In reference to this article from politicernj.com about Kelly Hart running for the chairmanship of the Republican Party of Sussex County - what can I say?
First, I am not a paid advertisement. Second, she has in a few sentences from the article identified the significant problems within the county, and a clear direction that she would run the campaign if given the opportunity. Third, she has the gusto and moxie needed to make a difference in the electoral process - both in our county and beyond.
We need to kick Menendez out of office, we need that vote in the Senate. His defeat will need to be a state wide run, she can help do it.
I do believe she is conservative enough to meet the needs of the most conservative county in the state.
More power to her, and God Bless her for stepping forward as she has.
Blogging Sussex County and Beyond! Check back on Monday's, Wednesday's and Friday's for more content. As we expand our offerings you will hear and read more. Interesting ideas and great bits of information is coming your way - so be prepared. Class is in Session!
Friday, February 10, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
A 'Nice' President or How to NOT accomplish Change!
If I wanted to have a nice President - I would push to have one of the Wiggles or Mitt Romney. A 'Nice' President won't be able to get the reform and change done that we need in our Country, Congress and Court System. A 'Nice' President won't be able to stare down Congress, nor push to have the NEEDED Reform to renew our country and get it back on the right path.
A 'Nice' President makes sure that we are surrounded by more liberal government pork barrel projects and more 'OBAMACARE' like legislation that will quickly bleed our way of life to nothing.
Make no mistake, this election cycle is vital to our future. Assuming that the Mayans were wrong, and the world will NOT be destroyed this December. We need to make sure that the President and Congress we elect is able to make the needed change to save our country.
I know - Good comment - but what does that mean?
Simply put. The guy who wins office can not be someone who is weak in his conviction - true. But it needs someone who can be unwavering - even to the point where others may see him as offensive. This is exactly what Newt's critics are saying. So, they make my point more effectively.
One of the greatest fragmented memories I have of the story of Ronald Reagan is how during a crisis (I believe it was the Challenger Crisis) Reagan was sitting with his cabinet. The cabinet members were discussing the different possible strategies and what a speech should say. As they went about arguing, Reagan pulled out his yellow pad and wrote his speech. He then had it typed up and distributed as he walked out to the Rose Garden to make his speech.
POINT - He didn't waiver and he didn't need a committee to make his speech or decision on how to hand the crisis. He just did it.
Is this Newt, we can argue if it is or isn't. One thing for sure is that it is most definitely NOT Mitt, Rick or the good Doctor Ron.
A 'Nice' President makes sure that we are surrounded by more liberal government pork barrel projects and more 'OBAMACARE' like legislation that will quickly bleed our way of life to nothing.
Make no mistake, this election cycle is vital to our future. Assuming that the Mayans were wrong, and the world will NOT be destroyed this December. We need to make sure that the President and Congress we elect is able to make the needed change to save our country.
I know - Good comment - but what does that mean?
Simply put. The guy who wins office can not be someone who is weak in his conviction - true. But it needs someone who can be unwavering - even to the point where others may see him as offensive. This is exactly what Newt's critics are saying. So, they make my point more effectively.
One of the greatest fragmented memories I have of the story of Ronald Reagan is how during a crisis (I believe it was the Challenger Crisis) Reagan was sitting with his cabinet. The cabinet members were discussing the different possible strategies and what a speech should say. As they went about arguing, Reagan pulled out his yellow pad and wrote his speech. He then had it typed up and distributed as he walked out to the Rose Garden to make his speech.
POINT - He didn't waiver and he didn't need a committee to make his speech or decision on how to hand the crisis. He just did it.
Is this Newt, we can argue if it is or isn't. One thing for sure is that it is most definitely NOT Mitt, Rick or the good Doctor Ron.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
How the President increased his Paygrade - or God lowered his.
Remember in the last election - the trainwreck of '08. Remember during a conversation with Rick Warren during the last election. Warren asked Obama about Abortion and Obama said a decision like that was above his paygrade. The liberal media's defense at the time was that Obama was talking about God.
After all, the religious zealot that he was, going to church regularly and listening to the Reverend Wright tyrannical and often anti-american speechifying - which the Reverend Wright must never have done while Obama was not in the house, was the cornerstone of the President's strategy to get the Evangelical vote - at least in 08. Today, he must have decided he doesn't need or want that vote, because the number of times that he has been to church, I can count on one hand.
