 |
 |
We received
407584
page views since May 1 2006 | | |
 |
|
|
|
Freedom, in the political sense, means exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action and the condition of being free of restraints.
You are born free unless, and until, you choose not to be free by voluntarily accepting such restraints or by allowing such restraints to be imposed on you.
Whether you actually choose to accept the restraints, choose not to oppose such restraints, or choose to believe such restraints are not optional, you have given up your natural born freedom and consented to be bound by the rule of the government; i.e. bondage to a master; i.e. a slave. If you did not consent, you would be free (dead or alive) | | |
|
|
| |
 |
 |
 |
WELCOME TO RMS CONSULTANTS
| |
ONE PISSED OFF AMERCAIN
This Web Site Viewed at Screen Resolution 1280 X 1024
RMS Consultants
Our goal is to keep a Conservative majority in Congress, a Conservative President in the White House.
I won’t shy away from offering my opinions on the candidates and issues, but I do welcome all readers and encourage any and all political views on the topics I post about. Mostly, I hope to spur debate and exchange ideas so please register and join the debate..
Conservative View Point: RMS Consultants
This may sound heartless and insensitive to the needs of those less fortunate individuals who are found in any society, no matter how affluent. "What about the lame, the sick, and the destitute?" is an often-voiced question. Most other countries have attempted to use the power of government to meet this need. Yet in every case, the improvement has been marginal at best and has, in the long run, created more misery, more poverty, and certainly less freedom than when government first stepped in.
As Henry Grady Weaver wrote: "Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own ... The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional 'do-gooders,' who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others—with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means." (The Mainspring of Human Progress.)
America was built on the principles of self-reliance, the profit motive, individual action, and voluntary charity. It was built by those who believed that the surest helping hand was at the end of their own sleeves. These forefathers of ours shared one thing in common—an unshakable faith in God and a faith in themselves.
I have great faith in America and its people. This is a choice land. If we live and work so as to enjoy the approval of a Divine Providence, we will endure as a nation. Without God's help, we cannot long endure.
Today we face a crisis situation in our beloved Republic. There is first of all a spiritual crisis among our people. In our quest for material things, we have forgotten God. There is a crisis for competent, honest, and moral leadership in government at all levels. There is an economic and political crisis, where our basic freedoms stand in jeopardy because of a departure from fundamental principles. We must return to these basic principles if our free Republic is to survive.
During this election year let's be reminded of these words:
You cannot help the poor, by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity, by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up, by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man, by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage, by taking away men's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently, by doing for them what they could and should, do for themselves.
Do you recognize the author? It was Abraham Lincoln.
Very, very wise words, written years ago and we still don't get it... Over 52% Americans
Thanks RMS941 Owner and Admin
Conservatism
The definition of conservative can be divided into 6 key principles:
- Belief in natural law
- Belief in established institutions
- Preference for liberty over equality
- Suspicion of power - and of human nature
- Belief in exceptionalism
- Belief in the individual
Modern conservatism took form about the beginning of the French Revolution, when far-seeing men in England and America perceived that if humanity is to conserve the elements in civilization that make life worth living, some coherent body of ideas must resist the leveling and destructive impulse of fanatic revolutionaries.
In England, the founder of true conservatism was Edmund Burke, whose Reflections on the Revolution in France turned the tide of British opinion and influenced incalculably the leaders of society in the Continent and in America. In the newly established United States, the fathers of the Republic, conservative by training and by practical experience, were determined to shape constitutions which should guide their posterity in enduring ways of justice and freedom.
Our American War of Independence had not been a real revolution, but rather a separation from England; statesmen of Massachusetts and Virginia had no desire to turn society upside down. In their writings, especially in the works of John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, we find a sober and tested conservatism founded upon an understanding of history and human nature. The Constitution which the leaders of that generation drew up has proved to be the most successful conservative device in all history. BY: Russell Kirk
Daily Presidential Tracking Polling History
Rasmussen Polling Link HERE
Gallup Polling Link
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
SITE NEWS LINKS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jody & Sandy Holland Racing's
PLEASE STOP BY AND CHECK OUT THIS SITE
Jody & Sandy Racing's Official Website CLICK HERE
NHRA CLASS - Comp Eliminator - LAA -
Check Out The Racing Schedule for 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
SARAH PALIN
Politicians, Journalists Have Eyes On The Wrong Ball
Portrayal of AIG conference as 'wine, women and song' shows ignorance of business.
