The Adam Bomb

Rethinking the Tactics of Politics

2010-04-21T12:33:00.000-04:00

As can be read in any economist’s books -- from Levitt’s/Dubner’s Freakonomics to Sowell’s Basic Economics -- economics, although the study of limited resources with alternative uses, is really about identifying the incentives that will cause a population to conduct themselves in a manner of your choosing. This is why mountains are made of molehills so that the voting public can hearken to a call-to-arms, thus allowing politicians to draft omnibus stimulus packages and healthcare legislation which are then signed into law with the support of the screeching, idealistic voting public who have no idea the repercussions of the politicians’ actions.

This happens on both sides of the political aisle. Republicans decry the Boogie Man around the corner, sneaking up on your hidden cache of shotguns or enticing your daughters to get abortions. We cringe at the cadaverous image of Dr. Kervorkian and imagine his hands on our wives or daughters and demand that abortions be made illegal. We celebrate Charleton Heston for bravely telling the limpid left that they’ll have to go over his dead body to get his guns.
We need crises and heroes. It’s imbued into our sense of cultural norm from a very early age. In two hours Sean Connery (or Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan or Daniel Craig) go from a leisurely romp with a lovely lady, to a sudden awareness of the earth’s or freedom’s impending doom, to a daring thwarting with equally racy escape, back to another leisurely romp with a different casual female acquaintance. We have a crisis and a hero, and in the middle a heart-warming, stomach-settling resolution. All in two hours. It must be done this way. That’s the formula. Bruce Willis and company took just over three hours to save Earth from the asteroid, but give them some credit. They needed the extra hour for the shuttle trip.

For centuries, humans have put more stock into the immediate gratification causation than the long-term gratification causation. Even more absurd is that we prefer long-term gratification based on correlation to long-term gratification based on causation as long as the causation gives us the warm-fuzzy. In the first example, tribes in Africa and early America kill a goat or cow and eat its heart and drink its blood as a guarantee of a successful hunt or battle. And even if they don’t kill much in the hunt or in battle, they merely chalk it up to not enough blood-drinking or that the gods were just in a bad enough mood to not accept their offering. But this simple concept has reached new heights.

So when did politics get to be so darn entertaining? I remember my parents watching the State of the Union Addresses. That was just one more reason to read – early 80s TV didn’t offer much for a 10 year old. But to answer my own question, I have to blame political drama on Reagan. He was an actor, after all…and a lover of economics. So the man with a flair for theatricality and an understanding of incentives is easily the one to reset the baseline or raise the bar. My current rambling is not meant to denigrate Reagan – in my opinion, one of the finest Americans to have ever lived and who should be celebrated for a love for his wife so deep even Alzheimer’s couldn’t kill it. (If you’ve ever heard the story about him ambling along, deep in the latter stages of Alzheimer’s, flanked by his Secret Service agents, picking flowers from a stranger’s yard, you will know what I’m talking about.)

My rambling here will address the deep knowledge of incentives and the relative lack of knowledge on how to effectively use them across the political spectrum. I think it was in Jeff Howe’s Crowdsourcing where I read that people who have already made up their mind on a given issue or subject will continue to promote or support that idea in the face of overwhelming evidence, despite that their original judgment was most likely based on a gut feeling. Whatever evidence supports the gut must be true, and all else is irrelevant, incorrect, or generated through suspicious methods in an effort to discount the contrary viewpoint. This creates a problem for someone or some group trying to change the minds of those who do not already believe. The problem is that unless someone has never before been exposed to the issue, they already have made their decision. (This is why it is so important to fix our educational system.)
So let’s take Global Warming. In the truest sense of the word “science,” there is no “proof” of Global Warming or Anthropogenic Climate Change. Take into consideration that Einstein claimed time (and I’ll paraphrase) was illusively unproveable, and yet it still remained a universal constant. EINSTEIN couldn’t prove TIME existed. He (as well as folks like Stephen Hawking) also claim that their “proofs” are only around as long as it takes someone to disprove them. Their proofs were never the be-all, end-all. They were merely stepping stones to a greater truth, which could only be achieved through more time, wisdom, and technology and would invariably be disproved.

As far as the scientific method is concerned, they are correct. A scientist may prove his hypothesis, and others may replay his experiments, all which support his original hypothesis, but if a single solitary scientist proves it wrong, then the original “proof” is called into question. Moreover, the original hypothesis might be incorrect, not just the data accumulated during the experiment to prove that hypothesis.

So with Anthropogenic Climate Change, there is about a 50-50 split in scientists. Half believe it; half don’t. Having 50% of scientists disproving it far outweighs the single solitary scientist needed in past centuries to disprove a previous scientist’s “proof.” But people persist, because they want to. Their gut tells them it’s true, so they side with the 50% of scientists who believe the Earth will melt.

So, if you were a Climate Changer and wanted people to do more “green” stuff, how could you make that a reality? Not by squawking into every TV camera you see about the world melting or being covered in water and warm weather (sounds like the Caribbean to me). You merely reaffirm your core supporters and turn off opponents. The 50-50 split doesn’t change. The non-Climate Changers don’t believe that the world will melt or become a gigantic Caribbean landscape, but you don’t need them to believe, you just want them to act.

That’s easy. Make “green” stuff cheap enough, and it will be done. Left-leaning politicians love to use incentives to disincentivize people. Make NOT going green hard enough, and people will do it. Problem with that is that as soon as the people discover a work-around, they’ll do it. By truly catering to their desires, you (the Climate Changers) can get people to act according to YOUR desires.

You want people to drive green cars? Make electric cars affordable. And not through government subsidy, because that just pisses people off. They see it, accurately, as cheating. When the technology is advanced enough, those cars will become incredibly affordable, and of course people will buy them, because they will pay less in gas. Right now, those cars are so much more expensive than comparable gasoline-powered cars that over the car’s entire lifespan, they will not recoop the extra money spent on the car with lower gas expenditures. If they could, they’d buy the Hybrid.

I’m all ready to buy solar panels, but at $30,000 for a residential set-up, it’s not cost effective for me. The break-even point on my return on investment (ROI) is 12.5 years down the road. Not bad, but taking into account the solar panels are only under warranty for 10 years, I don’t hold out much hope that they will last until my break-even point. If they lowered the cost to, say, $15,000, I could break even in just over 6 years…if there is enough sunlight to generate the power to cover all my power needs. And I could purchase power-friendly appliances, but those cost more than non-power-friendly appliances and can be a bit lifestyle-cramping. Take for instance the energy-efficient refrigerators offered by companies like SunDanzer. $1129 for an 8-cubic-foot refrigerator? I paid half that for a refrigerator three times that size. So I would then need my solar unit to provide that much more efficiency to reach my break-even point before it craps out.

So then how does a Climate Changer get the self-centered right to go green? Simple. Stop taking all those Post-modern Feminist Culture courses at your liberal arts college and take some engineering classes. Become part of the solution by actually developing a solution, not just a slogan.

Obama Reveals his shame of the U.S., again

2010-04-15T14:07:00.000-04:00

President Obama has yet again let slip that he holds these United States in contempt. Moreover, his recent comments at the Nuclear Security Summit make me harken back to his wife’s comments during the election campaign about being the first time she has been proud to be an American. To wit, the President stated in response to the subject of American intervention in international conflicts, “...whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, one way or another we get pulled into them.” WHAT?!?

Do these knuckleheads even know what it means to be an American?

I read in some blogger’s tagline quote from a guy named Jeff Cooper: “Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen.” Perhaps the Obama’s need to drop into a range sometime and squeeze off a few rounds.

The United States is a superpower for the simple reason that we have conducted peaceful changes of leadership for 235 years at the local, state, and federal levels. We intervene in international conflicts so that others around the globe can benefit from the same transition of power. We as Americans want everyone to succeed in achieving peace and stability. We don’t do this so that we can exert power over them. We do it, because it is the right thing to do. I guess Obama doesn’t think that bringing stability to the world is a laudable goal. Or perhaps he just expects that his words alone can bring about peace and stability. His words did wonders for John Corzine, so why not the World?!?

Obama’s contempt for the United States is felt in every action he takes, despite his lofty and rambling rhetoric to the contrary. He has dismantled and supported the dismantling of many of the foundations of this nation. He supports Interpol’s operations within our borders. He supports taking away guns of all kinds. He supports making ourselves subject to the UN’s Euro-phreak policies and treaties. He supports bowing to China, Saudi Arabia, and Muslims of all walks of life, hugging Socialist dictators, and poking his finger (thumbing his nose) at Israel. He brings our enemies close, not so that we can keep eyes on them but so that we can hold hands and sing a multi-lingual rendition of Kumbayah. Our friends? Well, perhaps he has none outside of liberal universities and tyrannical dictatorships, so Israel is screwed. They’ll just have to dig in until we can elect a new C-in-C with some foreign policy acumen.

I have to wonder what Obama thinks when he lays in bed at night. Does he cringe, because he has yet to bring about the fulfillment of the Cloward-Piven Strategy? Does he fear the power he possesses by occupying the seat of the historical Leader of the Free World? Is that why he genuflects to two-bit dictators, oil tycoons masquerading as royalty, and communist leaders? Is he embarrassed by being an American and being the de facto torch bearer of our legacy?

