Blocked intersections!!

Do Orange County Schools Bus drivers know how to not block intersections? Or yuppies that live on 419 who cross 50 to take their kids to Beast River High? The intersection by the New Old Cheney in front of MCDonalds is partially bad re-design since they put Walgreens and the other stores there. I am glad I can get milk cheap at Walgreens and Whoppers and Volcano Tacos closer to me now, but why no build around the existing roads? And WHY DON"T PEOPLE LEAVE A GAP!!!! I notice it all the time. It is bad across the street to trying to go to or leave Circle K from the 419 side. And the parking lot to Publix/Tractor Supply Center (Corner Lakes Shopping Center--that is another rant for another entry).

HEY YANKEES--GO HOME!!! If you are not going to leave, then FOLLOW TRAFFIC RULES AND DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTIONS!!! PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO GO SOMEWHERE, AND IF YOU LEFT A GAP WE COULD!

Also might start another topic-but I saw YUPPIE ASSHOLES driving on peoples yards across the road at the ball field at BEAST River to turn around when they were leaving. I am thinkin about taking my truck with mud tires and sitting there waitin to see it happen again, then I will follow those INCONSIDERATE ASSHOLES home and U-turnin in their yard.

Funniest site ever-from the Folks that bring you People of Walmart

People of Walmart is great. They have other sites as wel. I thought I would highlight one. Lamebook--It is funny to me because I always wonder why people put that kind of info on the internet about themselves.

http://www.lamebook.com/

The Father of Many

A little boy got on the bus, sat next to a man reading a book, and noticed he had his collar on backwards.

The little boy asked why he wore his collar backwards.

The man, who was a priest, said, 'I am a Father..'

The little boy replied, 'My Daddy doesn't wear his collar like that.'

The priest looked up from his book and answered, ''I am the Father of many.'

The boy said, ''My Dad has 4 boys, 4 girls and two grandchildren and he doesn't wear his collar that way!'

The priest, getting impatient, said. 'I am the Father of hundreds', and went back to reading his book.
  
The little boy sat quietly thinking for a while, then leaned over and said, "Maybe you should wear a condom, an d put your pants on backwards instead of your colla

How the Democratic Party went from Thomas Jefferson to Karl Marx

That brought us to our essential difference, the difference of the Evolutionary Collectivist and Marxist, the question whether the social revolution is, in its extremity, necessary, whether it is necessary to over throw one economic system completely before the new one can begin. I believe that through a vast sustained educational campaign the existing Capitalist system can be civilised into a Collectivist world system;” - H.G. Wells, Russia in the Shadows