By
Dan Kennedy
Business & Media Institute
11/19/2008 1:54:33 PM
The news media have, for two weeks,endlessly expressed outrage at AIG’s spending several hundred thousand dollars on a sales conference held at a Phoenix resort – after getting federal bailout billions. The impression conveyed has been that AIG executives took money from us taxpayers and immediately turned around and blew it on wine, women and song, hanging out at a hoity-toity resort, wallowing in caviar on our dime. As usual, the reporting is grossly inaccurate.
And the posturing politicians demanding tighter government watchdogging and control over how the bailout dollars invested in AIG and countless other companies is spent is outrage misdirected.
The facts about these big AIG meetings are that sponsors, predominately financial product providers and other vendors, subsidize large portions of the budgets for these meetings. They directly underwrite or reimburse for expenses as well as rebate after the fact based on sales made to and through AIG. Attendees also pay to attend.
The $300,000 cost of the event splashed all over the TV screen in reporting on this is likely the budget but not the actual, net cost incurred by AIG. Further, these types of events are part and parcel of fueling sales in advance and rewarding salespeople for results.
Those reporting only the sensationalist aspect of all this – the cost, the fact that they occur at fancy locations – are either ignorant of or, more likely, deliberately omitting the other facts. That’s either to protect the tabloid value of the story, or due to another agenda.
The politicians who propose micro-managing these companies’ use of funds are nothing but blowhards. They know full well such oversight is impossible. Once funds are lent or invested, they merge and commingle with all other funds and no one can trace a dollar spent on a spa treatment for a top producing sales agent’s spouse back to its origin.
Further, the politicians’ fake outrage would be better replaced with real rage directed at themselves for complete and utter failure to oversee and regulate the one thing that really matters: Is a company like AIG maintaining the necessary financial reserves to support the insurance it is selling?
This incidental example gets to the core problem with almost all politicians’ meddling with business, and all media’s reporting on it. They are pontificating about things they do not understand, opining about things they are ignorant of.
It’s fair to expect politicians like Gov. Sarah Palin ought to know geography, although it turns out those rumors of her ignorance were made up. Politicians also need to learn how business works or employ advisers who know before investing billions of our dollars in them, and journalists ought to pass a business basics course before reporting on these matters.
In short, our present economic trauma has much to do with our electing ignorant, unqualified dunderheads to Congress, and employing equally ignorant journalists to serve as the public watchdogs over them. We need smarter, more knowledgeable people in these positions.
If we had citizen government instead of entrenched royalty, Congress would be populated by business owners, salespeople, shopkeepers, financial professionals and others who, back home, hold real world jobs, run real world businesses, meet real world payrolls, and have some firsthand practical knowledge. Instead we are the victims of career politicians completely distanced and divorced from the world you and I live in, and the businesses they attempt to regulate.
What's next for GOP?
Bush Hands Over Reins of U.S. Economy to EU
BY: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
The results of the G-20 economic summit amount to nothing less than the seamless integration of the United States into the European economy.
In one month of legislation and one diplomatic meeting, the United States has unilaterally abdicated all the gains for the concept of free markets won by the Reagan administration and surrendered, in total, to the Western European model of socialism, stagnation, and excessive government regulation.
Sovereignty is out the window. Without a vote, we are suddenly members of the European Union. Given the dismal record of those nations at creating jobs and sustaining growth, merging with the Europeans is like a partnership with death.
At the G-20 meeting, Bush agreed to subject the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and our other regulatory agencies to the supervision of a global entity that would critique its regulatory standards and demand changes if it felt they were necessary. Bush agreed to create a College of Supervisors.
According to The Washington Post, it would "examine the books of major financial institutions that operate across national borders so regulators could begin to have a more complete picture of banks' operations."
Their scrutiny would extend to hedge funds and to various "exotic" financial instruments. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), a European-dominated operation, would conduct "regular vigorous reviews" of American financial institutions and practices.
READMORE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | NEWS: HILLARY APPOINTMENT: THE AUDACITY OF BROKEN PROMISES |
 HILLARY APPOINTMENT: THE AUDACITY OF BROKEN PROMISES
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on November 18, 2008
If Barack Obama appoints Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, it will send a cynical message to his supporters: that change is something they can still only hope for. Because if Obama relies on this unqualified Washington insider to fill one of the most important positions in his 'outsider' administration, it will represent neither change nor hope, just more of the same. Instead of "Yes, We Can," Obama will be touting loud and clear: "No, we won't." A Clinton appointment would replace the audacity of hope with the audacity to shamelessly break campaign promises.