President Reagan – that Great American – continuously garnered the vote of the union workers (much to the chagrin of the union bosses). When asked why they would vote for a Republican, the union workers said, “He makes me proud to be an American.” Obama’s lack of pride has begun to erode that citizen-pride we feel. Without that, there is no America.

Germany Ascendant

2010-03-27T10:02:00.002-04:00

As President Obama as repainted the international landscape, we are seeing the scales of power tip in the favor of other countries. At first glance, China, Russia, Brazil, and India look strong, but these countries have major internal issues that will keep them form becoming a world power.
China may have moved closer to capitalism, but they still hold fast to the corruption culture of communism. Russia suffers from the same problems. Even with their nuclear weapons, they are not stable enough to be a true superpower. Brazil is a 2d world country and riddled with corruption. (Seeing a trend?) Then there's India. Not as corrupt as the others, India still holds on to remnants of the caste system. This inequality will prevent them from growing at a pace necessary to rise to the top.
But Germany is sitting quietly in the corner just waiting for the loud kids to lose steam. They have spent the last 60 years rebuilding (first with help from the US -- thank you Marshall Plan)their infrastructure and strengthening their economy. The deutschmark was so strong that the EU used it as a basis for the euro. In all honesty, the euro is just a glorified deutschmark. Germany is the strongest of the EU nations, and they know it. More importantly is that the rest of the EU knows it. While Greece, Spain, and Portugal have been struggling under the results of their poor administrative choices, Germany has watched quietly as other countries have come to their door, hat in hand, asking them to bail out the stumbling countries.
Germany is set to ascend in the international landscape. They have a strong economy, and a population that knows how to work hard. They are not perfect with some of their socialist laws, but they have a better understanding of the path to success than any other country in the EU and, arguably, the world. Let it be known that there are those in the US who know the path to success, but those folks continue to vote for Republicans who act like Democrats.
We need to keep an eye out for an ascendant Germany. That has happened twice in the past, and it didn't turn out well for anyone involved. I doubt that Germany will start another major war. They are smarter than that. But I see their influence on the world growing. It will begin with the EU. They will stretch their influence to China, India, and Brazil. Eventually, the US and Russia will have to realize that Germany is an economic powerhouse. Give it about 15 years, and we'll see an even different international landscape than we see now.

Pelosi and government and healthcare, oh my!

2010-03-16T09:19:00.002-04:00

Speaker of the House Pelosi may be the best Speaker in years. In a House filled with the representatives of our Nation’s most avaricious, victimized, and starry-eyed, Ol’ Nancy is their Voice. She is the vox populi of an ascendant group of ne’er-do-wells whose voice hasn’t been silent in 45 years. She has risen to the top of that mountain (nee molehill) for the simple fact that her voice is shriller than the rest. They say ducks are the only animals in the world whose voices do not echo. They voices can’t get lost in a cacophony of reverberated sound. Ol’ Nancy has been effectively quacking for decades.

She uses her deft awareness of the Commune of the Victimized (however slight or perceived) to cater to yet more who might see that they’ve been victimized if they’d just look a little more closely. In her latest quack, Ol’ Nancy says, “Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.” Let’s deconstruct:

“Let’s think of an economy…” means “Let’s light the ceremonial peace pipe and dream about a place where economics are governed more by what we want vice what is real.”

“…where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer…” means “…where people are free to expand their wings and fly off in whatever non- or marginally productive direction they want…”

“…without worrying about keeping their day job…” means “…so that others will foot the bill…”

“…in order to have health insurance…” means “so that the truly creative can live a risky life and not take any personal responsibility for my actions. Care for me. Love me. Cater to me. I’m progressive!”

Thomas Sowell pointed out in his weighty yet concise Basic Economics that economics is the study of limited resources with multiple purposes. Those resources either without limit (too numerous to keep actively employed) or without use become extinct through the natural evolution of the marketplace. Ol’ Nancy seeks to contradict natural market forces in her quest to give everyone the opportunity to be free of the natural constraints and responsibilities of living in a society or community. For these progressives who quack about societies (socialists) and communities (communists), they seem to forget that someone’s got to grow the food and fix the equipment.

A part of me wishes the world would go kaboom (although not in a nuclear way) so that the harsh realities of survival would eliminate the growing ranks of flying monkeys who, like the millions of victimized that vote for the likes of Pelosi, are a cacophonous flock of pillagers who would have gone about their daily task of pillaging (albeit less effectively) if they were not led by a Wicked Witch.

America needs to wake up to the destructive methods of the flying monkeys, the seductive poppy haze of the PC-restrained Islamic movement, and the Wicked Witch orchestrating or enabling the efforts of all the distracters along the yellow-brick road.

Blame the Entitlement Mentality on...Dot-Coms???

2010-03-04T10:09:00.000-05:00

A reference to the dot-com bubble/bust usually accompanies some article about how today’s economic woes share characteristics of blah, blah, blah. I’m going to blame the dot-com bubble/bust on something much more nefarious: the exponential growth of entitlement.
How many times did we read stories in the late ‘90s about some college drop-out or recent college grad who started a company to sell sawdust on Jupiter, went public for a bazillion dollars and then sold it for a mere 25 million? When you read it, didn’t you think: I could do that? How hard could it be? We started to think that a little chutzpah and an internet-based idea – no matter how crazy – would make us all rich in a few months.
Now imagine that you were 10 at the time – an impressionable age. You stop thinking about being a fireman or an astronaut and begin thinking to yourself, “I could be rich at 25 and not have to work ever again.” That image can burn itself in your brain indelibly. The entirety of your teen years would be consumed with just getting to school (made easy by lowered requirements, easy-to-attain student loans, and guidance counselors squawking the benefits of college) and waiting for your turn.
Now it’s 15 years later. You’ve gone to school. You’ve made some smart friends via World of Warcraft and Facebook. You’ve got a great idea to sell plywood on Mercury via the internet, but no one’s buying. What the heck?!? It happened 15 years ago, and all sorts of folks in their 20s got rich. Why am I not having any fun? So then the discouraged 20-something does what feels best: they wait. To quote a John Mayer song that eloquently captures the millennial generation’s motivation: “Waiting on the world to change.”
So the dissed youth sits back, plays World of Warcraft, and whines about how there are just no jobs out there for an art history major with a minor in Sanskrit and a great idea to sell plywood on Mercury. They default on the student loan. Eh, who cares? It wasn’t really his money. Then the credit score drops and getting a job (a car, a house, etc.) becomes that much more difficult. The youth whines louder about how no one educated him on the effects of defaulting on a loan. So he waits for the world to educate him (the fact that 16 years of government-provided education provided him ample opportunity doesn’t seem to register). And while he waits for a real-world education, he finally buckles down and gets one of only two jobs for which he is qualified: flipping burgers or local government bureaucrat.
As a burger-flipper, he will continue to whine about the lack of a “living wage,” and working conditions, and the rich franchisee who owns the burger joint. He does not realize that $7.25/hour is 10 times more than what he’s worth as an employee, the working conditions are palatial compared to the working conditions in the factories in the 19th century which gave rise to the labor laws of today, and his franchisee boss makes about $75k a year while working 100 hours a week and dealing with 300% annual turnover. If the youth did the math, he’d see that his boss makes only twice what the burger-flipper makes per hour. Twice the pay; one hundred times the headache. The burger-flipper is making out like a thief in the night.
If the youth became a government bureaucrat, he would continue to whine about the lack of a living wage, the onset of carpal tunnel syndrome, restless leg syndrome, and his deplorable healthcare plan. He does not realize that his government sector union takes most of what would be “take-home pay,” and that he wouldn’t need a union if he’d just stop whining and do some actual work.
So as you can see, the whiny, entitled generation is a direct spin-off of the dot-com boom/bubble/bust. It’s no one’s fault, but we should realize that these youths didn’t get that way on their own or because their parents were inattentive or because of “Jersey Shore,” although some of this may be true. They got this way, because they had early examples of young men and women getting rich quick without understanding the surreal, unsustainable backdrop against which the dot-com business was painted.

Another religion being hijacked

2010-02-27T09:09:00.003-05:00

Extremists love using religion to further their own personal goals. Kings and popes did it at the turn of the last millenium to wage war against the muslim and the moor. Islamists are using it to wage war against the West. Now the scores of Baptists out there need to be aware of a horrific assault: the Westborough Baptist Church.

Their modus operandi is abhorrent. These jackasses go to military funerals and instigate fights with the attendees. Then when someone invariably responds with physical violence, those "people of faith" sue the pants off the offending person. The money they get from the lawsuits is what funds their activities. So let's review: These people who believe in Christ as their Lord and Savior pick fights with people grieving at a funeral (not really turning the other cheeck, eh?), then sue those grieving people to make money, then leave these grieving patriots (parents, family, and friends of those who gave all for their country) broken and broke. Very Christian.

Just as we are asking the moderate uma (your average muslim) to eradicate the islamists form inside their organization, I think that we need to implore the Baptist community to eradicate these outliers. Either that or we need to get better lawyers than they have and sue them back to the stone age...or somehow get them to commit a crime and get them incarcerated.

I'm not smart enough to do that, so mabe someone else can provide the necessary guidance.

