Free Food

[topless]

This makes too much sense…wonder only why our elected representatives don’t get it and act accordingly
My elderly, retired Mother of 78 bought a bird feeder. She hung it on her back porch and filled it with seed. Within a week she had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food. Soon after, the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue.
Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table...everywhere. Then some of the birds turned mean: They would dive bomb Mother and try to peck her even though she had fed them out of her own pocket. Still the birds were boisterous and loud: They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that she fill it when it got low on food.
After a while, Mom couldn't even sit on her own back porch anymore. She took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. She cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio. Soon, the back yard was like it used to be...quite, serene and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.
Now let's see . . . our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care, free education and allows anyone born here to be a automatic citizen.
Then the illegal's came by the millions. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for more “free” services; small apartments are housing 5 families: you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor: your child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English.
Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to press "one" to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than "Old Glory" are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.
Maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.

['75 Miller]

Well stated. I wish there was a chance in hell that they'd take the bird feeder down, but there's too many sheeple that want the feeder built BIGGER.
Just look at the pos senator kennedy in taxachussetts...he wanted to allow 10's of millions MORE birds to be allowed into the country (family members of border-jumpers) for the sake of "family unity". Think he'll ever be voted out?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Well stated. I wish there was a chance in hell that they'd take the bird feeder down, but there's too many sheeple that want the feeder built BIGGER.
Just look at the pos senator kennedy in taxachussetts...he wanted to allow 10's of millions MORE birds to be allowed into the country (family members of border-jumpers) for the sake of "family unity". Think he'll ever be voted out?
Miller, just a reminder that our brilliant Republican Prez was all over letting those birds you speak of flock into this Country.
I may be wrong on this one but it seems that there are fewer people on the welfare roles today than there was some years ago. I will have to look it up to confirm. Personally, I am not into the give away mentality at all. I have always believed that those who are on the Govt's so called handout roles, should be forced to work for what they are provided. Picking up trash, cleaning public toilets or something.

[centerhill condor]

I may be wrong on this one but it seems that there are fewer people on the welfare roles today than there was some years ago. I will have to look it up to confirm.
then why post? just 'cause its free?
CC

[ULTRA26 # 1]

then why post? just 'cause its free?
CC
Sorry CC, not sure I understand.
A follow up:
THEN AND NOW:
The law signed by President Clinton on Aug. 22, 1996, has transformed the way the nation helps its neediest citizens. Gone is the promise of a government check for parents raising children in poverty. In its place are 50 state programs to help those parents get jobs.
In the 12 years since caseloads peaked at 5.1 million families in 1994, millions have left the welfare rolls for low-paying jobs. Nearly 1 million more have been kicked off for not following states' rules or have used up all the benefits they're allowed under time limits. Today, 1.9 million families get cash benefits; in one-third of them, only the children qualify for aid. About 38% of those still on welfare are black, 33% white and 24% Hispanic.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Sorry CC, not sure I understand.
A follow up:
THEN AND NOW: How three families have come through | Your thoughts?
The law signed by President Clinton on Aug. 22, 1996, has transformed the way the nation helps its neediest citizens. Gone is the promise of a government check for parents raising children in poverty. In its place are 50 state programs to help those parents get jobs.
In the 12 years since caseloads peaked at 5.1 million families in 1994, millions have left the welfare rolls for low-paying jobs. Nearly 1 million more have been kicked off for not following states' rules or have used up all the benefits they're allowed under time limits. Today, 1.9 million families get cash benefits; in one-third of them, only the children qualify for aid. About 38% of those still on welfare are black, 33% white and 24% Hispanic.
He signed it under great protest, and he only signed it because it passed with such a large majority (aka a "veto proof" 2/3+) and his veto would surely be overridden. Giving Clinton /Gore credit for that welfare reform bill (that they so vigorously opposed) makes about as much sense as blaming Herbert Hoover for the Smoot/Hawley Tarriffs.