And today our religious zealot of a President decided that he has finally started to make enough to comment on if Abortion is right or wrong. No big surprise to this blogger - he thinks it's not only a constitutional Right - but that it's purpose was to allow women to achieve the same goals as men - so it's an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ENHANCER!
On this, the 39th Anniversary of Roe vs Wade, which as a Wesley Clarke Liberal told me once - It was bad law and bad science of the time for that law to be decided - even if he agreed with it. A principaled argument - certainly someone I can respect more than the someone who makes the comment - 'It's above my paygrade.' And then the President goes as far as to identify how beneficial the killing of babies has been for Women's Rights. Well, could we make the argument that killing innocents in a genocide made it easier for there not to be conflict? No, it's an absurd argument - as absurd as the statement that Abortion has helped Women's Rights.
But what do you expect from a Paycheck President. It's like the conversation Tom Cruise had with Cuba Gooding Jr. in Jerry Maguire Stop being a paycheck player.
The President shamelessly played to his base on this argument.
When we look at the conflict with the Republican Party, and who will be the nominee. We see to many pundits asking and answering the question of if the candidate is 'electable'. What does that mean? What they are really asking is - Is the candidate liberal enough for the media and elites to vote for or the moderates. I'm sorry - these people will NEVER vote for a conservative - even if the Anti-Christ is running for the Presidency for their party (this might even strengthen their base's voter turnout)
The person who is running for the Republican Party NEEDS to be in direct contrast to the President. The Candidate needs to be able to articulate this message and not back down when he is given hardball questions.
We want a candidate who will not dust himself off when the liberal pitcher of the debates throws a ball at him enough to give him some chin music. We need a candidate who will give back more than he got in the traditional debate and in the numerous interviews and other 'gotcha' situations. We need someone who doesn't need a teleprompter to make memorable lines. We need a candidate who after he takes a fall, will get back on that horse and ride it to victory.
This person is NOT Mitt, nor Rick or Paul. It's a NEWT!
After all, the religious zealot that he was, going to church regularly and listening to the Reverend Wright tyrannical and often anti-american speechifying - which the Reverend Wright must never have done while Obama was not in the house, was the cornerstone of the President's strategy to get the Evangelical vote - at least in 08. Today, he must have decided he doesn't need or want that vote, because the number of times that he has been to church, I can count on one hand.
And today our religious zealot of a President decided that he has finally started to make enough to comment on if Abortion is right or wrong. No big surprise to this blogger - he thinks it's not only a constitutional Right - but that it's purpose was to allow women to achieve the same goals as men - so it's an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ENHANCER!
On this, the 39th Anniversary of Roe vs Wade, which as a Wesley Clarke Liberal told me once - It was bad law and bad science of the time for that law to be decided - even if he agreed with it. A principaled argument - certainly someone I can respect more than the someone who makes the comment - 'It's above my paygrade.' And then the President goes as far as to identify how beneficial the killing of babies has been for Women's Rights. Well, could we make the argument that killing innocents in a genocide made it easier for there not to be conflict? No, it's an absurd argument - as absurd as the statement that Abortion has helped Women's Rights.
But what do you expect from a Paycheck President. It's like the conversation Tom Cruise had with Cuba Gooding Jr. in Jerry Maguire Stop being a paycheck player.
The President shamelessly played to his base on this argument.
When we look at the conflict with the Republican Party, and who will be the nominee. We see to many pundits asking and answering the question of if the candidate is 'electable'. What does that mean? What they are really asking is - Is the candidate liberal enough for the media and elites to vote for or the moderates. I'm sorry - these people will NEVER vote for a conservative - even if the Anti-Christ is running for the Presidency for their party (this might even strengthen their base's voter turnout)
The person who is running for the Republican Party NEEDS to be in direct contrast to the President. The Candidate needs to be able to articulate this message and not back down when he is given hardball questions.
We want a candidate who will not dust himself off when the liberal pitcher of the debates throws a ball at him enough to give him some chin music. We need a candidate who will give back more than he got in the traditional debate and in the numerous interviews and other 'gotcha' situations. We need someone who doesn't need a teleprompter to make memorable lines. We need a candidate who after he takes a fall, will get back on that horse and ride it to victory.
This person is NOT Mitt, nor Rick or Paul. It's a NEWT!