Gay Community: I like you well enough, but grow up

2010-02-10T12:20:00.000-05:00

For all those who recently believe that I’ve become a Milk-like supporter of all things homosexual, please understand my position. The law is the law. We are a nation of laws, not men. There are many on the right who claim that but then slam down their collective feet at the thought of marriage being subject to legal scrutiny. Marriage is sacrosanct and thus shall never be scrutinized. It’s blasphemy. It’s heresy. It’s…dumb.
Let the homos get hitched! Yeah, I’ll win friends on both sides of the aisle with that bumper sticker, but it’s no worse than “Save the ta-tas.” As I’ve already covered gay civil unions in previous postings, I’m going to address the VA State Legislatures current stiff-arm of including “sexual orientation” into state-level protected groups. Sexual orientation, as put forth in the bill, means heterosexual tendencies, homosexual tendencies, transgender, and sexual identification. So these fragile folks (homosexuals, heterosexuals, transgenders, and those identifying with the opposite gender) need protection by law for discrimination in the workplace. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, transgenders, and those identifying themselves with the opposite gender: THAT’S EVERYONE! So for one thing, this bill is stupid, because it seeks to protect everyone from…everyone. There’s an easier method: buy a gun.
My beef here is with the gay community (who has evolved into the gay, lesbian, transgender, and those who identify with the opposite gender community – umm, can we just say “queer”?). Have the members of this diverse community become so fragile as to need protection to get a job? I hear about gay pride and solidarity and strength at the community and individual level. So where is all that strength? Can’t you get the job on basic competence in completing the tasks that are to be required? Banana Republic in Lynnhaven Mall hired a transgender chap to serve the ladies’ section. He’s impeccably dressed and looks like a cross between Sofia Loren and Harvey Fierstein -- a perfect combination of class and comedy. And this occurred in the same city that houses Pungo and Blackwater residents!
If an individual or a group wants to be considered equals to others, I recommend that they act like it. It’s the same principle as “dress for the job you want, not the job you’ve got.” If you want equality, stop asking for special consideration under the law. I know plenty of folks in the gay community who have been working at long-standing jobs, make good money, and are equals at their place of business. They did not need special consideration or help by the legal system. They just worked hard. The prejudice that existed in the ‘60s is rapidly becoming extinct. To facilitate that extinction, we need to stop pouring salt on the wounds to remind people how it once hurt. I don’t mean to sound insensitive, but stop acting like a fag, and people might take you more seriously. There are other protected groups who have used the crutch of legal consideration and protection to devolve into cesspools of “culture” which cannot be assimilated into mainstream society. How many execs speak ebonics and wear their Armani trousers around their asses? Lookin’ like a fool with your pants on the ground!Get over yourselves. You are not special; you are not a unique flower; you are part of this society. Start acting like it.

Throwin' it all away

2010-01-13T16:05:00.005-05:00

So why exactly is the Federal Government giving away $187 million to companies to build vehicles that are more fuel-efficient? Haven't they learned that the companies under the gubmint thumb (GM) who are forced to build more fuel-efficient cars are floundering, while car companies like Ford who are free to build what the public wants (trucks and SUVs) enjoyed profits last year for the first time since the recession started.

And not only is the gubmint giving money to the big three, they gave money to Cummins to build a more fuel-efficient supertruck (read: tractor-trailer or semi or 18-wheeler). Let me tell you as someone who spent time in the private logistics industry, there is no greater Holy Grail for independent truck drivers or the corporate trucking companies than a more fuel-efficient truck. But those trucking companies aren't willing to pay the extra cost (for all that research and technology), so it's not high on their priority list. So they pass on every cent of fuel increases to the consumer. Every red cent. When prices rise, the independents have the biggest problems. They don't have the deeper pockets to hold them over until the prices decrease. So we lose out on valuable small businesses. If Cummins made a fuel-efficient semi, the trucking companies (both corporate and independent) would line up to buy it, because they would then pocket the difference. It's a wonderful capitalistic incentive.

But that's obviously not been very high on their agenda, so the truck manufacturers didn't bother spending much money on it. Well, now the gubmint wants it to happen. They want to force the manufacturer to make something that the consumer wants, but obviously doesn't want so much as to pay extra for it. And to make matters more pathetic, the gubmint isn't even holding the manufacturers (of the semis or of passenger cars) to any deliverable. These car companies are just supposed to "work" on a better engine. Nice. Throw more of my taxpayer dolalrs away on crap.

Ahmadinejad is at it again

2009-12-10T09:49:00.002-05:00

Folks, I've explained this before, and this is the perfect time to explain it again: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a whack-o. Not like Michael Jackson was a whack-o. But a full-blown, bonafide whack-job.
He came out yesterday saying that the U.S. is blocking the coming of the Hidden Imam (which is mankind's savior).
A little history lesson is necessary to understand the ramifications of his statement. Mahmoud is a follower of the teachings of the 13th (Hidden) Imam. The teachings of the 13th Imam are pretty simple to understand: create enough chaos in the world, and mankind's savior will rise up to provide a Musmil version of peace and order. As we've seen in Iran, this means state-sponsored murder of homosexuals, anti-government protesters, and other various ne'er-do-wells. Diversity is not high on the 13th Imam's list of priorities.
So what is the U.S. doing to quell the return of mankind's Muslim savior? We are preventing Chaos. We are ensuring order in so many parts of the world (most importantly in the Middle East) that Mah-moody is beside himself with anger. How dare the U.S. foment order while he is doing everything he can to foment chaos?
I guess it all comes down to this: What is more distasteful: an American-orchestrated order or a Muslim-orchestrated chaos?

Nature's a Funny Thing

2009-12-08T14:17:00.003-05:00

I remember in science class learning about the cyclic nature of...well, Nature. If you had an ecosystem where you had a predator and a prey, you would see an alternately increasing and decreasing population of each. As the population of the wolves increased, the population of rabbits decreased. When the rabbit population decreased to such a level where the large wolf population could not sustain itself, the wolf population decreased. As the wolf population decreased rapidly because of starvation and disease, the rabbit population increased. The wolf population slowly increased as they bred each year and as there was enough rabbits to provide food.

This is how it works, folks. Period.

Now when we get those speaking of the toxicity of carbon dioxide, I scoff. All plants -- trees, grass, algae -- live off of carbon dioxide. If there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (which I'm not sure is actually true), then all plant life will thrive accordingly in the same manner as the wolf and rabbit populations did in the previous example.

So why all the Chicken Little cries of crisis?

Obama and the Status Quo

2009-12-05T20:10:00.002-05:00

Although I don't agree with the methods, policies, or political appointees, I can't deny that President Obama is an intelligent man. He surrounds himself with intelligent people. I would bet that those people spent the better part of their lives working dilligently toward the goal of achieving a place in the American political landscape from where they could make changes to societal norms that they thought infair or unjust. And as dedicated people live and breathe their causes and goals, I am confident that they have developed numerous plans to carry out their intended changes. And when you get numerous people together who have numerous plans to change the way things are, then those people start to interweave their plans to develop one master plan.

If you think I'm crazy, all I have to tell you is that thousands of people do this every day. We're called consultants. We work for our clients to identify organizational issues that need to be changed and then develop master plans to change them all. We talk to each other at work, over lunch, on weekends, and at barbecues in order to develop the best possible plans to eliminate the issues of our clients.

And these aren't even OUR problems.

Imagine you are a dedicated person with a desire to become politically minded and eliminate some societal woes. Wouldn't you talk about your plans even more than a handful of consultants? Of course, you would. You have a stake in the game, a dog in the fight.

So Obama has amassed a group of left-wing radicals who have been conspiring to change the world since at least college. Now they are in their 40s, and they have had plenty of time to hone the plan. Many of them cut their teeth in activist positions with radical groups of various green, anti-capital, anti-religion, or just anti-American ideals. They are in positions of true power for the first times in their lives. Obama appointed many of them into czar positions so that they are immune from any Congressional oversight (not that that would make much difference), and they are salivating at the idea of actually being able to change the world.

The people are in place. The plan is understood by all. now it is time to execute.

The government has changed the incentives all around, and as can be expected, people are beginning to act differently. Big corporate types are scared to move up the ladder, because the higher you get, the more the Federal Government can set your salary. These businessmen are squelching their potential for fear of the government. This will prevent America from feeling the benefit of the next Jack Welch or Lee Iacocca.

Unions have been given controlling interest in General Motors. This causes businesses to wait before filing bankruptcy, because a bankruptcy filing, which is usually settled in court, might now be settled in Congress.

Stem-cell research, global warming research and activities, and a host of other "sciences" are now being federally funded. The innovators in the market have forever been able to invest wealth into productive ventures. Lipitor is one of the pharmaceutical market's greatest innovations, and it was developed with private money. No federal money necessary. If there is a benefit to the world for any particular product or service, the free market will find it. Because if there is a value to it, people will pay for it, and if people will pay for it, there is always some innovative person out there who will figure out how to do it better than anyone else and put a price tag on it that people are willing to pay. To use tax dollars to pay for something people don't want is contrary to the tenets of the free market, and it's just stealing wealth and not replacing it with equal or more wealth.

The Safe School czar wants to put over hundreds of books in public schools which graphically describe child-child and adult-child homosexual relationships and homosexual acts. Who is this making safe? With all the troubles the schools are having just getting our children to read and do math and think logically, I don't think we should be putting any sexual content (of any nature) in front of our children at school. If we do that, then we are expecting the teachers to provide the follow-up instruction on these subjects. I don't want anyone but my own family to provide any sexual or relationship information to my children. Children should be taught about love and respect. If they have self-respect, respect for others, and examples of actual love, then they will develop sexually in a much healthier way.

