Let’s say you have $500 that you want to loan to someone at a reasonable rate of interest.  Let’s say you have narrowed your loan candidates down to two possibilities.  The first possibility is to loan the money to a member of your own family.  You realize the interest rate might be a little lower but you trust your family member to honor the loan and repay it.

Your second possibility is to loan the money to a rich person across town who seems to have more money than they need and they just choose to borrow money to maintain a certain standard of living.  Your realize the rich person on the other side of town is a spendthrift, but they have great references and you have a lot of faith in their ability to survive difficulty and keep on trucking.

Then, on the brink of pulling the trigger of making the loan to the rich guy you learn some facts about the behavior of the the person:

1.  The rich person has recently embarked on an incredible spending spree and has done it on borrowed money.  As a matter of fact you learn that almost 50% of every dollar they spend is borrowed from other people, like you!

2.  The rich person has been totally ignoring warnings from its lenders that the borrowed money they are spending is toxic and deadly to their long term survival.  Yet, the person continues to spend in an irresponsible rush to disaster.

Armed with these new facts you decide that you don’t want to loan your $500 to the irresponsible rich person and elect to loan your money instead to your family member, who is close to home and behaves more responsibly than the rich lunatic across town.

About a year later you learn that the rich person has exhausted its resources to obtain loans and is going bankrupt.  All the people who had loaned money to the rich person in previous years have evaporated.

What’s the meaning of this?

1.  The United States of America is the rich person across town behaving like a lunatic.

2. You represent the foreign investors who are financing the spending spree of the lunatic and have little or no hope of being repaid the $12,000,000,000,000 of debt accumulated by the lunatic.

Here’s the question:  What happens when the lunatic can no longer borrow money to to pay its bills?

Nobody seems to want to know the answer to that question and that is our national crisis.

Dear Jim Bob,

There’s a lot of things going on in America that drive me nuts, but my biggest beef is with the United States Congress.  It seems these people are from a different planet.  They don’t understand what it means to be an American and they pass legislation like a bunch of drunks at an endless party.  Is there anything that can be done to fix that place Jim Bob?

Going Bonkers in Yonkers
Dear Bonkers,

Actually, the solution to this is very simple.  Only two new laws need to be passed and the entire mess would be fixed in nothing flat.  Here are the two laws that are needed:

1. The Congressional Reform Act: This law would require that Congress Persons must live under all the laws they pass for the rest of us.  There would be no congressional exemptions for any legislation passed by Congress.  This would eliminate their windfall retirement plan (100% of full pay for life and fully covered healthcare) and require them to retire under Social Security and Medicare like the rest of us.  Included in this law should be other rules for what they can do with left-over campaign contributions (which can be millions of dollars).  This money should go into the general treasury to be applied to the deficits Congress creates.

2.  The Congressional Term Limits Act: This law would limit Congressional term limits to no more than ten years.  This law alone would do more to fix the place that just about anything else.  This new law coupled with the Reform Act, described above, would make them accountable where it matters:  In their own pocket books!

So, Bonkers this is not a complicated issue.  It’s very simple.  The only problem is that the laws must be passed by the very same group that needs reform.  Only a huge grassroots demand for this kind of legislation would give it a chance of passing.  Personally, if a person running for President made these two laws a key piece of their campaign strategy they would attract a huge public following and support for their proposal.

Dear Jim Bob,

I just read that India sent an unmanned probe to the moon with some sophisticated water detection instruments on board.  They think they have found water on the moon Jim Bob.  Isn’t this just great?

Dee Lirious in Delaware

Dear Dee,

I think this is just thrilling and I’m not talking about the actual water they think they found.  What is thrilling is all the fuss that we are going to hear about this for years to come.  People are already talking about how to harness this resource and frankly, water on the moon is about as useful as a Democrat in Texas.

Let’s say there is some water on the moon.  Since the temperature up there is about 400 below zero we can safely assume its frozen solid.  My question is why do we have to go the moon to get this ice.  Antarctica (The south pole and vicinity) has more ice than we know what to do with and nobody has seen fit to go down there and start hacking off big chunks to float back to the dry regions of the planet.  So, why are all these folks getting excited about finding water on the moon?  Listen carefully and I will explain.

Liberals love to make discoveries and postulate all kinds of possible good things that can be done if they can just get enough tax money to fund their optimism.  This effort by India proves that their country has as many unrealistic intellectuals as the rest of the world.  The Indians are very interested in capitalizing on their big discovery and they want to take the lead in the continuing pursuit of water on the moon.  I can see it now:  Bollywood on ice!

I hope we have enough sense to let the Indians take on the entire responsibility for this project, but they will probably figure out a way to get our Democrat leaders to help them fund their expenses.  The big question is this?  What will the highest and best use for all this water on the moon be?

It is no secret that India has been looking for a new location to house all of the tech support  and customer service phone banks it provides for American businesses.  Now that water has been discovered on the moon, they can move those facilities where they belong.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0p3HKv0wNU

Dear Jim Bob,

I’m just about ready to stop watching the major TV News programs.  Jim Bob, I’m not dumb and I try to keep up with current events.  What I don’t understand is how the news media and the liberals can consistently get things so wrong.  They seem to be more interested in themselves than the truth.  I’m beginning to think they are all a bunch of Narcissists!

Disgusted in Denver

Dear Disgusted,

Maybe you are on to something.  I did a little research about Narcissism and discovered there is a medical condition called Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).  It is evidently a clinical condition and is described as a condition in which there is an inflated sense of self-importance and an extreme preoccupation with one’s self.   I was shocked to discover the actual symptoms of the disorder.  Here are the main indicators:

A person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD):

1. Reacts to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation: This certainly seems to describe President Obama’s and the Democrat’s reaction to public criticism of the Democrat Socialized Medicine Act of 2009.  Anyone who opposes them is now considered to be “Racist”.  Congressman Joe Wilson is the latest victim of this symptom.
2. Takes advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals: Wow, this is Nancy Pelosi in action isn’t it?  You could stuff the entire Global Warming Hoax into this category.
3. Has feelings of self-importance: This one is so obvious it doesn’t require a comment.
4. Exaggerates achievements and talents: This was the primary characteristic of the Democrat Presidential campaign in 2008!  Never has a man or his party who has done so little claimed so have accomplished so much!
5. Is preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love: This may be the best description of the media and of Hollywood that can be found.  And, since most of those folks are liberals it would tend to identify the entire lot of them as “N’s” (I will hence forth abbreviate “Narcissist” by merely using the “N” word).
6. Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment: I can remember when George W. Bush had to beg for primetime TV coverage to deliver an address to the American People.  The Obama Show has almost become a weekly event on network TV.
7. Requires constant attention and admiration: What a combination we have with Democrats, The National Media and the entertainment industry.  It’s a big, unending pile of “N’s”.
8. Disregards the feelings of others, lacks empathy: How else could you describe ignoring the presence of hundreds of thousands of people on the Washington DC Mall to protest big government and writing them off as “Right-wing Extremists”?  This happened on September 12, 2009.

Disgusted, I think you have stumbled on to the core problem of liberalism.

Dear Jim Bob,

I just heard an ad on the radio that Obama and the Democrat’s created. It said we are getting what we voted for. I don’t remember Obama saying anything about Nationalizing the banks, the car industry and the health industry during the election. What are they saying Jim Bob?

Carl Marxalot

Portland, Oregon

Dear Carl,

What’s going on right now with these Democrat Ads? Well, it’s like this Carl. When Obama and the Democrats were running in 2008, they were purposely trying to make people believe they are like the rest of us who work and pay taxes and care about our country. Of course, the truth is they are not like the rest of us, but they couldn’t admit it during the election. They would have lost.

The Obama domestic agenda has now unfolded in plain view of anyone who cares to recognize it and it’s pretty ugly. As people’s eyes are opening to Mr. Obama’s true character and intent, opposition is beginning to form and the last thing the Democrats want is an honest debate about anything they want to do. So, they are now running attack ads against YOU! After all, they say, YOU voted for change and we’re delivering it! Anyone who doesn’t like it is probably a radical- right -wing -nut -conspiracy –community -organizer. So, Carl, Americans are the problem, not the congress or the programs this bunch of hacks is trying to pass.

This health care thing is a perfect example of how dangerous they are. Let’s compare our healthcare system (now) to a person who has discovered they have a non-malignant polyp in their colon. The simple solution is a minor out-patient procedure that just snips the polyp away and the patient goes home to live a great life. What if that same person went in to their Doctor and was told that they would get rid of the polyp by removing the entire colon and routing it outside the body into a bag you would excrete into the rest of your life. In addition, they would also be amputating your left leg in the event it might be related to the polyp, although they can’t prove it. To make sure everything is done to fix your polyp problem they are also going to give you a heart and liver transplant at the same time.

Our current healthcare system has some problems. Like the polyp described above. What Obama is giving us with his “reform” is the heart and liver transplant, the leg amputation and the colon removal all in one nice package. And he doesn’t want us to discuss it. Just lay down and take it like a good American Carl. After all , you voted for change.

©2009, James C. Norman
All Rights Reserved

Dear Jim Bob,

I’ve been reading about this Democrat healthcare law they are trying to pass. Is it true that old people are going to be encouraged to give up and die? I’m 70 years old. Do Obama and the Democrats want me to die Jim Bob? If so, why?

Eileen Enoughisenough

Elgin, Alabama

Dear Eileen,

Lots of information is now coming out about what’s actually in the new Socialized Medicine Bill the Democrats want for all of us, but they will be exempt from participating in themselves. One of the provisions of this new plan requires anyone on Medicare to sit down every five years to be counseled about whether it’s a good idea for them to keep on breathing. Evidently these government “Death Advisors” will be trying to thin out the population of older people.

About two years ago I told a group of people that I believed government mandated euthanasia was in America’s future. Many in the group rolled their eyes and shook their head as if such an idea was ridiculous. Well, golly…here it is right on our doorstep wrapped up in a package by the same, compassionate Democrat party Americans voted into power last November. American’s wanted change and brother are they getting change!

As far as why the Democrats might want you dead Eileen, think about this: For the past 15 years people have been demanding that some kind of “fix” be created to solve the Social Security problem. What is that problem you ask? It’s that when all the baby boomers retire there will be far more people “getting” than there are people giving (those who actually pay taxes) to support them. Are you beginning to get the picture of why “Death Counseling” for the elderly might be a priority item on the Democrat agenda? If they can reduce the number of elderly people getting benefits they might be able to “fix” social security!

It’s a short trip from “Death Counseling” to mandated euthanasia. That’s when, some bureaucrat will be empowered to rule that living 75 years is probably enough for anybody. I’m sure it will be called something like prohibiting existence beyond the “Optimal Beneficial Longevity Standard (OBLS)”. When you exceed the OBLS you will be picked up in a government car and taken to the “Federal Euthanasia Center”. Of course, the Congress will be exempt from this requirement, just as they exempt themselves from many other laws they put into effect.

Obama World is not pretty.

Dear Jim Bob,

I’ve been reading your blog for awhile and I’m getting the impression you don’t care for Democrats. Is that true? Come on Jim Bob, isn’t there a Democrat somewhere that you would vote for?  Surely, there is one!

Mel Moderoso

Modesto, California

Dear Mel,

Hmmm. How could you ever get the opinion that I’m against Democrats? I mean, we are fair and balanced here, right? Yuk Yuk.

Mel, just to set the record straight, the last Democrat I voted for was the peanut farmer from Georgia in 1976 and I learned my lesson from the results of that experience. So, here is my lifelong policy concerning how I vote.