[QuickJet]

Sorry CC, not sure I understand.
A follow up:
THEN AND NOW:
The law signed by President Clinton on Aug. 22, 1996, has transformed the way the nation helps its neediest citizens. Gone is the promise of a government check for parents raising children in poverty. In its place are 50 state programs to help those parents get jobs.
In the 12 years since caseloads peaked at 5.1 million families in 1994, millions have left the welfare rolls for low-paying jobs. Nearly 1 million more have been kicked off for not following states' rules or have used up all the benefits they're allowed under time limits. Today, 1.9 million families get cash benefits; in one-third of them, only the children qualify for aid. About 38% of those still on welfare are black, 33% white and 24% Hispanic.
That was the then (which was written by the Republican congress and Clinton signed it) The Democrat Congress of today would NEVER care to reform our Welfare system to the point where it only assists AMERICAN Citizens.
We have had a lot more illegals slip past our boarders in the last 11-12 years. And those where only the children qaulified (1 third), those are the illegals.

[Schiada76]

Miller, just a reminder that our brilliant Republican Prez was all over letting those birds you speak of flock into this Country.
I may be wrong on this one but it seems that there are fewer people on the welfare roles today than there was some years ago. I will have to look it up to confirm. Personally, I am not into the give away mentality at all. I have always believed that those who are on the Govt's so called handout roles, should be forced to work for what they are provided. Picking up trash, cleaning public toilets or something.
Damn you have a poor memory, read some of our posts from the conservatives here regarding the presidents support of amnesty, we are way more pissed than you are. I changed my registration because of it.
That's one of the biggest differences between liberals and conservatives, you still support a president that suborns perjury, commits perjury and accepts bribes. You would have voted for clinton for another term. Maybe that's why you feel the need to remind us we are pissed at President Bush. Think about it.:rolleyes:
There are fewer people on the welfare rolls because the Republican majority Congress had WELFARE REFORM passed when Clintoon as in office.
Don't you remember that? He signed it the THIRD time it came to his desk because he was advised it would be political suicide not to.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

He signed it under great protest, and he only signed it because it passed with such a large majority (aka a "veto proof" 2/3+) and his veto would surely be overridden. Giving Clinton /Gore credit for that welfare reform bill (that they so vigorously opposed) makes about as much sense as blaming Herbert Hoover for the Smoot/Hawley Tarriffs.
That was the then (which was written by the Republican congress and Clinton signed it) The Democrat Congress of today would NEVER care to reform our Welfare system to the point where it only assists AMERICAN Citizens.
So where are the NOW figures? We have had a lot more illegals slip past our boarders in the last 11-12 years.
Who gives a damn who signed it or where originated. It became law in 1996 and it has reduced the size of the welfare roles. You guys see a Democrat's name in a post, in support of my prior comment, and you attack. You guys amaze me.
Are you really so closed minded as to believe that a Democrat has never done anything positive?
The law signed, under great protest, by President Clinton on Aug. 22, 1996, which originated in the Republican congress, and had enough votes to override a Presidential Veto, etc.
How's that? Are you both happy. :)

[eliminatedsprinter]

Who gives a damn who signed it or where originated. It became law in 1996 and it has reduced the size of the welfare roles. You guys see a Democrat's name in a post, in support of my prior comment, and you attack. You guys amaze me.
Are you really so closed minded as to believe that a Democrat has never done anything positive?
The law signed, under great protest, by President Clinton on Aug. 22, 1996, which originated in the Republican congress, and had enough votes to override a Presidential Veto, etc.
How's that? Are you both happy. :)
Tickled pink.;)
:D :D :D ;)
P.S. Sure a Democrat has done something Positive. Here I will give you 2 examples.
#1. Mayor Tom Bradley brought the Olympics to L.A. dispite the criticism of both the Repubs and his own party and it was a HUGE success,:D despite the Eastern block boycott, that President Carter caused by his goofy boycott of Moscow in 1980.
#2. Zel Miller made up for some of the sins of his segregationist past by helping to keep Sen John Kerry from becoming President.:D ;)

[Blown 472]

Miller, just a reminder that our brilliant Republican Prez was all over letting those birds you speak of flock into this Country.
I may be wrong on this one but it seems that there are fewer people on the welfare roles today than there was some years ago. I will have to look it up to confirm. Personally, I am not into the give away mentality at all. I have always believed that those who are on the Govt's so called handout roles, should be forced to work for what they are provided. Picking up trash, cleaning public toilets or something.
Who stands to benifit the most from giving the illigals aminsty?

