tax paid can be higher with lower marginal rates as loopholes are closed and as tax evasion becomes less of an issue when rates are lower. 

And the assertion about the middle class is also false, for various reasons including the definition of "middle class" is fluid, and because of the migration of people from the middle class to the upper class increases the percentage of upper class. Indeed, this means more people became rich. 

Finally, "income disparity" is desirable. I want the man who is going to cut open my gut to operate on me to be paid substantially more than a guy who sweeps floors. But maybe that's just me. 

The middle class prospered. Except that according to most measures, middle class income has been flat since Carter. Hmm, I seem to remember both republican and democratic presidents between then and now. 

CNBC tells us that the rich have not gotten richer: "Let’s consider income first. Between 2007 and 2009, after-tax earnings by Americans in the top one percent for income fell 37 percent. On a pre-tax basis they fell 36 percent in the same period... the incomes of the bottom 20 percent grew by 3 percent, while it fell a modest 2 percent for the middle 20 percent. In other words, the incomes of the top one percent fell 18 times more than the incomes for the middle class at the start of the recession." 

Obama brought us back from the brink of the Bush catastrophe. (Ok, we have the first actual mention of Obama since the initial accusation about Ms. Kerber being a liar. But it is nothing but a bare, generic statement. It corrects no facts, offers no evidence, and refutes nothing. Then Ms. Richardson immediately returns the topic right back to Bush:) 

Bush had the worst eight-year economy in recent American history; only 1 million jobs were created under his tenure. (These things are easy to check, so one might wonder how a person accusing another of lying might also fail to convey the truth herself. This chart from the government's own website chronicles job growth:

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
2002	109214	109055	108990	108894	108814	108826	108731	108675	108663	108771	108757	108587
2003	108644	108487	108288	108254	108273	108234	108232	108264	108425	108568	108605	108713
2004	108883	108915	109214	109437	109747	109841	109882	109984	110136	110463	110490	110623
2005	110718	110949	111094	111440	111583	111844	112124	112311	112395	112491	112795	112935
2006	113250	113535	113793	113958	113965	114045	114203	114348	114434	114439	114628	114794
2007	115023	115080	115252	115298	115419	115480	115476	115403	115423	115484	115559	115606
2008	115647	115511	115399	115184	114968	114737	114478	114184	113759	113279	112482	111824
2009	110985	110260	109473	108671	108359	107933	107637	107418	107234	107002	106960	106840
2010	106800	106773	106914	107107	107191	107283	107375	107503	107618	107814	107948	108088
2011	108207	108464	108725	108989	109097	109199	109374	109426	109642	109781	109959	110193
2012	110470	110724	110871	110956	111072	111135	111297(P)	111400(P)
P : preliminary

In January 2002, 109,214,000 were employed. The highest number before the recession was 115,647,000 in January 2008. By my calculation, that is an increase of 6,433,000 jobs. (And let's not forget that the Democrats took over Congress right about then, and things started going down. Certainly not only because of the Democrats, but because of free spending Republicans as well.) 

His massive tax cuts did not stimulate the economy and caused massive deficits. (Nope. Actually, government revenues increased a total of 44% during Bush's presidency. Spending, however, far outstripped the pace of revenue increases. Spending is always the problem.) 

Under Obama 4 million jobs have been created, even though the GOP filibustered his American Jobs Act. (According to the chart, April of 2010 is where employment started increasing again. Is it coincidental that when the democrats brag about creating jobs, they measure the last "26 months?" I think not. Ok, so granting them that calculation point for the moment, in April of 2010 there were 107,107,000 people employed. The estimated number of people employed as of last month is 111,400,000, which is an increase of 4,293,000, which is the number they prefer to use. 

But from the peak employment number we are 4,247,000 jobs short, plus, had the trend continued from the peak, we are even worse off. If we use the point at which Democrats took over congress to when Republicans gained control of the house, 7 million jobs were lost. The kind of jobs created are important as well. 

A recent CBS report tells us that “the recovery continues to be skewed toward low-wage jobs, reinforcing the rise in inequality and America’s deficit of good jobs. While there’s understandably a lot of focus on getting employment back to pre-recession levels, the quality of jobs is rapidly emerging as a second front in the struggling recovery.”)    

Bush led us into two unpaid-for wars that mushroomed the deficit; Obama has ended the Iraq war and is on target to get us out of Afghanistan. (Votes to authorize spending for the wars always had a bunch of Democrats voting "yes." And the Democrats controlled both houses of congress and the presidency for two years. And Democrats have nearly unanimously voted for every budget and every expenditure [along with a number of complicit Republicans]. What happened to the National Debt during that period? It increased by $3,100,762,233,450!)

Our economy has been growing since mid-2009 with private payrolls growing for 26 months. However, the GOP-demonized public sector has lost jobs like teachers, policemen and firemen. (Ooo, there's that "special" 26 month period, which of course is a standard period of measurement.... not. But can we ask, how many teachers, policemen, and firemen are federal employees? The answer would be zero. 

And when, exactly, has the GOP demonized teachers, policemen, and firemen? I did some searches and couldn't find an example. In fact, the GOP in particular tends to support essential services and law-and-order-type stuff. Demonize? Where?)

President Obama is still digging out; he’s not done. (Ugh. If he's digging us out, we are in real trouble. Besides, it is private citizens and businesses that "dig us out." Giving pretty speeches doesn't cut it. Big, deficit-causing programs don't either. I wish he would leave us alone, and we the people will solve the problem. Then he can go back to the golf course and do what he does best).

He deserves another term to complete what he has begun. Romney-Ryan economic policies would be Bush on steroids. Forward not back! 

(You know, when someone accuses others of being liars, one had better make sure that one tells the truth. For people like Ms. Richardson, that is a high bar indeed.)