As a president without any experience in foreign affairs himself, Obama needs a seasoned partner at State. And Hillary Clinton is definitely not that person - neither in substance nor in style. Hillary Clinton is the epitome of the entrenched Washington political establishment that Obama so effectively challenged and so thoroughly disdained. That's what makes her consideration so puzzling. But it's not just her old politics that should immediately disqualify her. With her out-of-control husband freelancing with foreign governments to raise money for his cronies, his foundation, and for speaking fees for himself, the potential for serious conflicts of interest are incalculable and dangerous.
We don't know precisely what the former president has been up to; it's all secret. For more than eight years, Bill Clinton has adamantly refused to disclose the fat-cat donors to his library and foundation. Because of a computer error in the Clinton Library, the New York Sun inadvertently learned that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Dubai, the U.A.E, Kuwait, and Morocco have chipped in. But what about other governments or businesses? Can we actually afford to have a Secretary of State whose husband secretly raises money from foreign governments who have strong interests in U.S. foreign policy decisions? That's what we'd have with the Clintons. For Obama to choose Hillary would mean that he was ignoring the long overdue and strict ethical and professional standards that he claims will be imposed on all appointees. Or is Hillary going to have a separate standard of her own? A substantially lower one? Already, it appears that the Obama rule that "if you leak, you're gone" doesn't apply to Hillary. But does anyone really believe that Obama would appoint any other person to State whose spouse had publicly endorsed a controversial foreign leader for a U.N. position that the State Department opposed? That's just what Clinton did in the corrupt former Soviet state of Kazakhstan, where human rights violations are rampant.
|
|
|
Posted by Russell_S on Wednesday, November 19 @ 03:48:06 GMT (3 reads)
(Read More... | 7666 bytes more | comments? | NEWS | Score: 0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DAY BY DAY
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liberal Fascism A Must Read
Liberal Fascism” - The end of freedom and prosperity
By Ted Belman
Jonah Goldberg recently wrote the book “Liberal Fascism”. He was interviewed by Glen Beck and the interviews can be seen on YouTube.. There are six parts to watch.
As you know, “fascism” is the idea that everything and everybody must serve the state. i.e., the state knows best. The state will order your lives for the good of the state. In a way its like collectivism. It denies the individual.
Liberalism or progressivism seeks to create a nanny state in which the state mandates all kinds of things for the good of the people. And no person is entitled to opt out or to thwart the decisions of the state. Thus liberal fascism.
Goldberg has on his cover a happy face with a Hitler mustache on it. By this he suggests that liberal fascism is appealing. Many people want a nanny state and thus are drawn to Hugo Chavez, Che Guevera and Barack Obama. i.e., fascism with a happy face. But as we have seen with Nazism, Communism and Islam, it can have dire consequences.
In all cases it is accompanied by mind control which starts with controlling the message. Remember George Orwell’s 1984, or Mao’s farms for re-education or Arafat’s inculcation of Jew hatred.
Barak Obama is a proponent of liberal fascism. Not only does he want to take care of everyone, he means to take your money as if he was entitled to it, in order to finance his, the state’s, plans. Gov. Palin pointed this out in her stump speeches. Joe Biden called giving your money to the state “patriotism”.
In order to accomplish his ends he has concentrated on reeducating the kids to reject conventional wisdom and embrace his and Bill Ayers, wisdom. He supported ACORN and trained them to be shock troops. He mobilized moveon.org and the MSM to assist in cudgeling the people. We have seen videos of kids in school in fatigues chanting pro-Obama messages. This is very suggestive of the Hitler Youth movement that all German children were required to join.
Many schools in the US are now educating the children to these socialist principles without the consent of the parents. Its called “social engineering”.
On September 4th Investor’s Business Daily (IBD), a mainstream paper of great repute, reported,
“Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they’ll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of ‘social change.’”
By Lee Cary wrote about Obama’s Civilian National Security Force
Barack Obama’s recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer’s sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.
Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying,
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” (emphasis added)
The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,
“People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve.”
On his web site he said that people would be “required” to serve. After much criticism he changed it to read “asked” to serve.
And to make matters easier for his plans, he wants to disarm the people.
To be fair, both liberals and conservatives want to provide a security net for the people. They debate how big and strong that net should be. The real issue is at what cost to our freedom and independence. Conservatives are trying to protect such things and the liberals don’t value them in the same way or to he same extent. They value the collective over the individual.