[topless]

I think I should post this in the sandbar. They should have fun with it and I'll get to watch the drama.:D :D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Who stands to benifit the most from giving the illigals aminsty?
Businesses that employee illegal labor, come to mind

[eliminatedsprinter]

Who stands to benifit the most from giving the illigals aminsty?
2 Main groups.
Businesses that want underpriced labor.
Leftist and Poverty demqagoging politicians, who want an impoverished underclass and de facto (seems to be my fancy phrase of the day;) ) captive voting block of people who are dependent on various government programs.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

2 Main groups.
Businesses that want underpriced labor.
Leftist and Poverty demqagoging politicians, who want an impoverished undrclass/captive voting block of people, who are dependent on various govenment programs.
"Leftist and Poverty demqagoging politicians, who want an impoverished undrclass/captive voting block of people"
ES this comment is pretty deep. You can't possibly beleive this.
We all are aware of your conservative beliefs, some of which I admire. This comment truly doesn't sound like ES the thinker.
Last time I checked, illegals couldn't vote.

[eliminatedsprinter]

"Leftist and Poverty demqagoging politicians, who want an impoverished undrclass/captive voting block of people"
Ultra: "ES this comment is pretty deep. You can't possibly beleive this."
ES: "Nevertheless I do.":)
Ultra: "We all are aware of your conservative beliefs, some of which I admire. This comment truly doesn't sound like ES the thinker."
ES: "Thats because I say with a lower kind of goofy voice.";)
Ultra: Last time I checked, illegals couldn't vote.
ES: "Yet they often do in states that don't require ID (like Ca).
Their offspring can.
The ones who recieved the Reagan Amnisty can.
The ones that would have recieved the Bush/McCain/Kennedy amnisty no doubt could have once they cut in line (via "the path to citizenship") ahead of all of the legally sponsored and responsible people who have been waiting to go through the current legal process.
Besides, they are only part of the poverty picture, that the leadership of the left exploits."

[QuickJet]

.
Last time I checked, illegals couldn't vote.
And criminals can't own guns either right?? If an illegal has the sources to hijack a Social Security number and obtain a phony drivers license then by all means they can vote. And lets not forget about the anchor babies voting when they come of age.

['75 Miller]

Miller, just a reminder that our brilliant Republican Prez was all over letting those birds you speak of flock into this Country.
I may be wrong on this one but it seems that there are fewer people on the welfare roles today than there was some years ago. I will have to look it up to confirm. Personally, I am not into the give away mentality at all. I have always believed that those who are on the Govt's so called handout roles, should be forced to work for what they are provided. Picking up trash, cleaning public toilets or something.
Wrong. The birds...beaners I was referring to were the 10's of millions that are currently in mexico (mostly) that kennedy's amendment would have allowed to come here, just because their sneaky relatives had already successfully broken in.

['75 Miller]

Miller, just a reminder that our brilliant Republican Prez was all over letting those birds you speak of flock into this Country.
I may be wrong on this one but it seems that there are fewer people on the welfare roles today than there was some years ago. I will have to look it up to confirm. Personally, I am not into the give away mentality at all. I have always believed that those who are on the Govt's so called handout roles, should be forced to work for what they are provided. Picking up trash, cleaning public toilets or something.
Don't get me wrong Bush's treason was bad enough. But kennedy's amendment "for the sake of family unity" was FAR worse. For those who don't remember, that pos wanted to allow the mothers, fathers, brothers, kids etc. of the border-jumpers here now to come to OUR COUNTRY as well.

['75 Miller]

Who gives a damn who signed it or where originated. It became law in 1996 and it has reduced the size of the welfare roles. You guys see a Democrat's name in a post, in support of my prior comment, and you attack. You guys amaze me.
Are you really so closed minded as to believe that a Democrat has never done anything positive?
The law signed, under great protest, by President Clinton on Aug. 22, 1996, which originated in the Republican congress, and had enough votes to override a Presidential Veto, etc.
How's that? Are you both happy. :)
Closed minded? Were it not for Republicans balking at the AMNESTY BILL the leftocrats would have rammed it down our throats.
You only admit clinton didn't really want to reform welfare AFTER someone pointed it out for you. If left unchallenged you'd likely have continued to list that as one of clinton's "accomplishments".
Name some demorat accomplishments in the area of national security, or border security, if you would.