This quote comes from H. G. Wells’ conversation with Vladimir Lenin. Wells was highlighting the difference between Lenin’s radical revolutionary program and Wells’ own “Open Conspiracy” evolutionary collectivist program.
What that means is that Lenin and H. G. Wells didn’t disagree on the final destination, a collectivist world system… socialism on a global scale applied to everyone and every single country. What they disagreed on was how to get there.
Lenin favored a violent overthrow of the existing free market capitalist systems, putting an end to democracy and individual freedoms by armed force, and replacing them with a revolutionary people’s government that would administer social justice.
As a Social Liberal, Wells favored a slow gradual takeover from within, using every cultural and political tool available to shift society over to a socialist system. He called this the “Open Conspiracy”, because social liberals would openly work to end capitalism and replace it with socialism.
Bill Ayers, Obama’s close associate, is a good example of Lenin gone Wells, or a revolutionary socialist becoming a social liberal. The difference is that the revolutionary socialist plants bombs, the social liberal works from within the system to achieve the same ends over a longer period of time.
The major shift from classical liberalism to social liberalism, required redefining government power
In the United States, Social Liberalism took over the Democratic party in the early 20th century. That fundamental shift can be seen by comparing Grover Cleveland to Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
As the last Classical Liberal Democratic President, Grover Cleveland was a firm believer in controlling the size of government, cutting taxes and vetoing most spending bills. He worked to reform the Federal government when needed, had little liking for unions or socialists and believed the Federal government should stay out of most affairs. This did not make him unusual, but in line with classical liberals all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.
A mere twenty and forty years later, the next two Democratic Presidents, Wilson and FDR, were enthusiastic about expanding government and using its power to bring about social justice. The newly transformed Democratic Presidency believed that government should be in the business of regulating everything and poking its nose in everywhere. By the time FDR was using government regulation to control the price of meat and putting unions in the driver’s seat, socialism was well and truly here.
The Democratic party had gone from being classically liberal to socially liberal. Where the classical liberal thought that big government should leave people alone, and treated rights as freedom from government tyranny… the social liberal thought that government should control people to enforce social justice and disdained rights as “negative freedoms”, instead favoring “positive freedoms” that would involve government abridging rights to create social and economic equality.
The major shift from classical liberalism to social liberalism, required redefining government power. Where classical liberals saw government power as a tyrannical force that needed to be controlled, social liberals saw government power as a benign tyranny that could be used to check the greater danger of unregulated social and economic systems.
Classical liberals believed freedom came from ending government intervention that created inequality. Social liberals believed that equality was more important than freedom, and that it could only be achieved by curbing anything that prevented equality.
FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society
The Social Liberal takeover of the Democratic party was not complete with Wilson or FDR. It isn’t complete today either, as there are Classical Liberal Democrats still in Congress and in various state governments. But with Obama, the Social Liberal takeover has reached almost revolutionary proportions.
The two great Social Liberal moments in the 20th century came as political opportunities resulting from crises. FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society were agile exploitations of an economic and social crisis that enabled them to push through a Social Liberal agenda that fundamentally altered the relationship between Americans and the Federal Government.
Obama’s ascension to power represents the Third Wave of Social Liberalism in America, exploiting the so-called economic crisis to execute an equally far reaching Social Liberal program. What the Marxists in Russia or Latin America have tried to do in a matter of years, Social Liberals in Europe and America have waited decades and even over a century to push through.
With a free market economy and a long tradition of stubborn individualism, America represented the Social Liberal’s greatest challenge. The Open Conspiracy has slowly worked to undermine that, emphasizing the security of government collectivism, pushing community over country, class and race over citizenship, and collectivization based thinking over individualism. Meanwhile America’s cultural values and national standards have been chipped away at, making it possible for the vulgar adolescent charade that was the 2008 election to take place.
By embracing social liberalism, the party of Jefferson broke down the “wall of separation” between government and the individual that served as the Constitutional guarantee of civil liberties against a tyrannical government. Social liberalism meant the end of individual rights and the beginning of civil rights with government authority placed above all else. And by doing so the Democratic party replaced individual freedoms with an all encompassing bureaucracy, and liberty with socialism, and now with Obama, America stands on the verge of closing the gap between Wells and Lenin, between the Evolutionary Collectivist and the Marxist.
Nationalization, the Welfare State and Bureaucracies to control every aspect of human behavior
Nationalization, the Welfare State and Bureaucracies to control every aspect of human behavior are just some of the building blocks of the emerging “Great Society”, the socialism with a human face that Social Liberals have aimed at for well over a century. Unlike Lenin’s revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, our transition to a Marxist system was meant to be gradual and seamless. Like a lobster in a pot of boiling water, the temperature was being turned up slowly and gradually. Even now when banks are being nationalized and major automakers turned over to union ownership, it is mainly people over 40 who are even noticing that anything is wrong.
The Revolution as it turns out will not be brought to you by Coke, but by Pepsi. Flags will be waved, even though they are no longer American flags. A new symbol has been created, a new seal has been set and a new America is being planted over the protesting remains of the old. But the struggle remains the same.
The question is, will we choose to be free or slaves. Will we protect our freedom from government, or give up our freedom to government. Will we come out of the shadows of Obama and the Social Liberal revolution of 2008, or will a new Iron Curtain rise over the land of the free and the home of the brave.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Greenfield  Bio
Daniel Greenfield Most recent columns
Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and freelance commentator. “Daniel comments on political affairs with a special focus on the War on Terror and the rising threat to Western Civilization. He maintains a blog at Sultanknish.blogspot.com.
Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com

