From the Gospel of Timothy 1:14:12
The Lord is my sheperd; I shall not want.
He maketh me play football in green pastures;
he leadeth me to the end zone when the game is on the line.
He restoreth my soul;
he leadeth me in the path of my offensive blockers.
Yea, though I walk through the depths of Gillete Stadium,
I will fear no Patriots;
for thou and my teammates are with me;
my coach and his staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest an upset before me in the presence of mine enemies;
thou "anointest" my head with trick plays;
and my adrenalin runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me each minute of this game;
and after winning I will dwell in the house of the Broncos forever.
"Praise the Lord and pass me the football"
Give em hell Saturday night Tebow!
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
"The Bain Train"
As the rough and tumble primary moves on to South Carolina, Romney is being attacked from the left over his so-called "vulture capitalism" while being CEO of Bain Capital. Sadly this "left" attack, I call it the "Bain Train", comes from Obama, Gingrich, Perry, and to some extent Santorum. What the hell are these so-called Conservatives doing joining the Democrats in their battle on capitalism?
First of all I am not a Romney fan. But I am a 'venture capitalist" fan. There is no question that if Romney wins the nomination that the Obama machine will portray him as the "Gordon Gecko" of Wall Street. But I can't believe our side is throwing gas into those flames. I have some experience with venture capital companies and like everything else there are a few bad apples, but without those companies many of the corporations we are all familiar with today (that employ millions of people) would not exist. I have no idea if Bain did any "dishonest" deals, but I did some research today. When Romney started the company they had assets of $37 million to invest, today Bain and it's affiliates are "managing" $66 billion in assets.
I put quotes around "managing" because that's what venture capitalist's do. They take investor's money (if they want to invest it) and risk it on companies that have a potential to make profits, offering them a higher return than they could get elsewhere - IF they are willing to take the risk. The key word is "risk". When I started my high tech company in the late 70's, the failure rate of high tech companies was two failures for every success. Would you take those odds? Remember the .com "bubble" in the 90's - some like Microsoft, Dell, and Oracle were successful, but many more went "bust".
I don't know anything about Bain's performance, but the fact that they have grown so much over the years certainly indicates that they have done a good job for their investors. When venture capitalists take over companies that are in trouble or struggling, they restructure and bring in new management and hopefully turn them around; and in some cases the company is too far gone and they have to put them through bankruptcy. Do people lose their jobs, of course? But if Bain went from $37 million to $66 billion in assets managed, a lot of jobs must have been created along the way by those successes.
Investing in high risk companies is like gambling, and gamblers only tell you about the times they won. The dialog about Bain Capital should be open and then voters can decide whether they did a good job for their investors (and the country) or not. But that will probably not happen - if Romney is the nominee the Obama machine will only tell you about those Bain Capital "gambling losses" and all the people that lost their jobs along the way. We don't need people on our side to help them with that false message.
First of all I am not a Romney fan. But I am a 'venture capitalist" fan. There is no question that if Romney wins the nomination that the Obama machine will portray him as the "Gordon Gecko" of Wall Street. But I can't believe our side is throwing gas into those flames. I have some experience with venture capital companies and like everything else there are a few bad apples, but without those companies many of the corporations we are all familiar with today (that employ millions of people) would not exist. I have no idea if Bain did any "dishonest" deals, but I did some research today. When Romney started the company they had assets of $37 million to invest, today Bain and it's affiliates are "managing" $66 billion in assets.
I put quotes around "managing" because that's what venture capitalist's do. They take investor's money (if they want to invest it) and risk it on companies that have a potential to make profits, offering them a higher return than they could get elsewhere - IF they are willing to take the risk. The key word is "risk". When I started my high tech company in the late 70's, the failure rate of high tech companies was two failures for every success. Would you take those odds? Remember the .com "bubble" in the 90's - some like Microsoft, Dell, and Oracle were successful, but many more went "bust".
I don't know anything about Bain's performance, but the fact that they have grown so much over the years certainly indicates that they have done a good job for their investors. When venture capitalists take over companies that are in trouble or struggling, they restructure and bring in new management and hopefully turn them around; and in some cases the company is too far gone and they have to put them through bankruptcy. Do people lose their jobs, of course? But if Bain went from $37 million to $66 billion in assets managed, a lot of jobs must have been created along the way by those successes.