[Blown 472]

2 Main groups.
Businesses that want underpriced labor.
Leftist and Poverty demqagoging politicians, who want an impoverished underclass and de facto (seems to be my fancy phrase of the day;) ) captive voting block of people who are dependent on various government programs.
Ding, and who are they going to put out of work?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

ES: "Yet they often do in states that don't require ID (like Ca).
Their offspring can.
The ones who recieved the Reagan Amnisty can.
The ones that would have recieved the Bush/McCain/Kennedy amnisty no doubt could have once they cut in line (via "the path to citizenship") ahead of all of the legally sponsored and responsible people who have been waiting to go through the current legal process.
Besides, they are only part of the poverty picture, that the leadership of the left exploits."
And criminals can't own guns either right?? If an illegal has the sources to hijack a Social Security number and obtain a phony drivers license then by all means they can vote. And lets not forget about the anchor babies voting when they come of age.
Blown's question:
Who stands to benifit the most from giving the illigals aminsty?
So all of those who receive amnesty are going to through all of the BS to obtain whatever is necessary to vote, just so they can vote for a Democrat? This seems like a stretch to me.
Just to clarify, I'm in no way in favor of amnesty for illegals. We haven't even figured out how to handle the problem of legal immigration.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Closed minded? Were it not for Republicans balking at the AMNESTY BILL the leftocrats would have rammed it down our throats.
You only admit clinton didn't really want to reform welfare AFTER someone pointed it out for you. If left unchallenged you'd likely have continued to list that as one of clinton's "accomplishments".
Name some demorat accomplishments in the area of national security, or border security, if you would.
Your Republican President was one of the main sponsers of the POS AMNESTY BILL
You see Clinton's name and immediately start firing. READ MY POST AND THE POST THAT FOLLOWED.
I may be wrong on this one but it seems that there are fewer people on the welfare roles today than there was some years ago. I will have to look it up to confirm.
The law signed by President Clinton on Aug. 22, 1996, has transformed the way the nation helps its neediest citizens. Gone is the promise of a government check for parents raising children in poverty. In its place are 50 state programs to help those parents get jobs.
In the 12 years since caseloads peaked at 5.1 million families in 1994, millions have left the welfare rolls for low-paying jobs. Nearly 1 million more have been kicked off for not following states' rules or have used up all the benefits they're allowed under time limits. Today, 1.9 million families get cash benefits; in one-third of them, only the children qualify for aid. About 38% of those still on welfare are black, 33% white and 24% Hispanic.
My posts had nothing to do with Clinton's position on welfare. Don't you think I know better by now?
There hasn't been much in the way of National or Border Security that has come from either side in a long time.

['75 Miller]