If I even suspect a candidate agrees with a Democrat I will not vote for them. If a candidate is seen riding in the same car, bus, plane or train with a Democrat I will not vote for them. If a candidate happens to live in the same neighborhood with a Democrat I will not vote for them if they live on the same street.

Also, if the candidate lives in any of the following states, I will not vote for them: New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Washington or Oregon.

I will not vote for anyone who lives in any of the following cities: New Orleans, Austin, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Albuquerque, Chicago, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Cleveland or Boulder.

I hope that clarifies my voting policy.

Dear Jim Bob,

Every time the Democrats pass some law that is supposed to help us, I hear their critics say that the law in question is really about giving them more power so they can control our lives. If that’s true, what’s the big deal about getting all that power? I mean, why do they want it so bad and what motivates them to do it.

Olivia Ovisaries

Olympia, Washington

Dear Olivia,

You have asked a great question. To understand power and the people who seek it, you have to go back the high-school experience. When you think about high school there were actually three categories of people. You had High School Conservatives, High School Liberals and High School Moderates. Here’s how it worked:

HIGH SCHOOL CONSERVATIVES: These were the achievers and the people who seemed to win everything. They were pretty much self-reliant and confident. They set goals and were willing to work and sacrifice to get what they valued. However, these people had a few flaws and one of them was to pick on the High School Liberals and some of the Moderates. They made fun of them and sometimes ridiculed the Liberal’s goofy behavior and opinions. Mostly, they did not respect the Liberals and talked down to them. You could say Conservatives had a lack of respect for the Liberals.

HIGH SCHOOL LIBERALS: These were the people who never seemed to be happy and rarely got any real recognition from others. They always seem to finish out of the top 10. Essentially they went through life with a chip on their shoulder and were jealous of the Conservatives. Liberals really believed that the circumstances of their existence were very unfair and were never able to accept the idea that their condition was related to what they did or how they performed. As a result, they developed the idea that they were victims of Conservative manipulation and persecution. This set the stage for Liberals to spend their lives trying to get control of the uncontrollable so they might feel better about themselves.

HIGH SCHOOL MODERATES: These were just Liberals who did not have the courage or the character to become Conservatives.

So, Olivia you can now understand what drives Liberal politicians. They use their legislative power to exact revenge for their high-school experience. They figured out that passing laws that punish “winners” and “successful people” makes those people subservient to them. Those people are now forced to come to the Liberals, hat in hand, and pay homage to their importance. That’s what power represents to Liberals. It creates an environment that forces people they don’t like to treat them as if they are really important. They find they get a lot of attention by the media and they love to get their faces on TV so they can appear to be an expert and wise.  So, what power is really all about is ego and self aggrandizement.

Hope this helped you understand the issue Olivia.

©2009, James C. Norman
All Rights Reserved

Dear Jim Bob,

I’ve had all I can take of your stupid blog! I first heard about it right after you wrote that disgusting post about “Will Democrats Save Us From Cow Farts?”. How dare you trivialize the global warming threat. As you probably know by now I rammed the Global Warming Tax Bill through Congress faster than you can say “HOT”. Unfortunately, a few right-wing extremists forced us to remove the cow fart taxes. It’s time you understood that we in Congress know what is best for Americans and we intend to take over their lives at every level in the next couple of years. Do you realize how much we will control when we get our Socialized Medicine Bill passed (I mean our Healthcare Security Act)? It’s time you conservatives realize that WE won the last election and we are in control! We get to do whatever we want and there’s nothing you can do about it.

N. Pelosi

Washington, DC

Dear N. Pelosi,

Yes, I understand that you lefty’s won the election and are in control. I also remember when Jimmy Carter won the White House in 1976. How well did that turn out? You know Nancy, the biggest problem with your side is that it rarely, if ever, tells the truth about anything. Take the Global Warming tax bill you folks just passed. The scientific “consensus” on the Global Warming hoax has crumbled. More and more scientific testimony is exposing this myth. That is the truth, yet your side is so invested in taxing the life out our economy that you suppress the contrary evidence. The only effect your Global Warming taxes will have will be to increase our energy costs and put us in a competitive hole economically. If you really believed all this Global Warming hysteria you wouldn’t be hot-footing it around the country in your government jet laying down a carbon footprint that “out-carbons” the excesses of Al Gore!

I understand that getting through to you and your kind by way of logic and truth is impossible. Your agenda is to just be in control and to try to stay in control and you’ll do whatever it takes to accomplish it. However, do you have grandchildren Nancy? What kind of country are you leaving them with all your left-wing legislation. Why do you willingly saddle them with debt the likes of which has never been seen in our history? Why do you want them to live in a country that has to compete with one arm tied behind its back? Why do you think individual initiative and personal success has to be handicapped by excessive regulation and taxes? I have lots of other questions but you wouldn’t care about them either.

]]> http://jimbobmail.com/2009/07/13/nancy-what-do-you-really-care-about/feed/ 5 http://jimbobmail.com/2009/03/27/whats-all-this-about-homophobia/ http://jimbobmail.com/2009/03/27/whats-all-this-about-homophobia/#comments Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:17:20 +0000 jimbob http://jimbobmail.com/?p=296

Dear Jim Bob,

I read the other day  that US Congressman Barney Frank referred to Supreme Court Justice Antony Scalia as a homophobe.  Isn’t a ‘phobia’ some kind of condition that involves being afraid of something?  Why would Rep Frank say that a Supreme Court Justice is afraid of gay people or “gayness”.  Come to think of it, I hear lots of people called homophobes.  What’s this about Jim Bob?

Latisimus J. Forscan

Fern Park, Florida

Dear Latisimus,

You ask a legitimate question Latisimus.  To explain this I first need to give you the definition of “Homophobe”.  By the way…did you know there is a ‘Gay Dictionary’?  If you don’t believe me, just Google it.  There is some real interesting reading in the thing.  Anyway, according to the Gay Dictionary,  homophobe is a term that originated in the 1970’s. 

Here’s the definition:  “homophobia: Irrational fear or hatred of gay people and of homosexuality.

Latisimus, the first thing you have to understand is that there are two camps of people when it comes to the subject of homosexuality.  There are people who believe there is nothing morally wrong with people of the same sex playing around with each other’s private parts.  Then, there is another camp of people who believe that same sex activity is a form of sin and a form of sexual  perversion.

The people who believe that homosexuality is morally ‘wrong’ base their opinions on common sense about what is normal and what isn’t normal.  Their opinions are supported by various descriptions of homosexuality in the Bible.  Since the vast majority of human beings are not homosexual, they find  the acts homosexuals perform on each other to be repugnant and offensive, just on the basis of common sense. If you want to understand some of those acts, just go browse through the homosexual dictionary for a couple of hours and you’ll get the picture pretty quick.

The people who believe there is nothing morally wrong with homosexual activity are mostly people who are gay, along with ‘straight’ people they have persuaded to agree with them from a political perspective.  Homophobia is the term the people who like homosexuality use to demonize anyone who disagrees with them. 

When you see that the definition of homophobia  paints people who do not approve of homosexuality as being “irrational”, you can understand why it is used. When people are trying to defend something that is pretty hard to defend on the basis of common sense and right and wrong, they usually resort to name calling to marginalize their opponents.  The way the homosexual lobby does it is by painting all people who disagree with them as being  “irrational”.  In other words, if their opponents can be made to appear as unreasonable, hateful, crazy people, then they don’t have to debate them on the basis of fact, or common sense.

So, Latisimus, Rep Barney Frank, who is gay, accused Supreme Court Justice Scalia of being ‘homophobic’ because Scalia believes homosexuality is a sexual perversion and a sin.  I’m pretty sure Justice Scalia doesn’t hate gay people.  He just has an opinion that is different from Rep Frank.  It is an opinion that Rep Frank is unwilling to debate on the basis of morality, so he chooses to paint Scalia as “irrational”. 

Hope that clears it up for you.

 ©2009, James C. Norman
All Rights Reserved