These are just a few of the endeavors by the current administration to change the world as we knew it. It is all about changing incentives. If you change the incentives, you change the way people act. The incentives need to be changed back to get people looking for work, to get schools teaching our kids, to get businesses innovating, and to get businessmen pushing the envelope to maximize the wealth of their businesses and their investors.

A New Challenge for Everyone

2009-11-27T22:43:00.003-05:00

Since returning from Crap-ghanistan, I've been focusing on my family and friends. This has been assisted by the timely occurrence of Thanksgiving and the general "holiday season." This does not mean that I don't watch or read the news and get insanely upset at the goings-on in my once-great America. But I have decided that there is no way to destroy those who would destroy my America. As these vile criminals have destroyed the ideals of America, it is my duty to single-handedly lead the assault on THEIR ideals.

Whereas may have suggested to me to get into politics, I politely decline this recommendation as it would only mean that I would be fighting the enemy in their own slime-filled fox-hole. Politics are for those who enjoy compromise. I never liked compromise. Although it is the action of those who understand trade-offs, I do not believe that America is subject to trade-offs. America is not a zero-sum game. America made its mark on the world by being an ever-growing, ever-influencing, ever-producing behemoth. Only Euro-trash and African scum think in terms of zero-sum. Hell, even the Chi-Comms don't believe in zero-sum anymore.

And as I have turned my head from politics, there is only one possible avenue for my revolution: capitalism. Money produces power. Money produces influence. (Although it has recently been proven that a camera crew and a nice dress can influence you right into a State Dinner at the White House.) But for us lowly mortals, capitalism is the great equalizer.

Before Bill Gates and Warren Buffet lounged in their golden thrones while espousing the evils of capitalism (much like George Soros), those weasely wimps used capitalism to show the world that large biceps and pretty faces only made you the "king" in high school. After that, it took brains, tenacity, and guts. The components of capitalism.

So what is my grand plan? It's very simple: make money. Make money despite the increased tax rates. Make money despite the excessive legislation vilifying capitalism. Make money despite the Supreme Court's abhorrence of personal property laws upon which this country were founded.

And to make money in this economy, I believe that you need to diversify your portfolio, but not in the way the stock brokers of the 80s and 90s decried. Personally, I will be getting involved with numerous different industries: publishing, defense consulting, and internet solutions, to name a few. As my knowledge base increases, I also intend to dabble in sin-based agriculture. No, I do not intend to raise any cannabis for medicinal or industrial purposes. Hops. Hops. And more hops. Hops worldwide have suffered terrible crops over the past few years, causing the prices of beer to increase. Hops keeps all happy and sane during football weekend or long holidays with the family.

So you see, there is a number of ways to step out of the norm, trod off the path and explore something truly different and maybe even great. We are given one life. If you are living a good life, challenge yourself. Why be comfortable when you can be great? When you are laying on your deathbed, and your grandchildren ask, "What was your greatest accomplishment?" Are you going to tell them, "I was comfortable"? Step out. There is a huge world out there that we see on the internet but don't ever sink our teeth or fingers into.

Taste the world. Right now, it's a bit bitter for my liking, but that's why I'm going to start adding a little sugar to the mix. Figure out what your sugar is. Add, stir, repeat as necessary. And if you need help with your recipe, just let me know.

Another Islamist Defended by Our Own Government

2009-11-09T12:46:00.002-05:00

Why exactly is the Secretary of Homeland Security more worried about the anti-Muslim backlash to Maj Hasan's massacre of 13 American servicemembers than the Muslim's actual massacre of 13 American servicemembers? Is Ms. Napolitano's "homeland" only filled with Muslims? Are those the citizens of the homeland that she has promised to protect? Muslim mass murderers?

Just as others in President Obama's Cabinet and various czar positions have come under fire for their anti-American comments, sentiments, and actions, it is time for an action-oriented movement for the expulsion of Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. It is time for all citizens to swamp their Representatives' and Senators' emails and phone lines to demand the removal of Ms. Napolitano. Her focus is misdirected and, frankly, treasonous. If her main concern for caution is the completely rational reaction of the average American citizen to be irate at another incident of Islamic terrorism on American soil, then she is so far removed from understanding what this country needs that she needs to be replaced.

We have been attacked yet again, and this time we knew about it beforehand. The FBI already knew of Hasan's attempts to reach out to Al Qaeda. The leadership at Ft Hood already knew about Hasan's hatred of America based on the War against Islamic Terrorism (one war, not two).

The military has failed to create free-thinking leaders in all ranks, and that failure led to Hasan's being able to brutally murder 13 American servicemembers. If the military spent less time on drilling "diversity training" and cultural awareness training into the heads of our military, they might have had time to train our military on identifying the signs of a cold-blooded Islamic killer. They might have had time to more closely investigate the comings and goings of a man who was clearly not in step with the military's cadence.

The military is not meant to be a melting pot of just any Tom, Dick, or Harry that comes off the street. The military is meant to gather those who care about the defense of a Nation. Not the Nation of Islam, either. We serve the United States of America. We defend her against all enemies foreign and domestic. We attack our enemies with a brutal force that sends a message to all other would-be attackers that we will hunt them down in their mountain lairs and desert hide-aways and jungle camps to eradicate them and their followers. But we have not persecuted the war effort in Afghanistan with as much violence and brutality as is necessary. When Major Hasan made the very first anti-American comment, we did not bird-dog him in an attempt to avoid a massacre. We fell asleep on the job. And Ms. Napolitano doesn't want us to wake up.

And here's something else, isn't it scary that when a Palestinian (and what the hell is that? Palestine isn't even a real place) makes anti-American comments repeatedly, the U.S. Army doesn't even take any real notice. Why is that? Because the Army is filled with whiny brats who spout anti-American sentiments. Oh, they don't say the things that Major Hasan said, but they complain so often about the war fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, that it created white noise. It created such a din of background noise that, by comparison, Hasan's anti-American comments went rather unnoticed.

That's our Army, America. That's our Secretary of Homeland Security. That's the road our current Administration has chosen. Sleep well.

Where is the Message?

2009-11-05T08:53:00.002-05:00

For those of us who are Conservatives, we should begin to do as Mr. Hoffman did while running for the 23d Congressional District seat in NY: call ourselves Conservatives. Make it a point to separate ourselves from the Republicans. The terms Democrat and Republican no longer apply to the political sentiments of our populace. There are Liberals (in the process of rebranding themselves Progressives), Moderates and Conservatives. Perhaps it is time to put the GOP to pasture. There is nothing grand about the Grand Old Party anymore. If politicians adopted one of the above three New Monikers of the political landscape, the voting public would actually know how the candidates stood in general on the issues.

And Conservatives need to get crackin' on this. The Republicans have muddled the message for over a decade. Trying to appeal to as many voters as possible, they have prostrated themselves before the masses, conforming to every whim and fancy that the public happened to voice at the time. Republicans lost their way, and the path back to terra firma is too long and circuitous. We cannot leave the Democrats in power while the Republicans grope around in the dark.

And how is it that the Democrats are so strong with their message? It's easy: They've been barking that same message since the '60s. Whereas the Republicans lost their way after Reagan and Bush '41, Democrats continued to preach a consistent message. As with any muscle, the longer you work it, the stronger it gets. The Democratic message is a competition bodybuilder; the Republican message is Screech from Saved By The Bell.

Conservatives need to let the Republicans stumble along. It's time to form a new party from the remnants of the GOP. It doesn't take an act of Congress. It doesn't take a marketing firm. We simply call ourselves a moniker that evokes solid values, even-keeled temperament, and fiscal responsibility: Conservative. That's a name to which people will flock.

In most business books, authors tell you to excel at your strengths and minimize your weaknesses. To that end, Conservatives need to worry less about making liberals happy by disingenuous shows of conciliation toward liberal causes and maintain a solid grasp on fundamental conservative issues. IBM may have made some money in the past by making computers, but they make the majority of their money on network consulting and similar services. It is better to be the master-of-one-trade than the jack-of-all-trades.

Conservatives, rise up and push the Republicans aside. Let them fumble about with their ambiguous messages that shift with the winds.

Conservatives, re-establish the message of fiscal responsibility and personal accountability. Put aside the weightless message of "family values."

Conservatives, rail against Bipartisanship. We are in a civilized war to reclaim the America that was once great. Bipartisanship is merely collusion with the enemy.

Conservatives, reclaim the legacy that made this country great. Show the American people the unending benefits of the Constitution when we disallow it from interfering in our lives. It is easy to see action, so we must work harder to show that a governmental lack of action is many times the wisest course. Show America that by not legislating for every social ill we actually eliminate those ills at a much faster rate.

Take China, for example. That Communist country has been a practicing Meritocracy for years. They've adopted capitalism as the way to lift their country out of poverty and into power. For the last five years, a million Chinese people per MONTH have risen out of poverty by the Communist government allowing capitalism a free reign. As part of the stumbling first-steps of capitalism, some of those budding capitalists practically enslaved their employees to provide an inexpensive product to the world. As consumers discovered the atrocities, they voiced their protest, and the atrocities ceased. There will always be budding capitalists in China, and due to the fairly lax legislation on human rights there will continue to be horrendous working conditions for many Chinese laborers, but as consumers discover these and make their opinions known by the simple act of NOT buying products from those suppliers, those suppliers change their methods, and the human rights violations cease to exist. The price of the product will necessarily increase as they treat their employees better, but we don't mind paying more for a product that we know was produced by the hands of a willing employee as opposed to a modern-day slave.

