Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Essay:John Wall divorce agreement


DIVORCE AGREEMENT-   -
 
WRITTEN BY YOUNG COLLEGE STUDENT
 

 
DIVORCE AGREEMENT
 
 
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al: We have stuck together   since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.
 
 
Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
 
 
Here is our separation agreement:
 
 
--Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
 
 
--We d on't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.
 
 
--You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.
 
--Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
 
 
--We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel.
 
 
--You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.
 
 
--We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.
 
 
--You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, drug gies and illegal aliens.
 
 
--We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.
 
 
--We'll keep Bill O &nbs p; '   Reilly, and Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .
 
 
--You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
 
 
--You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.
-- When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
 
 
--We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
 
 
--You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and ShirleyMaclaine. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.
 
 
--We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.
 
 
--You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.
 
 
--We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."
 
 
--I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World".
 
 
--We'll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.
 
 
--Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.
 
 
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you might think about which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
 
John J. Wall
 
 
Law Student and an American
 
 
P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie Sheen, Barbara Streisand, ( Hanoi ) Jane Fonda with you.
 
 
P.S.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.


The person who wrote this is a college (law) student. Perhaps there is hope for us after all.

Monday, July 4, 2016

Tear DOWN The Statue of Liberty!

This was written by Rosemary LaBonte to the editors of a California newspaper in response to an article written by Ernie Lujan who suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the immigrants of today aren’t being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.  The paper never printed this response, so her husband sent it out via internet.
cid:3hnGswavEBeBeQQZHsEN

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer.  Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented.
cid:RUh4EdNauTt2M6CsMNCB
Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground.  They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times.  They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home. 
cid:bDq13vLbKsSo744o8QWN
They had waved goodbye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture.  Nothing was handed to them.  No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them.  All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.
cid:7pQdHSCk86VjT63VkyHV
Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out.  My father fought alongside men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan.  None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from.  They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan.  They were defending the United States of America as one people.
cid:C8minUKYXN4GWj2js7ES
When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French American, the German American or the Irish American.  The people of France saw only Americans.  And we carried one flag that represented one country.  Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were.  It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here.  These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American.  They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
cid:FXt9Xf8gs94gNgim1zsp
And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges.  Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country.
 
I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about.  I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life.  I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags. 
cid:TaKg85AJoiUFJpOTqE7m
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill.  I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

List: 5 best sentences you'll ever read


Sharing what is ours?  With whom?

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
 
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Scott Adams: Why Gun Control Can’t Be Solved in the USA

You can read this on Scott's blog here.
On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.
On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.
If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible. 
But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.
That’s a gross generalization. Obviously. Your town might be totally different. 
So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”
Let’s all take a deep breath and shake off the mental discomfort I just induced in half of my readers. You can quibble with my unsupported assumptions about gun use, but keep in mind that my point is about psychology and about big group averages. If Republicans think they need guns to protect against Democrats, that’s their reality. And if Democrats believe guns make the world more dangerous for themselves, that is their reality. And they can both be right. Your risk profile is different from mine.
So let’s stop acting as if there is something like “common sense” gun control to be had if we all act reasonably. That’s not an option in this case because we all have different risk profiles when it comes to guns. My gun probably makes me safer, but perhaps yours makes you less safe. You can’t reconcile those interests.
Our situation in the United States is that people with different risk profiles are voting for their self-interests as they see it. There is no compromise to be had in this situation unless you brainwash one side or the other to see their self-interest differently. And I don’t see anyone with persuasion skills trying to do that on either side.
Fear always beats reason. So as long as Democrats are mostly using guns to shoot innocent people (intentionally or accidentally) and Republicans are mostly using guns for sport or self-defense, no compromise can be had.
If we had a real government – the kind that works – we would acknowledge that gun violence is not one big problem with one big solution. It is millions of people with different risk profiles voting their self-interest as they see it.
So stop acting like one side is stupid. Both sides of the gun issue are scared, and both have legitimate reasons to be that way. Neither side is “right.”
*I endorsed Clinton for president for my personal safety. I write about Trump’s powers of persuasion and it is not safe to live in California if people think you support Trump in any way. Also, I’m rich, so I don’t want anything to change in this country. The rest of you might have a different risk profile.

You can read this on Scott's blog here.

Monday, June 13, 2016

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution


Governors of 35 states have already filed Suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please
 pass it on. An idea whose time has come!

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest was to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform .... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law.

I truly don't care if they are DemocratRepublicanIndependent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. A Constitutional Convention - this is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.

I'm asking each addressee to forward this Email to a minimum of 
ten people on their Address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.
            ***Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution***

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the 
United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."