Investing in high risk companies is like gambling, and gamblers only tell you about the times they won. The dialog about Bain Capital should be open and then voters can decide whether they did a good job for their investors (and the country) or not. But that will probably not happen - if Romney is the nominee the Obama machine will only tell you about those Bain Capital "gambling losses" and all the people that lost their jobs along the way. We don't need people on our side to help them with that false message.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
"The Paul Paradox"
As the Republican primary season moves forward at high speed, many still wonder why Ron Paul is even in the race. He has little charisma and comes across as an "old man" in the debates. Now I am also an "old man", so that is not a pejorative statement. But contrary to his image, he continues to get strong support in these early races and ironically much of this "old man's" support comes from young people.
In my last Blog I referred to Congressman Paul as "the crazy uncle", that was probably unfair, especially since I agree with many of his policies. His support comes primarily from his stance on reigning in the federal budget and getting this country on a solid financial basis, a position he has consistently preached for 20 years. No one really paid attention to him in the past but now his prophecy of a "financial disaster" due to uncontrolled government spending has people taking a second look at his long-held warnings.
I agree with many of Paul's policies - audit the Fed; cut the government budget $1 trillion next year no matter how painful it may be, even it means cutting out complete government agencies; quit giving foreign aid to people that don't like us; quit spending money protecting countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and dozens of others that can afford to do it on their own. But his so-called "appeasement" foreign policy has been his Achilles heel, resulting in attacks from the main stream media with voters following suit.
This evening I watched a "focus group" of about 30-40 sample voters who were Libertarians, Conservatives, and Republicans giving their opinions on various candidates. In some cases the candidates themselves answered questions and in some cases their representatives answered questions. During the Ron Paul "focus session" his son Rand Paul represented him. The focus group had an interesting response to Ron Paul's policies. On domestic policies (mentioned above) he received almost unanimous support of the group. On his foreign policy only two people raised their hand.
His son Rand is a very impressive young Senator and made some interesting points: The domestic situation is a disaster and financially the country is close to falling off a cliff...and the group agreed. He also pointed out that even though he may not agree with all of his fathers foreign policies with regard to going to going to war, the President cannot make those decisions anyway since it takes Congress to declare war, set defense spending levels, etc. His father is a strict constitutionalist - go to war to protect the USA, but do not to get involved in other country's affairs. It is ironic that more Ron Paul contributions come from the US military than all the other candidates combined.
So the debate goes on, and I don't think Ron Paul has a chance to be elected president. But he is making quite an impact on this primary, if for no other reason the dialog about the financial disaster this country is facing is now front and center. Paul is also single-handedly making many of us think about what the Constitution really means because of his ability to explain it in simple and concise terms. Sadly, Ron Paul's honesty may be the biggest obstacle to him ever winning this primary.
Do I support many of his policies - yes. Will I vote for him - no. Because I still believe the primary mission in 2012 is to get rid of Obama and his clueless Harvard trained administration that has no idea how a capitalistic system works, and what made this country exceptional. Even though an "establishment" candidate might not be our first choice, we cannot afford to lose this election. At least with an establishment Republican administration we can start moving in the right direction. Another four years of Obama could be the death knell of this country as we know it.
In my last Blog I referred to Congressman Paul as "the crazy uncle", that was probably unfair, especially since I agree with many of his policies. His support comes primarily from his stance on reigning in the federal budget and getting this country on a solid financial basis, a position he has consistently preached for 20 years. No one really paid attention to him in the past but now his prophecy of a "financial disaster" due to uncontrolled government spending has people taking a second look at his long-held warnings.
I agree with many of Paul's policies - audit the Fed; cut the government budget $1 trillion next year no matter how painful it may be, even it means cutting out complete government agencies; quit giving foreign aid to people that don't like us; quit spending money protecting countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and dozens of others that can afford to do it on their own. But his so-called "appeasement" foreign policy has been his Achilles heel, resulting in attacks from the main stream media with voters following suit.
This evening I watched a "focus group" of about 30-40 sample voters who were Libertarians, Conservatives, and Republicans giving their opinions on various candidates. In some cases the candidates themselves answered questions and in some cases their representatives answered questions. During the Ron Paul "focus session" his son Rand Paul represented him. The focus group had an interesting response to Ron Paul's policies. On domestic policies (mentioned above) he received almost unanimous support of the group. On his foreign policy only two people raised their hand.