A million Chinese rise out of poverty each MONTH. No governmentlegislation demanding it. No government handouts. Just capitalism. Brutal, raw capitalism. This is not the capitalism I condone, but the Chinese are new at this. They'll refine their capitalism as time progresses. And it will not be at the hands of legislation, either. It's a sad day when we should take a lesson from the Chinese on the benefits of capitalism.

Whereas American is hell-bent on becoming the China of 40 years ago --poverty-stricken and ignorant -- China is hell-bent on becoming the America of 60 years ago.

Conservatives, recognize the path we are on and get the message out. Verbalize the path we need to take to overcome the denigration of the Republican party and show ourselves in a new light witha new name. Educate American on the new Conservative movement. We are not the Republican Party. We are done partying. It is time to work.

Afghanis are Freer than Americans

2009-10-29T13:39:00.002-04:00

For centuries, people worked on their own little plots of land, carving out a life, instilling the values of hard-work and being personally responsible for their own existence. Some of them had visions of larger plots of land, and so they progressed accordingly, but the values of hard work and personal responsibility were ever-present.

As the Industrial Revolution provided us with automobiles and electricity, we worked less albeit producing more. This was lauded as a good thing. We were putting in less of our own efforts and relying more on machines. Hard work became simply work. Personal responsibility progressed to being able to blame machines for any failures.

The Silicon Revolution allowed us to further separate ourselves from work and personal responsibility. We sit in $800 ergonomic chairs at $2300 ergonomic desks typing on soft plastic keys with a gel pad under our wrists to prevent carpal tunnel syndrome. When things go awry, we blame computers. How often did a computer truly ruin things? Or was it that we fat-fingered a key and hit Enter too quickly? Whatever the case, we have all come to the societal agreement that the computers are to blame and that we are working way too hard in our ergonomic workspaces in climate-controlled offices.

There are some out there who have reclaimed the birthright of our ancestors: hard work and personal responsibility. Recently, FoxNews.com featured a subsistence farmer in New England. This farmer and her children raised crops, domesticated livestock, and herbs. They provided for their entire subsistence. Don't be fooled by the moniker "subsistence." The pictures of this family showed a healthy bunch. No skinny-minnies, there. This family was eating vegetables and meat that are entirely organic and bereft of all the chemicals that we happily shovel into our bodies. They even had some crops and eggs left over to sell to the local community. If this were 1500 years ago, we would call that the beginnings of Capitalism! Oh no!!!

Afghanis have been living this same existence for thousands of years. They have turned otherwise barren land into a veritable breadbasket for this depressing part of the world. How do you grow corn from dusty ground? Ask an Afghani. There is a small field of corn growing right outside the fenceline where I am based. There are herds of goats and camels. There are even a few donkeys hanging around.

The local Afghanis have been offered the grandiose opportunity to work for The Man. They put on little paper hats and serve food in our chow halls. They don coveralls and boots to dig trenches for our water and power lines. They put on an AAFES polo shirt to stock shelves in our little base exchange store.

They are all working for the American dollar in Afghanistan. Does anyone wonder why they think we are an occupying force?

But more importantly, they see the American way of life. We work for someone else for 40, 50, 60 hours a week to earn some paper money backed by a government who is making that paper money worth less and less everyday. Then we use that decreasingly valued paper money to buy food. And if there is anything left over, we buy things to separate us from hard work and personal responsibility. We buy sporty cars, new computers, and a host of other items made necessary by the Industrial and Silicon Revolutions. And we look at the Afghanis with their leathery skin and calloused hands -- so much more detailed with our HD LCD TVs -- and we pity them their harsh lives. But they look back at us, wondering why people with no callouses or sun-darkened skin or any evidence of hard work can be considered a super-power. They have turned dry dust into a livelihood, and they defend it violently.

How is that any different than those in America who desire us to return to a society of hard work and personal responsibility? We are trying to use our coddled, corrupted political process to affect that change. The Afghanis use weapons. I am not advocating the use of weapons in the U.S. for anything other than legal hunting and shooting range activities. I'm no revolutionary in that sense. I leave that for the Black Panthers and radical Islamics of the world.

But there is something to be said for the way and reasons the Afghanis fight. They fight to protect a way of life. We think that we -- with all our wisdom and technology -- can help them root out terrorism. We can't. Having us there is like giving a child a Cray supercomputer and accompany his parent to work. Despite that the child has the more advanced technology, he will never be able to accomplish a fraction of what his parent will. The parent knows the lay of the land, knows the politics involved, knows the tactics and strategies.

As usual, I got off on a tangent. I want to return to the idea that the Afhganis are freer than the Americans. There was an insightful quote from an otherwise bad movie: Con Air. Steve Buscemi (probably the best character actor of the past 20 years) claims that "crazy" is cramming yourself into an office working 40 hours a week for someone else for 40 years and then retiring with a tiny pension.

It may seem like the easier path, but it's not the path that made America great. We wait for someone to tell us when we can have a raise. We wait for someone to tell us that when and where we should apply our efforts. We wait for our bosses or the government to give us our money back every year after we file our taxes. We wait for the government to give us our healthcare. We wait for the government to provide all that we need when we have the capacity right in front of us. The Veterans Affairs Department is currently processing applications for the new Post 9/11 GI Bill that was approved by Congress and signed off on by Pres. Bush a few years ago. It was a very generous program that brought education benefits more in line with current educational costs. It even allows people to transfer the benefits to their children, something that was never offered before. As you can imagine, hundreds of thousands of people are applying for those benefits. And as you can imagine, the government was completely unprepared for the administrative burden. Applications are taking weeks and months to process. That is not good for those whose schools require the money prior to registration or within a few weeks of the start of the semester. And this is only a few hundred thousand applicants. The government wants to process healthcare for 35 million Americans. More will jump on board, too: all those who like to wait for the government to hand them another benefit of being a good, docile taxpayer. The applications will be back-logged. The treatment will be delayed and subpar. Just think of your local department of motor vehicles and imagine them being in charge of your healthcare. Now is the time when you shudder.

The Afghanis, in all their ignorance, have chosen freedom. Americans, with all their intellect, have chosen serfdom.

Economic Idiocy

2009-10-23T13:13:00.002-04:00

Imagine that you are unemployed. (For some of you, it's not too difficult to imagine.) Now imagine that someone comes up to you and says that they will provide you with $35,000 a year for just being you. (Pretty good deal so far, eh?) Now this same person gives you a credit card with a $500 limit. The rules of the card are this: your name is on the card, so you can use it whenever you need, but your name is not associated with the account itself, meaning that your name is not connected in any way to the card with respect to the credit rating. And your benefactor pays the credit card bill.

So let's recap: $35k in free money each year, a credit card with a $500 limit, paid for by someone else and you're not liable for the debt you rack up. Pretty sweet deal.

Now, you spend and charge, because you're having fun being You. But you find that the $500 limit is so...limiting. You ask your benefactor to increase the limit. They grudgingly oblige after you tell them that you are doing it just this once so that you can pay for your friend's transmission work. Well, that's a noble cause, so why not.

You find other noble causes on which to spend "your" money and to charge to "your" credit card. You continue to go back to your benefactor to request to increase the credit limit on "your" card. the benefactor always obliges. One day he surprises you by saying, "Since you are always spending your money on noble causes, I will give you the ability to raise the credit limit on your card whenever you feel that it's necessary."

This is the Best...Deal...EVER!

You continue to be noble to friends, family, yourself (from time to time). You increase the credit limit as needed, because -- darn it -- you have friends in need! Eventually you get to the point where you still "make" $35k a year, but your credit card limit is $850,000. If you were personally responsible for the balance on that credit card, you would never have increased the limits so much. Since you aren't, though, why not?

The Federal Government just raised the Federal Debt limit to $12.1 Trillion a few months ago. They are not going to raise it again to $13 Trillion. I guess another $900,000,000,000 was needed...for healthcare?

The Federal Debt increased $400,000,000,000 between August 24, 2009 and October 24, 2009. That's $200 Billion a month; $6.7 Billion a day; $278 Million an hour; $4.6 Million a minute; and $77,160 a second.

Tell me again how spending $850,000,000,000 to provide healthcare to 15 million Americans (who already have available healthcare via Medicaid) will get us back to fiscal health?

Gay Hate Crimes: A Fairy Tale

2009-10-11T12:38:00.002-04:00

Our story begins with a homosexual community who is fed up with being discriminated against. The oh-so-victimized community takes a page from the playbook of another oh-so-victimized community. And now we have the spread of hate-crime legislation.

The House has passed a bill to add anti-gay crime to the Hate Crime list. As one conservative politician so correctly pointed out: all crimes are hate crimes as they are born of violence and spread hatred. But how is the death of a homosexual any worse than the death of a child? I tell you what, I want every homosexual out there to go to the parents of a child who has been abducted and killed and tell that parent that a crime against them (the homosexual and his/her "community") is worse than the crime that occurred against that child.

We'd see some anti-homosexual crime at that point, I can assure you. But it proves the point. Homosexuals as well as people of different skin colors are not on a quest for equality. That was achieved by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and a host of other visionaries and action-oriented people over the past 150 years. Homosexuals and people of different skin colors want special protection in the eyes of the law. They want someone to REALLY pay when someone of their weak, victimized group is the target of a crime.

If I tell some homosexual who is waiting on me at a restaurant that they are a worthless pile of dog-squeeze, because they screwed up my order and took 20 minutes to bring out a basket of rolls, I can now be accused of a hate-crime: homosexually targeted verbal abuse or maybe homosexually targeted slander or libel. That's just swell. So a simple comment on someone's complete inability to do the job for which they were hired has made me a hate-criminal. I'm sure I'll have to be logged into a database somewhere and will need to register with my local GLOBE representative whenever I move.

If I tell some person with dark skin pigmentation that they are not welcome in amusement park, because the terrible economy has made them dirt-poor and they cannot afford the entry fees, I am now the purveyor of racially targeted discrimination -- because of course my entry fees were set at that high level to keep out people with darker skin pigmentations. (Like someone's earnings potential is predetermined due to the chemical reaction that produces skin pigmentation.)

What happens if now someone says something ill-advised about the current President? Are they hate-criminals? Probably.

What if someone in the military discovers that a servicemember is a homosexual and partakes in homosexual acts? And that someone turns in that homosexual to the proper authorities to be processed out of the military? And then that homosexual states that the person who turned them in did it because of an anti-homosexual bias? Now, not only would that homosexual be kicked out of the military, but the person who turned them in would be subject to a court-martial, because their act was anti-homosexual -- which is the precise nature of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy advocated in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but it would also now be a hate-crime. So we have two people kicked out.

And if that trend becomes known, how many homosexuals do you think will get turned in? None. And if none get turned in, is there any political reason to overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" when the end result is the same?

Liberals have wussified our country and are now wussifying our military. The Fairy Tale ends with the fairies controlling from a position of inferiority the most powerful military in the world...until we start shooting rubber bullets and launching mortars filled with fairy dust. Then where will our national defense be?

Career-Ending Column, but All True

2009-10-09T13:06:00.004-04:00

Ladies and Gentlemen, this will be the column that precludes me from ever having a political career.

Racism is caused by the very people who cry out as being victims of racism. (I told you this would end my political career.) I'm an average white guy. Polls have shown that most people in the United States are average folks with moderate views. Just as in any bell curve, there is always evidence of fringe lunatics -- whether they bomb abortion clinics or labs in which animals are used for testing -- but the vast majority of Americans understand that fringe lunatics are exactly that. They are dishonorable, untrustworthy, and completely anathema to the American way of life. Average Americans have friends who cross all colors and backgrounds. At church, at work, at school, on the weekends, in restaurants: the average American comes into continuous contact with people of all backgrounds. And for the average American, these interactions are completely unremarkable, meaning that the average American gets along with people in all of these situations without incident.

Being an average white guy, and knowing a lot of average guys (of all colors and creeds), no one pays any attention to color except in the Summer when I get my annual burn and turn a glowing shade of crimson. Color is the result of pigmentation, a chemical reaction that differs from one person to the next. Just as average Americans don't discriminate on the color of someone's hair, we likewise don't discriminate on the color of skin. Discriminating based on the color of a person's skin is as logical as discriminating against someone based on the color of their eyes.

So why do so many otherwise smart people of all colors believe that racism is so prevalent in the U.S.?

Let's take your average American. He or she is going along their daily business and hears on the news by victims crying "racism" that there is still a White Devil out there ready to snatch back the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and its amendments. This aggressive stance by those crying "racism" sets the average American back on his heels, making him take a defensive stance, because he knows that HE isn't a racist, no matter how often educated victims tell him that he really is a racist deep in his heart.

No. We aren't.

Then, from years of being in this defensive stance, the average American decides that he has cowed for too long under the insanely inane attacks from "victims." (Yeah, read that last part again: "attacks from victims." Does that even seem logical?) Anyway, finally taking a stand, the average American declares proudly that he is not racist and that the entire issue has been raised by the victim. By pointing the finger at the victim, the victim now snaps a photo of the average American (for the benefit of media coverage) and declares, "See! They are on the attack! The average American hates us victims." Now it is a Hate Crime to stand up for one's beliefs.

After being declared a Hate Criminal and demonized in the media, the average American then begins to truly detest the actions of the victim. So what do we have? Racism? No, not really. The average American doesn't hate all people of a particular victim class based on skin color. They just despise those whose actions bring about such animosity. For the average American, he can despise race pimps and doddering ex-Presidents and still maintain all his existing friendships with people of all skin colors.

Obama started down the right path when he denied Jimmy Carter's statement that opposition to the new President was based on racism. But he didn't go far enough. By not coming out and categorically crushing the issue of race in this issue, he has allowed the racism issue to fester. (And I thought he promised to bring us all together. I guess "all of us" meant all of us of a certain political bent.) Average Americans who are not racist don't like being called racists, and they will vote accordingly in the next election. Obama has just ended his ability to be a two-term President. And he did this, because in his heart, he believes that there is racism out there and can't bring himself to categorically crush the issue. And if a President thinks that the Americans he serves contradict his views based on his skin color vice the fact that they oppose faulty legislation, then he is not fit to be President, because he does not understand his constituents. And a public servant who does not understand his constituents can never truly represent them.

It is time for racism to creep back into the shadowy corners of the fringe -- where it had been effectively compartmentalized -- to die a lonely death. And you can't do that by continuously bringing it back into the light.

Nobel Peace Prize???

2009-10-09T11:53:00.003-04:00

Since the cut-off for consideration for the Peace Prize was on February 1st, what exactly did Obama do in the 2 weeks between when he was sworn in and February 1st that warranted a Peace Prize? Officially? It was his promise to bring people together. Of course, that was carried out by his reaching out to the Muslim world and Europe and illegal immigrants and domestic felons and just about everybody but law-abiding citizens of the United States. No wonder the Swedes love him so much. So the criteria for a Peace Prize is still: whatever weakens the fabric and fiber of America.

Fucking great!

And because our illustrious El Presidente has received positive reinforcement for his campaign toward a true fascist dictatorship in the U.S, there will be a growing line of people waiting to become yet another El Presidente of the Estados Unidos del Sovietes.

So with a growing number of Peace Prize wannabes, our American fabric and fiber is being shredded beyond recognition. That tattered flag lauded in the song "The Star-Spangled Banner" -- the proud and destroyed remnant of what was once a proud and solid symbol for freedom around the world -- is a perfect image of what we have become.

Mo' Bailouts

2009-09-22T12:53:00.001-04:00

America is losing its freedoms. Our real estate has been controlled by the government since the American Reinvestment Act of 1978. (Thanks, Jimmy!) Our money is now controlled through the government's bank bailout. And to add insult to injury, the salaries of all bankemployees will be set by an all-knowing government agency. For those who say that it only applies to really rich banks, think of this. The new mandate (because it sure as hell isn't a LAW) applies to banks withassets in excess of $100 billion. There are over 700 banks in the U.S. that fit this standard. That's 700 banks, not branches, banks! That impacts tens of thousands of workers.

And I find it ironic this government goes to great lengths to limit the salaries of taxpayers, but the unions the liberals so love go to great lengths to establish minimum salaries for its members.

Now, in its quest to rule, vice lead or serve, the current administration is considering a newspaper buyout, uh bailout. As with all previous bailouts, the government will eventually dictate production (as with increasing EPA requirements on all vehicles) and salaries (as with the bank employees). So we expect to see the same with the newspapers. The government, after heavily subsidizing printed media, will then control what gets printed by merely controlling the salaries of the writers, editors, and publishers. Pay less to those who oppose government actions and more to those with similar sentiments to those of the government.

The President already came out and chastised the 24-hour news outlets for their coverage and said that they should spend more time being decent and civil. Sounds like a first foray into media management to me. Way to go, Obama! At least when you finally take over the newspapers, you won't be brand new at the job.

And when did the media have to be civil or decent? Isn't it the job of journalism to expose and report? And if they are exposing and reporting indecent and uncivil issues, then the broadcasting of that reporting may not be decent or civil. But let's get real for a moment: there is very little journalism on the "news" outlets anymore. It's all opinions cruising under the guise of news. It's a talking head opining about news events. It's little cutesy banners slapped across the bottom of the screen adding tongue-in-cheek or provocative phrases to an issue. It's entertainment. If you want news, go to Drudge. If you want entertainment, turn on your TV. If you don't like Olberman's and Maddow's smarminess, turn the channel. If you don't like Beck's spazzy smarminess, turn the channel. If you believe that a broadcast is indecent or uncivil, then turn the frickin' channel, Mr. President. We still enjoy the freedom to turn the channel in this country, so practice that freedom.

Politicians Should Be Businessmen First

2009-09-14T11:21:00.002-04:00

The British '80s rock band Naked Eyes wrote a song called "Promises, Promises." The refrain of the song is, "You made me promises, promises you knew you'd never keep." I see that the musicians of Naked Eyes had met a few politicians in their day.
When one steps back to see the political forest for the legislative trees, one sees that politicians promise the heavens to us mere mortals, and we tend to believe them, because they wear such nice suits and have cameras in front of them all the time. They work in large marble buildings in Washington, D.C. and speak to crowds with eloquence that would surely rival Plato.
But peel back the onion, and you might find a few reason to cry. When did a politician ever proffer a new legislative idea and actually have details as to how that legislation would be operated, funded, and assessed for success? I've read a few of the 1000-page bills being circulated about healthcare and the economic stimulus. In over 1000 pages, politicians are still unable to provide any real details. There is enough legal break-dancing in the bills to show that there was significant effort spent providing new business opportunities to special interests and lobbies, but other than the typical Beltway Cronyism, the bills are lacking even a simple Business Plan.
Imagine a politician going to a bank representative and asking for a ten-year $1 trillion loan to cover a great nationwide healthcare business. When the bank rep asks for the business plan, the politician hands him 1000 pages of text and a heartfelt ode to Teddy Kennedy. (Let it be said that ol' Teddy was given the opportunity to provide life-saving healthcare to one Mary Jo Kopechne and decided to save his own skin. She had an hour for him to do the right thing, and he rationed his healthcare to himself. This is the future of government healthcare.) I digress...
So the bank rep spends a few weeks with the bank's lawyers scouring the 1000 pages of text to discern how the $1 trillion will be spent, who will benefit, what are the revenue streams, who is running the business, what are the details of the daily operation, etc. When it's all been combed over, the bank rep calls the politician back into his office and states flatly the bank does not feel comfortable lending $1 trillion for this endeavor, because it lacks clarity on too many issues.
From where EXACTLY will the money come? (That's usually a big one for banks.) Who are the companies officers? How many employees will this take? At what salaries? What are your start-up costs? How do you know when you are succeeding? Will there be semi-annual reviews to determine effectiveness of strategy?
That bank rep would look at the politician and laugh uproariously. The bank rep would laugh for the same reason that the taxpayers of this country are enraged and indignant. There is no plan behind healthcare (or any politically initiated legislation). The taxpayers know that their money is being spent frivolously on feel-good legislation that has every possibility of providing terrible service at exorbitant prices. If the politicians would simply provide the citizens a true business plan (just as a responsible and successful businessman would provide to a bank rep), we might even back their legislation more readily. But that means the politicians have to start working harder, not just to angle and scheme and curry favor for votes, but to actually create legislation that benefits our nation.
If not, we will be singing another Naked Eyes song with regards to the awesomeness that was once America: "When the Lights Go Out."

Obama Double-Speak

2009-09-14T11:16:00.000-04:00

Well, it was only a matter of time before President Obama really slipped into Orwellian double-speak. I find that the Democrats are better at it than the Republicans. The Republicans are just as morally twisted, but they lack the innate ability for mental gymnastics and self-convincing needed to become masters of the double-speak.
Obama claimed that he has an open-door policy for all and will invite all ideas for healthcare reform, but that he will not waste time with people who want to kill his particular bill. Umm, how is that inviting to all? That is more inviting to a narrow sector of society who wantsObama's and Pelosi's particular brand of healthcare reform. Where is serious tort reform? Where is allowing interstate insurance competition? Where is eliminating federally stipulated insurance standards which require me to get pregnancy insurance, drug rehab insurance, arthritis insurance, mental health insurance, and a host of other forms of insurance (which drives up the costs of my health insurance) that I do not want or need?
Obama was correct when he stated during his speech to a joint session of Congress that the government requires that everyone have auto insurance, so health insurance should be no different. Yes, but the government does not require me to get insurance for a brand new Cadillac Escalade with $50,000 in after-market additions when I have a stock 2003 Acura. And the reason we are required to have LIABILITY insurance (comprehensive is not required by law, although banks require that you have it if you have a lien on the vehicle) is so that we can cover the medical costs of the OTHER PERSON if we are at fault, or to cover our own medical costs if the other person broke the law and decided not to have liability coverage.
What happens if I don't have health insurance? Nothing. If I get sick, I go to the hospital and sign a form and Medicaid covers part of the costs on a sliding scale based on my income. My lack of income does not infringe on someone else's safety. Obama has used double-speak to present his case, and he has used faulty logic in developing his arguments. He's just hoping that most people hear "health insurance" and "auto insurance" and just assume that they are the same. Obama is betting on the ignorance and lack of intelligence of his constituency.

Sen Mark Warner is a Douchebag

2009-09-10T12:02:00.002-04:00

For all Virginians who voted for Mark Warner should now know that he is dumber than a box of rocks. At a town hall meeting in Fredericksburg, Sen. Warner, answering a question from a high school government teacher about the exact article and section of the Constitution that allows for the Federal Government to control healthcare, Sen. Warner responded by saying that there is no place in the Constitution that provides "the right to get a telephone."
Sen. Warner, you are an idiot. Your response is not only dismissive but also ignorant of basic reality. The Constitution may not provide the right to get a telephone, but no one is asking the government to buy telephones for everyone. The Constitution definitely does not allow for the Federal intervention and taxation to provide for a national healthcare plan, but the government is running full-tilt to deliver that.
And I don't know if Warner has a speech impediment, but he said, "So I take, I take by your question, I take by your question, I take by your question that you would get rid of Medicare and Medicaid or would you, are you, let me make sure I understand: You're advocating doing away with Medicare, right? Because that's a government program. I just want to make clear that you are suggesting doing away with Medicare? But one thing, listen, there is, there is no place in the Constitution that specifically says health care. There's no place in the Constitution that specifically says education. There is no place in the competition, in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution that talks about you ought to have the right to get a telephone, but we have made those choices as a country over the years."
Why the multiplicity with statements? Is he trying to gather his thoughts? Is he confused about what the Democratic Party line is, and so he must stall in order to remember it? And the only reason to bring up Medicare is so that Liberal pundits can make the loud claim that all conservatives want to abolish Medicare. Wouldn't THAT demonize conservatives?!?
Wow. But Sen. Warner failed for the simple fact that he's an idiot. His tactics are clumsy and heavy-handed. He's got the finesse of a three-legged bull in a china shop.
Sen. Warner needs to be replaced immediately. We've got a few more years of him, though. Way to go, Virginia! You elected a real winner.

Are Obama's Czars any Worse than Nixon's? Part II

2009-09-07T10:53:00.002-04:00

As promised, I now bring you Obama's czar picks. Please keep in mind that these are his picks which did not require Senate confirmation. These are the true abomination, because they violate our Constitution.

Obama starts out by creating ambassador-like posts for countries with whom we have no official diplomatic status. For those countries, we usually use intermediaries, like Switzerland or France. But Obama is all about dictating international policy, despite the advice of his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

He's got an AfPak czar. That's someone who talks to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He's also got an Iran czar. I wish that czar was developing a better bomb with which he could obliterate that country, but I know that's not the case.

Then he's got a Middle East czar. I don't know how you can be an ambassador to the entire Middle East, but we've got a guy for that.

Then Obama wants to focus on realigning our economy to his vision, so he hired an Auto czar, an Auto Recovery czar, an Economic czar, and a Green Jobs czar. Because Obama didn't trust the courts to carry out simple bankruptcy hearings for the auto industry, he got a special czar for that. The economy just couldn't proceed without Obama's guidance; we got a czar. The general economy couldn't decide which jobs were more important, so now we know that green jobs are the most important. Thus the czar!

So, Obama has laid down the strategy for recovering the Middle East to his idea of goodness, and the economy now has its marching orders for which direction it will proceed. Now it's time to save the planet. And we all thought that Captain Planet cartoon would have done it! He's got a Climate czar AND a Global Warming czar. There's a Great Lakes czar, which will probably funnel cash to one city in particular on one of those Great Lakes. (If you said "Chicago," you win!) Then, because you can never trust el nino, there's a Weatherization czar. I wonder, does he go around covering swimming pools for the winter months?

Now that the Middle East is in line, the economy is ready to recover, and the planet is saved, Obama must address some domestic issues other than the economy (but associated with it). He's got a Domestic Violence czar. I have no idea why this is necessary. We have laws punishing people for committing domestic violence. Can the czar prevent it?

He's got a Guantanamo Bay Detainee Facility Closure czar. This babysitter's job is to find others on which he can pawn these Islamic turds. I guess the Secretaries of State and Defense were busy.

There's a Border czar to help illegals find the holes along the border so that more can come into the country and vote for Democrats.

There's, of course, the Healthcare czar. The Dept of Health and Human Services just wasn't enough.

The Information czar is the Chief Information Officer of the U.S. Doesn't the White House Communications Director have that job.

The Urban Affairs czar is going to end urban affairs...er...something like that. I guess he's going to change the urban culture of mediocrity and violence by writing some memos.

He hired a Weapons czar to help the military figure out what weapons they should have. The military needs no help on this front.

There is also a Weapons of Mass Destruction czar. I thought we hadn't found any. If that were the case, why do we need a czar for it?

Both Bush and Obama have shat upon the Constitution in numerous ways, and both should be vilified for it. What I don't like to see is when people lambaste Obama for hiring a manufacturing czar, for example. Bush had one first.

Let's use the czars to delve into people's psyches. As mentioned in the previous column, FDR had 10 czar positions, only one was approved by the Senate, and that one eventually became the Secretary of the Interior. Eight of those czars were focused on the economy. Two were focused on the war. The last was the Censorship czar. (Cue creepy music and goosebumps.)