Blown's question:
Who stands to benifit the most from giving the illigals aminsty?
So all of those who receive amnesty are going to through all of the BS to obtain whatever is necessary to vote, just so they can vote for a Democrat? This seems like a stretch to me.
Just to clarify, I'm in no way in favor of amnesty for illegals. We haven't even figured out how to handle the problem of legal immigration.
Before handling the legal immigration problem we need to remove the ILLEGALS we have here now. I strongly believe we could deport 80-90% of 'em within 2 years if we ended ALL catch and release and "sanctuary city" bs and just kept the buses runnin'. Targeted raids, no-mercy deportations and extreme penalties on businesses that use these invaders.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Before handling the legal immigration problem we need to remove the ILLEGALS we have here now. I strongly believe we could deport 80-90% of 'em within 2 years if we ended ALL catch and release and "sanctuary city" bs and just kept the buses runnin'. Targeted raids, no-mercy deportations and extreme penalties on businesses that use these invaders.
I don't disagree but it isn't going to happen. There is way to much Conservative and Liberal owned big business that are dependent on the illegal labor force, especially in the Southwest.
Immigration both legal and illegal is a f'n nightmare in this Country.
Have you seen the video on the effect of legal immigration that Rex had up a while back. It's scary. If not maybe he will put it up again. It's worth watching.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Blown's question:
Who stands to benifit the most from giving the illigals aminsty?
So all of those who receive amnesty are going to through all of the BS to obtain whatever is necessary to vote, just so they can vote for a Democrat? This seems like a stretch to me.
Just to clarify, I'm in no way in favor of amnesty for illegals. We haven't even figured out how to handle the problem of legal immigration.
I remember your position on the amnisty issue. That is the only issue that all of us you, me, blown, tex, smokin etc were all on the same page on. It was amazing (and major proof of how out of touch the poiticians of both parties are on this issue).
Nope they are going through all that BS so that they can vote republician.;)
Come on, think it through a little better and from the point of view of an exploitive politician looking to demagogue poverty and exploit the poor.
They go into poor communities like Robin Hood talking against the greedy rich and promise them the moon (this was done long ago in most poor districts), they also get many hooked on social programs, then they capitolize on fears that those nasty Republicians are going to take away cousin Sally with the 5 bad kid's section 8 housing, or their crazy uncle Larry's disability check...The whole impoverished district would rather eat rocks than vote for a Repuplician, even though their neighboorhood has done nothing but decline in the 40+ years it has been under Democrat controll.
Face it:
Democrats see poor people as a resource to exploit.
Republicians see poor people as strange little beings that they don't understand.
Illegal immgration is the mass importation of poverty and as a general rule (politically) the Democratic party benefits from poverty far more than the Repulician Party does and they know it.
P.S. The same holds true for how the 2 parties see Black Americians as well.
If the Republician Party had a clue on how Poverty and Minority politics works Condi Rice would be VP and George Bush and all the Nation's Republician Governors would be pushing to cut the tax on lottery winnings. It is an unfortunate reality that in identity/ethnic politics short term gestures often mean far more than long term and (often painful in the short term) solutions. The Democrats well understand this and they have mastered the playing of Poverty and Ethnic politics. While the Republicians are clueless and they suck at it.

[Blown 472]

Lets sum it up shall we?
President elected by americans for america trying like hell to give america away to people that dont belong here, no is in bed with ****ing commies and hands them the keys to my country, he might as well piss on all the graves of the people that died fighting those lil pinko bastards and you have the ****ing nerve to call me un american??

[Schiada76]

Lets sum it up shall we?
President elected by americans for america trying like hell to give america away to people that dont belong here, no is in bed with ****ing commies and hands them the keys to my country, he might as well piss on all the graves of the people that died fighting those lil pinko bastards and you have the ****ing nerve to call me un american??
The biggest problem we have is you just described Clinton and Bush.:(

['75 Miller]

Lets sum it up shall we?
President elected by americans for america trying like hell to give america away to people that dont belong here, no is in bed with ****ing commies and hands them the keys to my country, he might as well piss on all the graves of the people that died fighting those lil pinko bastards and you have the ****ing nerve to call me un american??
Yes, I do. But it takes no nerve, only common sense and the ability to read at a 4th grade level. Your posts show little more than that you're unAmerican, bordering on anti-American. Oh, and that you're anti-jew, anti-israel, and pro-"palestinian"

[Blown 472]

Yes, I do. But it takes no nerve, only common sense and the ability to read at a 4th grade level. Your posts show little more than that you're unAmerican, bordering on anti-American. Oh, and that you're anti-jew, anti-israel, and pro-"palestinian"
You are right, wanting to keep our economy strong, keep americans at work makes me un american then so be it, at least I didn't vote for some pos that is trying like hell to give the country and your jobs away.

['75 Miller]

You are right, wanting to keep our economy strong, keep americans at work makes me un american then so be it, at least I didn't vote for some pos that is trying like hell to give the country and your jobs away.
Right...Is it safe to assume you voted for gore and kerry then?
Bush's attempts at amnesty are unexcusable, what can I say? I'm in favor of forcibly removing every last border-jumper in the land. But let's not forget Bush was all but alone in his traitorous views with regard to the illegal problem. Very few Republicans were on board, whereas the vast majority of the demorats were in lock-step.
I'd like to hear how you justify your comments about Bush and the chins, but I've read enough of your posts to know you probably won't.