Super Reagan Sunday

Linda Chavez Linda Chavez – Fri Feb 4, 3:00 am ET

Creators Syndicate – Happy Birthday, President Reagan
Feb. 6 marks the centennial of Ronald Reagan's birth, but the day had meaning for me even before I went to work for President Reagan in 1983. My father, Rudy, who died at age 60 in a car wreck in 1978, shared Reagan's birthday, and I often wondered what he would have thought had he lived to see his daughter working in the White House — and for a Republican president.
Rudy was a staunch Democrat of the New Deal variety. He'd grown up destitute during the Depression and dropped out of school in ninth grade. He joined FDR's Civilian Conservation Corps to help put food on the table for his mother and siblings, while his father served more than 10 years in Fort Leavenworth prison for selling bootleg whiskey during Prohibition. But I think if he had lived a few more years, Rudy would have become as big a fan of Reagan as I was.
Like many Democrats of his era, Rudy was staunchly anti-communist, believed anyone who was physically able should work and not take government handouts, and loved the United States with every fiber of his being. The proudest moments of his life were serving his country in World War II as a tail gunner in the Army Air Corps over New Guinea, where he was shot down. He believed we were the greatest nation in the history of the world. If my father had lived until 1980, I can't help but believe he'd have voted for Reagan, as I did, even though at the time, I was still a registered Democrat.
It's hard for many people to remember just how discouraged many Americans felt in 1980. In the previous decade, the United States had suffered a humiliating loss of nerve, if not outright defeat, in Vietnam. We'd witnessed Soviet expansion in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Central America. Fifty-two Americans were being held hostage in Iran — for more than a year — after attempts to rescue them had failed miserably, leaving eight American servicemen dead in the desert. The economy was in recession; mortgage rates were 13 percent and the prime rate went over 20 percent during the year; inflation was running at almost 14 percent and unemployment at 7.5 percent.
Reagan gave Americans hope — but he also changed the country, dramatically and quickly. His policies reined in inflation, allowed Americans to keep more of the money they earned, and helped create jobs in the private sector — the largest peacetime expansion since World War II — by lowering tax rates. But even more importantly, in my view, Reagan rebuilt the nation's defenses, helped stop the expansion of communism in our own hemisphere, and advanced the development of new weapons that made it impossible for the Soviets to keep up, which hastened the fall of the Soviet Union.
When I went to work for Reagan, first as director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and later as director of public liaison in the White House, I got to see the president up close. It wasn't until then that I fully realized what kind of man he was. He wasn't just a great leader; he was a funny, warm, compassionate person. He went out of his way to recognize ordinary people doing the unglamorous work that keeps the country moving.
Once, when we were travelling in the backseat of the presidential limousine, he apologized that he couldn't look at me while we talked because it was important to the people lining the streets that he wave at them and catch their eye.
"They'll be telling their grandkids about the day they saw the president of the United States," he said, humbly, as if his own personal magnetism had nothing to do with the reason they'd come out in the first place.
My husband will always be the most important influence in my life. But President Reagan and my father were each a close second. So, on Feb. 6, I'll be thinking of both men. Happy Birthday.
Linda Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal." To find out more about Linda Chavez, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Welcome to Bithlo!

Hey Thanks for visiting this site! I decided I wanted to have a website for Bithlo, and since I ran out of beer, here I am! More to come soon!

Beer Socialism Analogy (Kinda long folks)

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this (so pay attention):
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said,
“I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.
“Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. (a tax reduction)
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the PAYING customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from every body’s share,
then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. (a democrat)
He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got TEN times more than I!” (the democratic party)
“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” (more democrats)
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. (it would appear lead by Jim)
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia