A man wakes up in the middle of nowhere. He has no money, he doesn’t know where he is and there is absolutely nothing around him, except for a small diner. The man walks towards the diner, where a sign reads “eat all you want, your grandchildren will pay”.
The man walks in, eats like there is no tomorrow and, when he is done, a waitress walks up to him and gives him the bill. “Wait, I read the rules carefully.” says the man.”I know,” replies the waitress “this is your grandfather’s bill.”
That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment: 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.
SARAH PALIN: The chicken crossed the road because, gosh-darn it, he’s a maverick!
BARACK OBAMA: Let me be perfectly clear, if the chickens like their eggs they can keep their eggs. No chicken will be required to cross the road to surrender her eggs. Period.
JOHN McCAIN: My friends, the chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.
HILLARY CLINTON: What difference at this point does it make why the chicken crossed the road?
GEORGE W. BUSH: We don’t really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either with us or against us. There is no middle ground here.
DICK CHENEY: Where’s my gun?
BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken.
AL GORE: I invented the chicken…. and the road.
JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken’s intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.
AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white?
DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won’t realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he is acting by not taking on his current problems before adding any new problems.
OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross the road so badly. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I’m going to give this chicken a NEW CAR so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.
ANDERSON COOPER: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.
NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he’s guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.
PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.
MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way the chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer’s Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.
DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I’ve not been told.
ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain, alone.
GRANDPA: In my day we didn’t ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough for us.
DONALD TRUMP: We should build a wall so the chicken can’t cross the road.
BARBARA WALTERS: Isn’t that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heartwarming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its lifelong dream of crossing the road.
ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.
BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken2014, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken2014. This new platform is much more stable and will never reboot.
ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
Did we go from a nation that could steel its spine for the greater good to a nation of complete pussies? we have taken a nation forged by hard men and women and made it into a latte-sipping, metrosexualized place where the slightest offencive thing is grounds for a lawsuit. Why is it that so many people idolize cops and soldiers who do whatever it takes to get the job done on the big screen and then endlessly complain about the men who do that dirty, tough and chaotic work in the real world?
And How did our political discussions and much of our culture become dominated by whichever pathetic wimps are fastest to cry out that they’re offended or that someone else is being insensitive? Whatever happened to manning up Whatever happened to taking pride in supporting yourself and your family? Whatever happened to the nation that rewards doers, not the people who are most creative about coming up with new ways to claim life is unfair? If America’s future is going to be as bright as its past, we need a lot more tough people who can solve their own problems and a lot fewer wimpy, whining children masquerading as adults.
Neerja Bhanot was a flight attendant for Pan Am, based in Mumbai, India, who was murdered while saving passengers from terrorists on board the hijacked Pan Am Flight 73 on 5 September 1986. She helped save so many lives yet many people don’t know about her. A group of terrorist from the Abu Nidal Organization hijacked the flight she was working on.
The terrorizers instructed her to collect all the passengers passports so they could find out who the Americans were so they could kill them. So her and other flight attendants rounded up all the passports but hid and threw away the American passports. They had to figure out how to get rid of 41 passports so they threw most of them in the trash and hid some under a seat.
So after 17 hours the terrorist started opening fire and setting off explosives. Thanks to Neerja’s quick thinking she opened an emergency exit and started evacuating passengers. She decided to let the passengers off first. Before she could escape she was killed by shielding three children from a hail of bullets.
With insurance money and help from Pan Am a Neerja Bhanot Pan Am Trust was set up by her parents that gives two awards annually. One award goes towards flight attendants that go above and beyond the call of duty and the other award goes towards Indian woman who help fellow women in distress.
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in: CLICK HERE FOR VISUAL GRAPHS Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria…..alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in ‘successfully ridding Australian society of guns….’
You won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it’s too late!
Tom wants an apple. John has an apple and offers it for $1. Tom counter-offers 50 cents. John re-counters at 75 cents. They agree. Sale. John decides this is a business he likes. But he notices other sellers are nearby. So, John needs to be competitive. One day John has some older apples that he normally doesn’t sell. But he thinks they are ok and really needs the income. Tom buys these apples – eats them – and gets sick. Tom returns to John and ask for his money back. John refuses claiming Tom has no proof it was his apples that made him sick. Tom calls his lawyer and sues John to pay for his doctor’s visit. John goes to court and loses. John learns a lesson about the power of the government. Yet, Tom wasn’t alone in reporting bad apples. Others besides John have also been selling bad goods, causing many lawsuits. So, government decides to set up an organization to regulate the production and distribution of apples. John, bothered now by costly new regulations that are threatening the profitability of his apple business decides to befriend the regulators and offer money in exchange for leniency. They agree, albeit covertly, and suddenly John has even better profitability, with his competitors now at a disadvantage. Over the next few years, John expands his apple business, buying up other shops in the region to limit competition. At a certain point, he is able to undercut just about everyone else around due to mass production, putting many small shops out of business. One of the people he put out of business goes to the government and complains that there is no way others can compete with John in the market. The official decides the man is correct and, under public pressure, forces John to break up his apple shop monopoly.
John, who has become quite wealthy by this point, does not like this and quietly arranges for his executive friends to take control of the now divided apple shop monopoly. Then, in secret, the different shops work together to assure they get maximum returns by keeping prices fixed overall, creating a cartel. Over time, John’s public stature in the community grows as he gives to charities, attends fundraisers and makes friends with government officials. John is happy. That is until it comes to his attention that a new apple shop is working to import apples from another town, posing a competitive threat. So, John, who gave generously to financially help a government friend get reelected into office, asks for a return of the favor. That being, to increase the town tariff on apple imports, making the cost is high enough to ensure the other shop would no longer be profitable.
It works. And John is happy again. But not for long. It appears John’s apple farm has been employing illegal workers and paying them very little. A gaggle of annoying human rights activists then come to his farms, causing a stink. John claims he was unaware of the illegal hiring and fires some of his staff as scapegoats. He then rectifies the situation, assuring his regulator friends it was all just an honest error. Unfortunately, one of John’s former staff, upset by being fired, then goes to the authorities with legal documents and memos proving not only that John ordered to hire illegal workers but also revealing payments to the apple shop regulators, the conspiracy to assure cartel power, and the collusion with government officials for the tariff hike. John, after being found guilty on all counts, stands up to face the judge in court: Judge: Do you understand the crimes you have been proven guilt of? John: No Sir. I was only following the ethic of the free-market. Judge: Clearly you must have failed economics as you have engaged in government collusion, conspiracy, price fixing and illegal employment. John: No Sir. I have simply let supply meet demand and voluntary choice decide each action.
Judge: So something like price fixing is not against the theory of free-market practice? Last I checked a free-market was to be free of interference and collusion? John: No Sir. A free-market is having the freedom to trade and compete as you see fit, buying and selling whatever you choose, with all parties voluntary in exchange. Judge: That may be so, but your actions, such as conspiracy in tariff fraud, are clearly going against such principles as you are using force to stifle your competitors. John: Your reasoning confuses me, Sir. All acts of competition exist to stifle and outperform competitors. Only voluntary exchange binds how the act of competition unfolds in a free-market. One does not make your claim when a person purchases advertising, disproportionally exposing a consumer to an item over other competitors. Using government to my advantage is the same thing. Judge: So let me get this straight. You are telling me that the free-market allows for the buying and selling of the very mechanisms designed to regulate the free market? John: That is correct Sir. The free-market includes the freedom to the take away the market freedom of others through the act of competition. Judge: Well, I’m sorry to break it to you John, but not everything in this world can be bought and sold.
Our society was not set up to benefit those with the most money. Your sentence is 15 years in jail or a 50 million dollar fine. The judge then drops his gavel in a bold sign of dignity and satisfaction. John pauses, grins in amusement and pulls out his checkbook. He pays the full fine, gets in his Ferrari and goes back to his mansion in time for a dinner party.