[Blown 472]

Right...Is it safe to assume you voted for gore and kerry then?
Bush's attempts at amnesty are unexcusable, what can I say? I'm in favor of forcibly removing every last border-jumper in the land. But let's not forget Bush was all but alone in his traitorous views with regard to the illegal problem. Very few Republicans were on board, whereas the vast majority of the demorats were in lock-step.
I'd like to hear how you justify your comments about Bush and the chins, but I've read enough of your posts to know you probably won't.
chins?????????????

['75 Miller]

chins?????????????
chinese. That is who you're referring to with your "selling our country to the commies" crack, isn't it?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Miller,
This may be what blown is referring to and is not something new.
Government Debt- The Greatest Threat to National Security
October 25, 2004
Once again the federal government has reached its “debt ceiling,” and once again Congress is poised to authorize an increase in government borrowing. Between its ever-growing bureaucracies, expanding entitlements, and overseas military entanglements, the federal government is borrowing roughly one billion dollars every day to pay its bills.
Federal law limits the amount of debt the U.S. Treasury may carry, and the current amount-- a whopping $7.4 trillion-- has been reached once again by a spendthrift federal government. Total federal spending, which now exceeds $2 trillion annually, once took more than 100 years to double. Today it doubles in less than a decade, and the rate is accelerating. When President Reagan entered office in 1981 facing a federal debt of $1 trillion that had piled up over the decades, he declared that figure “incomprehensible.” At its present rate of spending, the federal government will soon amass $1 trillion of new debt in just one year.
Government debt carries absolutely no stigma for politicians in Washington. The original idea behind the debt limit law was to shine a light on government spending, by forcing lawmakers to vote publicly for debt increases. Over time, however, the increases have become so commonplace that the media scarcely reports them-- and there are no political consequences for those who vote for more red ink. It’s far more risky for politicians to vote against special interest spending
Since 1969, the federal government has spent more that it received in revenues every year. Even supposed single-year surpluses never existed, but were merely an accounting trick based on stealing IOUs from the imaginary Social Security trust fund. Remember that the total federal debt continued to rise rapidly even during the claimed surplus years. Since Congress is incapable of spending only what the Treasury takes in, it must borrow money. Unlike ordinary debts, however, government debts are not repaid by those who spend the money-- they’re repaid by you and future generations.
The federal government issues U.S. Treasury bonds to finance its deficit spending. The largest holders of those Treasury notes-- our largest creditors-- are foreign governments and foreign individuals. Asian central banks and investors in particular, especially China, have been happy to buy U.S. dollars over the past decade. But foreign governments will not prop up our spending habits forever. Already, Asian central banks are favoring Euro-denominated assets over U.S. dollars, reflecting their belief that the American economy is headed for trouble. It’s akin to a credit-card company cutting off a borrower who has exceeded his credit limit one too many times.
Debt destroys U.S. sovereignty, because the American economy now depends on the actions of foreign governments. While we brag about our role as world superpower in international affairs, we are in truth the world’s greatest debtor. Like all debtors, we are not truly free. China and other foreign government creditors could in essence wage economic war against us simply by dumping their huge holdings of U.S. dollars, driving the value of those dollars sharply downward and severely damaging our economy. Desmond Lachman, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, states that foreign central banks “Now have considerable ability to disrupt U.S. financial markets by simply deciding to refrain from buying further U.S. government paper.” Former Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers warns about “A kind of global balance of financial terror,” noting our dependency on “the discretionary acts of what are inevitably political entities in other countries.”

[3 daytona`s]

This makes too much sense…wonder only why our elected representatives don’t get it and act accordingly
My elderly, retired Mother of 78 bought a bird feeder. She hung it on her back porch and filled it with seed. Within a week she had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food. Soon after, the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue.
Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table...everywhere. Then some of the birds turned mean: They would dive bomb Mother and try to peck her even though she had fed them out of her own pocket. Still the birds were boisterous and loud: They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that she fill it when it got low on food.
After a while, Mom couldn't even sit on her own back porch anymore. She took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. She cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio. Soon, the back yard was like it used to be...quite, serene and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.
Now let's see . . . our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care, free education and allows anyone born here to be a automatic citizen.
Then the illegal's came by the millions. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for more “free” services; small apartments are housing 5 families: you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor: your child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English.
Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to press "one" to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than "Old Glory" are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.
Maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.
ARE YOU HAPPY?:)