His son Rand is a very impressive young Senator and made some interesting points: The domestic situation is a disaster and financially the country is close to falling off a cliff...and the group agreed. He also pointed out that even though he may not agree with all of his fathers foreign policies with regard to going to going to war, the President cannot make those decisions anyway since it takes Congress to declare war, set defense spending levels, etc. His father is a strict constitutionalist - go to war to protect the USA, but do not to get involved in other country's affairs. It is ironic that more Ron Paul contributions come from the US military than all the other candidates combined.
So the debate goes on, and I don't think Ron Paul has a chance to be elected president. But he is making quite an impact on this primary, if for no other reason the dialog about the financial disaster this country is facing is now front and center. Paul is also single-handedly making many of us think about what the Constitution really means because of his ability to explain it in simple and concise terms. Sadly, Ron Paul's honesty may be the biggest obstacle to him ever winning this primary.
Do I support many of his policies - yes. Will I vote for him - no. Because I still believe the primary mission in 2012 is to get rid of Obama and his clueless Harvard trained administration that has no idea how a capitalistic system works, and what made this country exceptional. Even though an "establishment" candidate might not be our first choice, we cannot afford to lose this election. At least with an establishment Republican administration we can start moving in the right direction. Another four years of Obama could be the death knell of this country as we know it.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Don't forget the "End Game"
Since this is my last Blog of 2011 - "Happy New Year" everyone.
Next week will start the Republican primary season and the gloves are already off with the candidates taking shots at each other. I guess this is expected, but as they attack each other I hope none of them will forget the "end game" - defeat Barack Obama.
The beauty of "Blogging" is you can give your opinion, whether anyone agrees with it or not. Like many of my generation we have been waiting for another Ronald Reagan to come along, but sadly that will not happen in this election cycle. So here are my thoughts about this field of Republican candidates in order of their recent polling:
Mitt Romney ("the Suit") - Romney at this point looks like the front runner. He has impressive business experience; I do remember when he turned around the Utah Olympics; he has the executive experience of being a Governor; and he seems "Presidential". But Mitt, show us some "fire in the belly"! And what about your "Obama-Lite" insurance program in Massachusetts? He seems to be a competent manager, but I hate the term "moderate", and will someone mess up this guy's hair just once!
Ron Paul ("the crazy uncle") - OK I'm going to catch hell from my youngest son for this comment. But does anyone believe Ron Paul could win this primary, and if he did, beat the Obama machine?
I agree with many of Paul's policies - audit the fed, cut the budget $1 trillion next year no matter how painful it may be, quit giving foreign aid to people that don't like us, quit spending money protecting countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and dozens of others that can afford to do it on their own. But his comments about leaving Israel to fend for themselves; or let Iran develop a nuclear bomb; or 911 could have been an "inside job" by the Israeli Mossad makes me wonder if this guy has thought out his foreign policy issues. Here's my suggestion: Keep Ron Paul on the back burner until after the election and then if the Republicans win, make him Secretary of the Treasury and let him do his thing to get our finances back from the edge of the cliff.
Newt Gingrich ("the bomb thrower") - I'm not sure about Newt. I do remember when he pulled off one of the great feats in political history leading the takeover of the House in the mid 90's after 40+ years of Democratic rule. But then the power went to his head. He was thrown out due to ethics violations and alienated many of his fellow Representatives along the way. His personal life has been a bit of a train wreck but he now claims to be "older and wiser", so I guess he deserves the benefit of the doubt. But on this subject I have one nagging question: Cheating on one wife; OK everyone deserves to be forgiven for one serious indiscretion, but twice?
Newt is attractive because he is a "fighter" and would not take it from the liberal press, and could destroy Obama in debates, especially when Obama doesn't have a teleprompter to tell him what to say. But the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac $1.6 million consulting fees, his flip flops on Global Warming, mandated health insurance, and the fact that he is just such a "slick" life-long politician makes me nervous.
Rick Santorum ("the Evangelist") - Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian myself, and I like former Senator Santorum. I agree with him that "restoring the family" in this country is paramount to getting our social climate back on the right track. A classic example is the black community with 70% of children being born out of wedlock (and in many cases without a father in the household). Without some basic cultural changes, they haven't got a chance to improve their situation in our society.
Santorum is a solid "pro life/pro family" candidate and should have much of the evangelical constituency locked up. But this is not an election about social policies. This country is in such serious financial and economic trouble that social principals just can't be a determining factor.
Rick Perry ("the Texan") - I was a Rick Perry fan at the beginning, but he blew it in many of the debates. Not because he wasn't a good debater, he just doesn't seem to be ready to run this country and whether anyone agrees with me or not - giving "illegal" immigrants preferential treatment over out-of-state US citizens for college tuition is something I can never agree with. Governor Perry comes across as a likable politician but just doesn't make it to my short list.
Michelle Bachman ("Sarah wannabe?") - OK that's not fair. She is a bright, impressive woman and will be a future star in the Republican Party, she is just not there yet. She is a former attorney and strict constitutionalist - how about Attorney General in the next Republican administration?
John Huntsman ( "Slick") - He claims to be holding back for the New Hampshire primary and recently said: " Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks Presidents"...we'll see John.
Gary Johnson (the "Libertarian") - Former Governor of New Mexico who has just announced that he will run as a Libertarian candidate. If you listen to this guy he makes a lot of sense and it has been surprising that he never rose above being an "obscure Republican", even to the point of not participating (or being invited) to the debates. But if you are a "Libertarian" (and I have those leanings) this guy is rock solid, even more so than Ron Paul in my opinion. Hopefully the Libertarian candidate will not draw enough Republican votes to give Obama a victory.
So there it is; I am as undecided as anyone at this point, but whoever becomes the Republican candidate we all need to remember the "end game" - we cannot endure four more years of Barack Obama, or this country will never be the same. If something is not done about our massive debt and ridiculous social entitlement policies, the USA as we know it may reach the "point of no return".
Next week will start the Republican primary season and the gloves are already off with the candidates taking shots at each other. I guess this is expected, but as they attack each other I hope none of them will forget the "end game" - defeat Barack Obama.
The beauty of "Blogging" is you can give your opinion, whether anyone agrees with it or not. Like many of my generation we have been waiting for another Ronald Reagan to come along, but sadly that will not happen in this election cycle. So here are my thoughts about this field of Republican candidates in order of their recent polling:
Mitt Romney ("the Suit") - Romney at this point looks like the front runner. He has impressive business experience; I do remember when he turned around the Utah Olympics; he has the executive experience of being a Governor; and he seems "Presidential". But Mitt, show us some "fire in the belly"! And what about your "Obama-Lite" insurance program in Massachusetts? He seems to be a competent manager, but I hate the term "moderate", and will someone mess up this guy's hair just once!
Ron Paul ("the crazy uncle") - OK I'm going to catch hell from my youngest son for this comment. But does anyone believe Ron Paul could win this primary, and if he did, beat the Obama machine?
I agree with many of Paul's policies - audit the fed, cut the budget $1 trillion next year no matter how painful it may be, quit giving foreign aid to people that don't like us, quit spending money protecting countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and dozens of others that can afford to do it on their own. But his comments about leaving Israel to fend for themselves; or let Iran develop a nuclear bomb; or 911 could have been an "inside job" by the Israeli Mossad makes me wonder if this guy has thought out his foreign policy issues. Here's my suggestion: Keep Ron Paul on the back burner until after the election and then if the Republicans win, make him Secretary of the Treasury and let him do his thing to get our finances back from the edge of the cliff.
Newt Gingrich ("the bomb thrower") - I'm not sure about Newt. I do remember when he pulled off one of the great feats in political history leading the takeover of the House in the mid 90's after 40+ years of Democratic rule. But then the power went to his head. He was thrown out due to ethics violations and alienated many of his fellow Representatives along the way. His personal life has been a bit of a train wreck but he now claims to be "older and wiser", so I guess he deserves the benefit of the doubt. But on this subject I have one nagging question: Cheating on one wife; OK everyone deserves to be forgiven for one serious indiscretion, but twice?
Newt is attractive because he is a "fighter" and would not take it from the liberal press, and could destroy Obama in debates, especially when Obama doesn't have a teleprompter to tell him what to say. But the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac $1.6 million consulting fees, his flip flops on Global Warming, mandated health insurance, and the fact that he is just such a "slick" life-long politician makes me nervous.
Rick Santorum ("the Evangelist") - Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian myself, and I like former Senator Santorum. I agree with him that "restoring the family" in this country is paramount to getting our social climate back on the right track. A classic example is the black community with 70% of children being born out of wedlock (and in many cases without a father in the household). Without some basic cultural changes, they haven't got a chance to improve their situation in our society.
Santorum is a solid "pro life/pro family" candidate and should have much of the evangelical constituency locked up. But this is not an election about social policies. This country is in such serious financial and economic trouble that social principals just can't be a determining factor.
Rick Perry ("the Texan") - I was a Rick Perry fan at the beginning, but he blew it in many of the debates. Not because he wasn't a good debater, he just doesn't seem to be ready to run this country and whether anyone agrees with me or not - giving "illegal" immigrants preferential treatment over out-of-state US citizens for college tuition is something I can never agree with. Governor Perry comes across as a likable politician but just doesn't make it to my short list.
Michelle Bachman ("Sarah wannabe?") - OK that's not fair. She is a bright, impressive woman and will be a future star in the Republican Party, she is just not there yet. She is a former attorney and strict constitutionalist - how about Attorney General in the next Republican administration?
John Huntsman ( "Slick") - He claims to be holding back for the New Hampshire primary and recently said: " Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks Presidents"...we'll see John.
Gary Johnson (the "Libertarian") - Former Governor of New Mexico who has just announced that he will run as a Libertarian candidate. If you listen to this guy he makes a lot of sense and it has been surprising that he never rose above being an "obscure Republican", even to the point of not participating (or being invited) to the debates. But if you are a "Libertarian" (and I have those leanings) this guy is rock solid, even more so than Ron Paul in my opinion. Hopefully the Libertarian candidate will not draw enough Republican votes to give Obama a victory.
So there it is; I am as undecided as anyone at this point, but whoever becomes the Republican candidate we all need to remember the "end game" - we cannot endure four more years of Barack Obama, or this country will never be the same. If something is not done about our massive debt and ridiculous social entitlement policies, the USA as we know it may reach the "point of no return".
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
"So long Barney"
He is not "retiring" because he is in his early 70's, he is retiring because due to redistricting he actually has to "run for reelection" with a new group of voters and he knew he would lose.
His problems with new constituents has nothing to do with being gay, or the fact that years ago a male prostitution ring was run out of his DC condo; his personal and political record simply reeks of all the things that are wrong with Washington. He was a major sponsor of the legislation which enacted the Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac loan programs that resulted in creating the sub-prime housing bubble that led to this deep recession; and maybe was even the cause of it. He denies it, but that program put millions of low income people into homes that they simply could not afford; homes that were destined to go into foreclosure.
One of his reasons for leaving congress: "I don't like being in the minority". Like many of our politicians power was all that mattered to Congressman Frank. The fact that this arrogant, corrupt, career politician will be gone is a small step in the right direction.
He may not be purple, but this "Barney" certainly is a dinosaur.
Monday, November 21, 2011
"Super Failure"
Deep down we knew the so-called "Super Committee" would fail. And think about it, what was so "super" about this committee of ideologues who were just shills for their leadership, and for the President. Congress continues to display their complete incompetence and Obama continues to display his complete inability to lead.
So here we are back at the starting line. The failure of this super committee means that by law the $1.2 trillion in cuts will be automatically split between the Defense Department and spread among other governmental agencies except social security, Medicare, veterans programs, and programs for the poor. But these automatic cuts will not start until 2013...isn't that interesting, after the next election. And they will probably never happen.
The super committee was a sham from day one . The Constitution states, among other things, that the Congress shall have the responsibility to lay and collect taxes, spend money, borrow money, and pay debts. It says nothing about a "super committee" and the fact that Congress took this cowardice method to try and work on the debt problem illustrates one thing - a majority of Congressional members did not want to go on record voting for any spending cuts or tax increases before an election year. What a shame that the self-interest of our politicians overrides what is good for the country. I believe this "super committee" was designed from the beginning to fail, since Obama was giving a press conference within hours after their announcement, blaming the failure on the Republicans. And that will be his campaigns mantra: "I could not perform my job because of an ineffective Congress". He sure as hell cannot run for reelection on his record.
Those that read this blog know I am a partisan, but whether you are Republican, Democrat, or Independent you must feel like I do; this is the most ineffective, incompetent Congress and President in our lifetime. We need to replace the whole lot.
So here we are back at the starting line. The failure of this super committee means that by law the $1.2 trillion in cuts will be automatically split between the Defense Department and spread among other governmental agencies except social security, Medicare, veterans programs, and programs for the poor. But these automatic cuts will not start until 2013...isn't that interesting, after the next election. And they will probably never happen.
The super committee was a sham from day one . The Constitution states, among other things, that the Congress shall have the responsibility to lay and collect taxes, spend money, borrow money, and pay debts. It says nothing about a "super committee" and the fact that Congress took this cowardice method to try and work on the debt problem illustrates one thing - a majority of Congressional members did not want to go on record voting for any spending cuts or tax increases before an election year. What a shame that the self-interest of our politicians overrides what is good for the country. I believe this "super committee" was designed from the beginning to fail, since Obama was giving a press conference within hours after their announcement, blaming the failure on the Republicans. And that will be his campaigns mantra: "I could not perform my job because of an ineffective Congress". He sure as hell cannot run for reelection on his record.
Those that read this blog know I am a partisan, but whether you are Republican, Democrat, or Independent you must feel like I do; this is the most ineffective, incompetent Congress and President in our lifetime. We need to replace the whole lot.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
"Obama is a Godsend"
Some of you may have heard the interview of the Russian man with one of the Wall Street protesters last week. He had lived under communism/socialism for more than 20 years and is now a US citizen. He decided to go down to the protest and talk to some of the protesters.
He was very polite and asked this young girl what they were protesting against. She said: "Capitalism!" Trying to keep things simple he asked if she would rather live in North Korea (communism/socialism) or South Korea (capitalism). Amazingly she said: "North Korea, socialism rocks". Now obviously this young lady was either "high" or she simply is so uneducated that you could not say she is representative of her other protest compatriots.
Today Laura Ingraham interviewed this Russian guy and he had a chance to further discuss this experience at the Wall Street protest. He said that his first comparison to this young lady could have been East and West Berlin during the cold war. But since the fall of the Berlin wall those people in East Berlin are now starting to see the benefits of, (bad word) "Capitalism", and East Berliners are living prosperous like the rest of Germany. So he used North/South Korea as his example to her. And in the Ingraham interview he made a simple point - North Korea and South Korea are the same country, the same people, and the same resources. The difference is the SYSTEM.
Now here is a guy that has seen both sides and loves America. Laura Ingraham ended the interview by asking how he felt about this country now, with all our economic problems, protests, and in many people's opinion: "America is in decline". His response: "I am very positive about America, recent studies show that 40% of Americans call themselves 'Conservative', and their numbers are increasing, 20% of Americans call themselves 'Liberals' and their numbers are decreasing. For that I thank Obama, he is a godsend".
Editor's note: In 1967 I had the opportunity to visit East Berlin during the cold war. My brother was imprisoned there for; "Aiding in the escape of an East German citizen to the West", a crime he did not commit. It was an experience I will never forget and I wish these protesters could just experience 10 minutes of what I saw traveling from West to East Berlin during that time.
He was very polite and asked this young girl what they were protesting against. She said: "Capitalism!" Trying to keep things simple he asked if she would rather live in North Korea (communism/socialism) or South Korea (capitalism). Amazingly she said: "North Korea, socialism rocks". Now obviously this young lady was either "high" or she simply is so uneducated that you could not say she is representative of her other protest compatriots.
Today Laura Ingraham interviewed this Russian guy and he had a chance to further discuss this experience at the Wall Street protest. He said that his first comparison to this young lady could have been East and West Berlin during the cold war. But since the fall of the Berlin wall those people in East Berlin are now starting to see the benefits of, (bad word) "Capitalism", and East Berliners are living prosperous like the rest of Germany. So he used North/South Korea as his example to her. And in the Ingraham interview he made a simple point - North Korea and South Korea are the same country, the same people, and the same resources. The difference is the SYSTEM.
Now here is a guy that has seen both sides and loves America. Laura Ingraham ended the interview by asking how he felt about this country now, with all our economic problems, protests, and in many people's opinion: "America is in decline". His response: "I am very positive about America, recent studies show that 40% of Americans call themselves 'Conservative', and their numbers are increasing, 20% of Americans call themselves 'Liberals' and their numbers are decreasing. For that I thank Obama, he is a godsend".
Editor's note: In 1967 I had the opportunity to visit East Berlin during the cold war. My brother was imprisoned there for; "Aiding in the escape of an East German citizen to the West", a crime he did not commit. It was an experience I will never forget and I wish these protesters could just experience 10 minutes of what I saw traveling from West to East Berlin during that time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