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
What's WRONG with the Supreme Court
Judgeship is not an Aristocracy style position. That is something that I have learned about what it should be. However, the opposite has seemed to become true, and the idea, while not expressed that way, is something believed by many people I know and respect. But to be blunt, they are wrong.
Here's the Breakdown:
The concept that the Supreme Court and Judges in general confirm or affirm the Supreme LAW OF THE LAND is a concept that is flawed. It allows no room for changing ideas and concepts of our society. The reason why we (and I mean the general concept of what is taught in our schools and believed by the mass of our society) believe this is based on the idea of the Constitution as a 'Living Document'. This is false hood based on the simple principle that it does not breath or have a mindset to adjust to the changing world. The Constitution was set as the BASIS of what we as a nation can guide our governing by. It's Principle's should be granite that help to guide us, generation after generation. Like Granite, it has been weathered away from the surface of what it was.
If you consider that the Supreme Court is the Law of the Land - then we would still have slavery and segregation within our society. The Supreme Court ruled on these as legitimate ideas and AGREED with them. Why can the Supreme Court make mistakes - because it is run by Human beings. Human beings by definition make mistakes.
The Constitution was developed to be difficult to change. It was meant to be resilient to the daily, weekly or even yearly winds of change. In fact, the Constitution was set to be able to withstand a decade long trend. With the increasing RISE OF THE SUPREME COURT in our society - we are expecting them to rule on everything. Both sides of the political spectrum are expecting the Supreme Court to be the great arbitrator. This is WRONG because they weren't meant to answer EVERY single aspect of society. They weren't meant to have EVERY answer. The Supreme Court was meant as the Arbitrator between the Congress and the President. Not as it's own legislative arm.
Yes, in my opinion there should be no Supreme Court Challenge to Obamacare - the should not have been a bunch of Supreme Court cases because they are based on the falsehood that the Supreme Court is the Supreme Law of the land - as if they trump the other two branches. That was NOT the intended purpose of the Supreme Court. It was not meant as a Supreme Law. It was meant as a check. The Legislature and Executive Branches are suppose to Check the Supreme Court. And ultimately - WE THE PEOPLE Check all Three with Amendments that we put into play through our states.
Here's the Breakdown:
The concept that the Supreme Court and Judges in general confirm or affirm the Supreme LAW OF THE LAND is a concept that is flawed. It allows no room for changing ideas and concepts of our society. The reason why we (and I mean the general concept of what is taught in our schools and believed by the mass of our society) believe this is based on the idea of the Constitution as a 'Living Document'. This is false hood based on the simple principle that it does not breath or have a mindset to adjust to the changing world. The Constitution was set as the BASIS of what we as a nation can guide our governing by. It's Principle's should be granite that help to guide us, generation after generation. Like Granite, it has been weathered away from the surface of what it was.
If you consider that the Supreme Court is the Law of the Land - then we would still have slavery and segregation within our society. The Supreme Court ruled on these as legitimate ideas and AGREED with them. Why can the Supreme Court make mistakes - because it is run by Human beings. Human beings by definition make mistakes.
The Constitution was developed to be difficult to change. It was meant to be resilient to the daily, weekly or even yearly winds of change. In fact, the Constitution was set to be able to withstand a decade long trend. With the increasing RISE OF THE SUPREME COURT in our society - we are expecting them to rule on everything. Both sides of the political spectrum are expecting the Supreme Court to be the great arbitrator. This is WRONG because they weren't meant to answer EVERY single aspect of society. They weren't meant to have EVERY answer. The Supreme Court was meant as the Arbitrator between the Congress and the President. Not as it's own legislative arm.
Yes, in my opinion there should be no Supreme Court Challenge to Obamacare - the should not have been a bunch of Supreme Court cases because they are based on the falsehood that the Supreme Court is the Supreme Law of the land - as if they trump the other two branches. That was NOT the intended purpose of the Supreme Court. It was not meant as a Supreme Law. It was meant as a check. The Legislature and Executive Branches are suppose to Check the Supreme Court. And ultimately - WE THE PEOPLE Check all Three with Amendments that we put into play through our states.
Monday, January 9, 2012
An Election Morass
Which Presidential Candidate can overcome the power of the Media Bias? Which Candidate will not only expect to be attached, but can deflect the media bias?
Over the weekend, I was watching the morning news on ABC, which I admit has been the most critical of the Obama Administration. This has primarily been because ABC News is littered with former Clinton Insiders. They are critical of the Obama Administration not because the President is wrong in his political beliefs, but they are critical of him because they do not want to see him succeed. Because if he does, then their political icons (HRC and BJC will be the ones moving to the back burner even faster then they already are.)
But sitting there, enduring the morning news a thought occurred to me. Which Candidate can handle the onslaught when the Liberal Media Establishment goes after them. There is no way that with the baggage that Paul has - will he be acceptable, nor can you expect Romney (McCain Light) to have the wear with all to make the final run. Santorum looked like he was falling asleep on Greta the other night and I wonder if he has it in him to hold the line - let along fight back. Huntsman who? Rick Perry can't seem to find the script to make the whitty comeback - and let's be honest he's handicapped because he will get labeled another Bushie (even though the truth of the matter was in Texas he is the Anti-George W. Bush). Gingrich has the ability to refute this, if he can get the traction. He has the witty nature to strike back. And honestly, I am leaning his way right now. So keep that in mind as you reflect.
Ultimately, I think the best candidate will be the one that Karl Rove doesn't like. That should be the first distinction we look for. He is an insider and looking out for the establishment candidate - so there goes his boy Romney.
Over the weekend, I was watching the morning news on ABC, which I admit has been the most critical of the Obama Administration. This has primarily been because ABC News is littered with former Clinton Insiders. They are critical of the Obama Administration not because the President is wrong in his political beliefs, but they are critical of him because they do not want to see him succeed. Because if he does, then their political icons (HRC and BJC will be the ones moving to the back burner even faster then they already are.)
But sitting there, enduring the morning news a thought occurred to me. Which Candidate can handle the onslaught when the Liberal Media Establishment goes after them. There is no way that with the baggage that Paul has - will he be acceptable, nor can you expect Romney (McCain Light) to have the wear with all to make the final run. Santorum looked like he was falling asleep on Greta the other night and I wonder if he has it in him to hold the line - let along fight back. Huntsman who? Rick Perry can't seem to find the script to make the whitty comeback - and let's be honest he's handicapped because he will get labeled another Bushie (even though the truth of the matter was in Texas he is the Anti-George W. Bush). Gingrich has the ability to refute this, if he can get the traction. He has the witty nature to strike back. And honestly, I am leaning his way right now. So keep that in mind as you reflect.
Ultimately, I think the best candidate will be the one that Karl Rove doesn't like. That should be the first distinction we look for. He is an insider and looking out for the establishment candidate - so there goes his boy Romney.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
ROMNEY WEAKNESS or It's the Republican's too fail.
The case of the Iowa Caucus:
At first, let me disclose that currently I am struggling with my vote. A) Paul is completely out of the running for me - his foreign policy is just too extreme. B) I like Santorum, but I don't know enough about him to make a judgement of yes or no. C) I like Gingrich because I know he will hammer the President in the Debates and because he can deliver the Conservative Message - he has his bona fides D) I just don't know if Perry has it in him to finish the job of winning against Obama. He will have to overcome the 'Another Texan like George W' syndrome. I liked W, but I'm not the only person voting in this election. And E) Romney is not a consideration for me. Not looking for a used car salesman for President, and I just don't think he can win. So now you know where I am coming from, and my "BIAS". Here's WHY:
A win is still a win. If you win by limping over the finish line while your next closets competitor is running at full blast, and you just happen to have enough distance and time ahead of your opponent to get across the line first - well YOU WON! Just as Rocky Balboa in Rocky II or better yet Apollo Creed "Now, when you beat me, you beat me by one... ONE... second. Now do you know what something like that does to a man of my intelligence?" (He wrote sarcastically.)
We know that Santorum is certainly not feeling bad about his near win - at least he shouldn't. The person here who should feel bad is the anointed one - Romney. Because Iowa didn't show his strength - it showed his weakness. Yes, I said weakness.
Remember he's suppose to be the guy whose drawing in the moderates - because he's not extreme like some of the base want their candidate to be. Remember because of his ability to work with Liberals in Massachusetts - he's suppose to be the perfect candidate to pick off votes from the President.
My first reaction to this is - If you (and I mean all those out there that are interested in voting for Romney) truly believe that Democrats and Moderates will vote for Romney because he isn't extreme, I guess then during the 2008 election what we saw was a lot of people who thought that the policies projected by then Senator Obama was Moderate. If you truly believe this - I have a big piece of property that crosses the East River that you need to buy from me as soon as you can.
Seriously. Understand that the person that is our candidate needs to be a Conservative, someone who can draw a stark contrast between the Left and the Right. This is NOT Romney. To boot - he is vulnerable to the flip flop attacks that crushed Kerry and McCain.
Worse, he doesn't have an anchor. At no point in his past did he truly push a conservative agenda, that's the anchor that he is missing. Unlike Democrats we need our representative to have a solid background, someone who has demonstrated great leadership and or strong conservative values.
Democrats fawned over the empty suit of Barack Obama in 2008. Historically - Conservatives don't look for an empty suit - they look for a REAGAN, who was anything but an empty suit.
Below is an example of Romney Weakness. Review it for yourself. Hat tip to Eric Bolling and THE FIVE for having this piece on their show today.
At first, let me disclose that currently I am struggling with my vote. A) Paul is completely out of the running for me - his foreign policy is just too extreme. B) I like Santorum, but I don't know enough about him to make a judgement of yes or no. C) I like Gingrich because I know he will hammer the President in the Debates and because he can deliver the Conservative Message - he has his bona fides D) I just don't know if Perry has it in him to finish the job of winning against Obama. He will have to overcome the 'Another Texan like George W' syndrome. I liked W, but I'm not the only person voting in this election. And E) Romney is not a consideration for me. Not looking for a used car salesman for President, and I just don't think he can win. So now you know where I am coming from, and my "BIAS". Here's WHY:
A win is still a win. If you win by limping over the finish line while your next closets competitor is running at full blast, and you just happen to have enough distance and time ahead of your opponent to get across the line first - well YOU WON! Just as Rocky Balboa in Rocky II or better yet Apollo Creed "Now, when you beat me, you beat me by one... ONE... second. Now do you know what something like that does to a man of my intelligence?" (He wrote sarcastically.)
We know that Santorum is certainly not feeling bad about his near win - at least he shouldn't. The person here who should feel bad is the anointed one - Romney. Because Iowa didn't show his strength - it showed his weakness. Yes, I said weakness.
Remember he's suppose to be the guy whose drawing in the moderates - because he's not extreme like some of the base want their candidate to be. Remember because of his ability to work with Liberals in Massachusetts - he's suppose to be the perfect candidate to pick off votes from the President.
My first reaction to this is - If you (and I mean all those out there that are interested in voting for Romney) truly believe that Democrats and Moderates will vote for Romney because he isn't extreme, I guess then during the 2008 election what we saw was a lot of people who thought that the policies projected by then Senator Obama was Moderate. If you truly believe this - I have a big piece of property that crosses the East River that you need to buy from me as soon as you can.
Seriously. Understand that the person that is our candidate needs to be a Conservative, someone who can draw a stark contrast between the Left and the Right. This is NOT Romney. To boot - he is vulnerable to the flip flop attacks that crushed Kerry and McCain.
Worse, he doesn't have an anchor. At no point in his past did he truly push a conservative agenda, that's the anchor that he is missing. Unlike Democrats we need our representative to have a solid background, someone who has demonstrated great leadership and or strong conservative values.
Democrats fawned over the empty suit of Barack Obama in 2008. Historically - Conservatives don't look for an empty suit - they look for a REAGAN, who was anything but an empty suit.
Below is an example of Romney Weakness. Review it for yourself. Hat tip to Eric Bolling and THE FIVE for having this piece on their show today.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
The Company of COMA or HOW to NOT elect your President!
What kind of backwards third world company selects it's leader by a small percentage of it's stockholders?
What company picks the one that is 'liked' by the majority and not on the basis of their merit or accomplishments?
What company picks their leader based on the amount of money they draw into their coffers that convince their shareholders that they should pick that individual?
I'm sure you recognize, since you must be an intellectual giant, because you have chosen to read this blog, that I am in fact not talking about a company, but our country. And for the really astute of you I'm sure you have already figured out that I am talking about the Iowa Caucus - and who wants to try and figure that out anyway.
What I am trying to say here is that Iowa doesn't matter - not that our system is messed up. So Iowa doesn't matter - at least as much as people are making it out to sound and certainly not as much as one state in the Union can matter. There are forty nine other states and forty nine other chances for these candidates to get delegates for the convention.