Democrats are quick to charge Republicans with fascism because, for example, Republicans want to maintain Quantanimo Bay and want profiling or wire tapping in certain cases. In effect they say this is an infringement of personal rights. As I said just above, providing the security net or or this case security itself, certain rights are infringed. What separates us is when restrictions are warranted and when they are not. Everyone must decide for themselves what is the biggest threat to their freedom.
Taking care of the weak in society is an admirable objective. The liberals have claimed this as their brand. But will they deliver on their promise?
Larrey Anderson in Waltzing on the Titanic doesn’t think so.
[..] They (young people in Europe) have been taught, since their first day in school, that capitalism is evil — that the government can, and should, provide health care, employment, and eventually, guaranteed retirement benefits for everyone.
In their leisurely conversations when they have finished condemning capitalism, they go on to praise the idea of socialism. They do not praise their own countries. They are not stupid. The health care stinks. (Young people don’t care much about that.) There are no jobs. (But there are unemployment benefits.) And the retirement systems are bankrupt. (But old age is way, way, way in the future.)
So, they argue, in the next election they are going to replace the loser socialists who currently run their countries with some real socialists — politicians who will finally keep their promises. I heard this discussion in France thirty years ago. I heard it the last time I was in Italy. It is taking place in Greece right now.
The last time I was in Rome I listened as a very bright young man explained to his friends, over lunch at a sidewalk café, what was really going on: Most European countries have become, essentially, plutocracies. The socialist governments give lip service to wealth redistribution but they are tightly interwoven with the “old money” in the banking system and in big business.
[..] Listen up young Americans: What is coming to the United States is what has been happening in Europe for decades. The ships of state have smashed into an iceberg called socialism and they are sinking.
This is not a Republican versus Democrat thing. Republicans had ten years to clean up the mess. They made it worse. I don’t blame you for wanting to throw the bums out. I did too.
But putting in a new and improved and ever more aggressive socialist like Obama is not the answer. (Don’t argue about his socialism. Go to his website and show me some free market proposals.) They have been trying this in Europe for three generations. It has not worked.
That trillion-dollar “bi-partisan” bailout passed by our Congress did not go to the people who cannot make their house payments. It is being handed out to the big bankers and to big business.
That is how socialism works. Politicians, bankers, and big businessmen do an age-old dance in triple time. There is no trickle down economics in socialism. Almost all of the money stays at the top.
In fact once the government has you on the dole, they have you.
Bush to his credit made an impassioned speech this week in defense of free markets.
“Free-market capitalism is far more than an economic theory. It is the engine of social mobility, the highway to the American dream.”
“At its most basic level, capitalism offers people the freedom to choose where they work and what they do … the dignity that comes with profiting from their talent and hard work. … The free-market system also provides the incentives that lead to prosperity — the incentive to work, to innovate, to save and invest wisely, and to create jobs for others.”
The market soared 550 points.
The NYT was quick to disparage him.
But Europe is concerned with the election of Obama. James Lewis tells us why in Why Europe is secretly afraid of a socialist America
Suppose you’ve been living under the protective wings of a benevolent superpower for sixty years. And suppose you’ve used that big half century to take off on an endless vacation — spending all your tax money to buy votes for the socialist Ruling Class. It’s been one long, grand, drug-infested, sex-drenched, self-indulgent, tabloid party scene. Any time danger threatens you look to Washington for protection. The rest of the time you noisily abuse those Yankee imperialists, merely to boost your fragile ego. Corruption has become pervasive.
That’s Europe today.
What a sweet deal.
But now you see your guardian superpower electing a guy who wants to follow your example. Whooops! Time to sober up. Fast.
Yes, you went hoarse cheering Obama’s ego trip at the Berlin Victory Monument, because you love the idea that O will teach America to love Eurosocialism forever and ever. But shivers are running up and down your spine — because if he is what you think he is, America won’t be there any more to save you. It will just slide into vegetarian nihilism and leave Europe to the New Soviet Empire.
Europe would crumble like a soggy crouton without America’s commitment to its defense. We saw that happen three times in the 20th century, and the bad news is that it’s starting again. Real danger is at the gates; Europe’s Ruling Class is in denial; and half of it is preparing to surrender to the Russians or the Muslim fascists, whichever gets there first. [..]
Beware. Be very aware. |
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
| NEVER FORGET | |
|
| | |