There is an argument that Iowa is a smaller version of America. I think this is missing a larger point, there is NO smaller America. I don't know of anyone in Iowa who shares my same views exactly, or has the same thought processes of me. I am the only person like that, that's what makes us unique and makes us shine.
Keep that in mind this week as you see the pundits make their cases. For myself the only way that Iowa impacts me and helps me in MY decision process is simple. If any candidate is weak kneed enough to bail after this election, then they didn't deserve my vote and time to investigate them. I suggest you have the same thinking.
What company picks the one that is 'liked' by the majority and not on the basis of their merit or accomplishments?
What company picks their leader based on the amount of money they draw into their coffers that convince their shareholders that they should pick that individual?
I'm sure you recognize, since you must be an intellectual giant, because you have chosen to read this blog, that I am in fact not talking about a company, but our country. And for the really astute of you I'm sure you have already figured out that I am talking about the Iowa Caucus - and who wants to try and figure that out anyway.
What I am trying to say here is that Iowa doesn't matter - not that our system is messed up. So Iowa doesn't matter - at least as much as people are making it out to sound and certainly not as much as one state in the Union can matter. There are forty nine other states and forty nine other chances for these candidates to get delegates for the convention.
There is an argument that Iowa is a smaller version of America. I think this is missing a larger point, there is NO smaller America. I don't know of anyone in Iowa who shares my same views exactly, or has the same thought processes of me. I am the only person like that, that's what makes us unique and makes us shine.
Keep that in mind this week as you see the pundits make their cases. For myself the only way that Iowa impacts me and helps me in MY decision process is simple. If any candidate is weak kneed enough to bail after this election, then they didn't deserve my vote and time to investigate them. I suggest you have the same thinking.
Monday, January 2, 2012
The New Mafia?
First Blog of the NEW YEAR - HELLO 2012!
I was thinking (dangerous in many ways), and I came to realize that when you wanted to create your own business decades ago you needed to get permission from the Don (head of the Mob) as well as the Lieutenant who is in charge of the local area, you'd have to be of the right decent, know someone who was of the right decent and then you would have to pay that person off to sponsor you. Of course, let's not forget about the money you had to put out for protection. This in itself could be cost prohibitive, but you could still survive - possibly.
Today, in order to create a business you have to jump a series of hoops, including knowing someone who can help you get started (an accountant or lawyer) and you have to pay them off to get your business started. And of course you have to get permission from the Don or in this case the Don's (state and federal government) as well as the local Lieutenant (local government), and then possibly you could get permission to open your business - as long as you paid off the right 'fees' to make it happen, and got past the zoning and planning board, etc. And unlike the Mob, these guys are completely legit.
And of course, your nation of origin doesn't come into play, and it is much more difficult to start your business of choice today. Let's not even talk about if you plan on putting up a building and the myriad of hoops involved in that. And all in the name of - "FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD!"
Let me make this clear, I am NOT calling the government the new MOB. I am only drawing similarities between the process. Any conclusion reached is YOURS - not MINE!
-verba parum sunt
I was thinking (dangerous in many ways), and I came to realize that when you wanted to create your own business decades ago you needed to get permission from the Don (head of the Mob) as well as the Lieutenant who is in charge of the local area, you'd have to be of the right decent, know someone who was of the right decent and then you would have to pay that person off to sponsor you. Of course, let's not forget about the money you had to put out for protection. This in itself could be cost prohibitive, but you could still survive - possibly.
Today, in order to create a business you have to jump a series of hoops, including knowing someone who can help you get started (an accountant or lawyer) and you have to pay them off to get your business started. And of course you have to get permission from the Don or in this case the Don's (state and federal government) as well as the local Lieutenant (local government), and then possibly you could get permission to open your business - as long as you paid off the right 'fees' to make it happen, and got past the zoning and planning board, etc. And unlike the Mob, these guys are completely legit.
And of course, your nation of origin doesn't come into play, and it is much more difficult to start your business of choice today. Let's not even talk about if you plan on putting up a building and the myriad of hoops involved in that. And all in the name of - "FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD!"
Let me make this clear, I am NOT calling the government the new MOB. I am only drawing similarities between the process. Any conclusion reached is YOURS - not MINE!
-verba parum sunt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)