Obama has nine economy czars, ten national defense czars, ten domestic policy/global warming czars, and four government streamlining czars. I submit to you that any additional government employees achieves the exact opposite result of efficiency.

Bush had five economy czars, six national defense czars, and eighteen domestic policy/knee-jerk reaction czars.

The government is big enough. If we can't find the people within the existing government structure to accomplish the necessary tasks, then you just aren't looking hard enough. And if you truly can't find them from out of the 18 MILLION people who work for some level of government then we should clean house in those agencies in which one would expect to find those subject matter experts. That way, we can save a little money. But that just makes too much sense.

Are Obama's Czars any Worse than Nixon's? Part I

2009-09-07T10:46:00.002-04:00

Short answer: They're not!

Every President since FDR had at least one czar. FDR had 10 czar positions. In the intervening 50 years, Presidents had at most 3 czar positions. Clinton bumped the quantity of czar positions to 7. It was George W. Bush who increased the number of czar positions to 28. Obamahas 31.

I hear people decry the abomination of the use of czars. Others defend the czars as necessary to run an efficient government. I find the use of czars abominable as it is strictly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. But that's not the whole story. The Constitution states that the President may appoint low-level positions and government officers without Senate confirmation or approval. For instance, all officers promoted to the rank of Major or above require Senate confirmation. So when I get promoted to Major (god forbid!), my promotion warrant would include a statement about being confirmed by the Senate. That means that any position senior to, or which possesses more governmental power than, a Major requires Senate confirmation.

I assure you that each and every czar has more power than I will as a Major, so they should require Senate confirmation. But how many of Bush's and Obama's czars actually got Senate confirmation? Bush only had 11 of his 28 czars confirmed by the Senate. Obama had only 8 of his 31 czars confirmed by the Senate.

Abomination on both counts.

Now let's see what these czars control. Bush had a czar for Abstinence, officially working for USAID to tell the world to stop fornicating. Then about a year after the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed the czar, Mr. Randall Tobias, the new Abstinence czar resigned amid his involvement with a prostitution investigation. Stellar representation. You can't make this stuff up.

He had a Bird Flu czar, to show the world that he can't depend on the CDC and the Dept of Health and Human Services to handle the job. Yep, one more person (and their staff) is a much better use of tax dollars.

Then there's the Bioethics czar. Do we really want politicians involved with legislating or advising on ethics? And why do we need government to condone cloning or stem-cell research? If it's viable, then the medical community will decide. Besides, I hold the Hippocratic Oath in higher regard than the Oath of Office.

Cybersecurity czar? Doesn't the FBI have a Cybersecurity unit? And I'll bet the NSA does, as well. (Obama decided he needed a cybersecurity czar, too.)

Then there's the Democracy czar whose job was to spread democracy to the world. Isn't there a Secretary of State to help with that? And democracy is like courtesy, you can't tell someone to do it; they have to see it work and want to do it themselves. And where are they going to see it? There is not one single democracy in the world. Most governments are either totalitarian or representative republics. How can we expect others to buy into democracy when we don't even correctly label it?

The Department of the Interior just couldn't function efficiently, because Bush had to hire a Domestic Policy czar. It was Karl Rove.

Then comes one of my favorites: the Faith-Based czar. There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution, but my favorite document does claim that the federal government cannot establish a religion. I don't think Bush was trying to do that, but he really makes himself look bad by hiring this guy. (Obama hired one, too, which made him look even more pathetic.)

Someone's spinach has e-coli? Hire a Food Safety czar! The FDA was obviously on vacation when this job was created. And peanut butter still got contaminated under this czar. Great job! Solid results.

And as if the Abstinence czar wasn't busy enough, he was also dual-hatted as the Global AIDS czar -- because one AIDS czar (who is approved by the Senate) just isn't enough. And if you remember, Mr. Tobias resigned because of prostitution -- a major cause of AIDS proliferation and perhaps the polar opposite of Abstinence. Again, a great choice!

The World Trade Center survivors have health problems, so instead of using the CDC, the President once more hired a Health czar specifically for WTC survivors. I wonder how many were on HIS staff?

Because the Healthcare industry couldn't figure out on its own that it needed to integrate all medical records, Bush decided they needed help. He hired a Healthcare IT czar in 2004. But the medical industry had been using electronic medical records for 30 years. Only 10% of hospitals used them, so perhaps this czar was necessary. Oh yeah, only about 12% use them now. Perhaps the czar was not necessary.

What about the Homeless czar? There are still homeless in this country, so I guess that didn't work.

Katrina czar did a bang-up job.

The Policy and Strategic Planning czar was hired, because Bush couldn't figure out his strategy? Wasn't that job already covered by the Domestic Policy czar? I guess you can never have too many czars. Ask the Russians.

My personal favorite is the Reading czar. His first job should have been to read the Constitution to see how badly he shouldn't have been allowed to have that job. And don't we have an Education Secretary? What were they doing? Hanging out at Martha's Vineyard?

The Terrorism czar makes sense unless you take into account that we have the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, and the Department of Defense. I would assume that there would be at least one person among these agencies who could have provided answers without the czar title. (Obama couldn't think of anything better, so he got one, too.)

And to cap it off, Bush hired himself a War czar. Because the numerous Generals running around the Army and Marine Corps just couldn't get the job done. And I assure you that there are plenty of Marine Generals who would LOVE the opportunity to run this war. It would've been over by now.

Next column: Obama's czar insanity -- because I like to be fair and balanced.

Expats Unite! and Flee!

2009-09-07T10:38:00.002-04:00

Well, in a previous column, I promised you my opinion of possible expat countries. These findings will depend on your own personal desires and proclivities, so you have to do some soul-searching to find out exactly what you want. I build this list under the assumption that you -- as I-- want to find someplace to live where there is a distinct similarity to the America of our Constitution, and America of freedoms, not legislative activism.

The closest you can find that America is going to be in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. State tax laws there are enviable. Everyone has guns (yay!). There is plenty of property to manage for personal wealth and sustainment. Politicians are usually very conservative. And Washington politics steers clear of those states, because they just seem afraid of the fervid independence of people living there. Yes, there are always a few nut-jobs there who want to blow up a building, but for the most part, you've got farmers and ranchers and a few growing industries to bring in outside money.

Before we go further afield, let's look at some of the requirements I have developed to refine the search. First, I'd like English to be spoken by at least most of the people. I'm not fluent in another language, so it does me no good to move somewhere where I am not understood or understand others. Second, I want the right to bear arms. Many foreign countries are just as violent as, if not more than, the United States, and having the ability to defend myself is critical. Third, I stay away from countries with dubious laws or cultures with regards to protecting against personal property and contract fraud. So much that we do is based on contracts (mortgages, for example) that a solid contract law is key. Fourth, I want the ability to provide for my own sustainment and wealth. Fifth, I want free travel throughout the area. Sixth, I want some access to healthcare, preferably via some capitalist endeavor, not government healthcare.

This eliminates Europe (whether due to language barriers across the European mainland or obscenely prohibitive gun laws in Great Britain and Ireland). It also eliminates Asia, Africa, and South America. That leaves only two continents: North America and Antarctica. I'm trying to escape one, and the other is a bit on the cold side. Hunting seals and penguins is not my idea of "providing dfor my own sustainment." Luckily for me, there are a few Central American countries with a flair for attracting expats: Costa Rica and Belize.

Both countries have very permissive gun laws, although there are licenses to obtain just as in most states within the U.S. These countries boast tens of thousands of expats from the U.S. and Europe. The laws are based off of English common law (just as with the U.S. Constitution) and support personal protection and rights to freedom, property, etc.

Costa Rica's real estate costs have risen over the years due to your basic principles of supply and demand. Expats want to live there, and locals want that Yankee dollar. The average annual income is $9000, so Americans with a little savings can live quite well, if you can afford the real estate. Life span is very long here, and Costa Rica is leading the globe (really!) in being the most environmentally friendly country. Linked? Maybe.

Belize is Costa Rica's little brother. A fairly unknown entity in Central America, Belize possesses all the same basic laws and rights as Costa Rica, but since the demand isn't there yet for the land, the prices have not yet increased to obscene levels. The current global recession helped hold down prices for now, but I expect they will rise within 5-10 years to levels that are in line with vacation real estate in the U.S.

Both countries allow for dual citizenship with the U.S. You can gain residency status (just like the U.S.'s Green Card status). And both countries have special retirement incentives to attract leisure American retirees and their money.

And if you may be thinking that if these two countries have laws similar to those in the U.S., isn't there a chance that these countries will go liberal bat-shit crazy as well? Well, that is a danger, but since these countries have only been around for a few decades, they haven't gotten as elitist as the legislators in the U.S. If you move to these places, your grandchildren may have to deal with it, but you'll go out with a smile on your face...and a tan.
That doesn't leave much of a choice, and it shows just how frickin' crazy this world has become when you only have two choices outside the U.S. But there they are. Perhaps I'll see you in one of these countries...or both!

Legislating Happiness

2009-09-07T10:32:00.002-04:00

Mankind has striven for millennia to be happy. To that end, as people have gathered in villages, towns, cities, and eventually in nations, those people with a vision to create a structure to enable happiness amongst the greatest number of citizens have developed laws and constitutions reflecting that society's desires for the present and future. Hammurabi had his laws carved onto the columns of the main governmental building so that all could read and understand them.

The Founding Fathers of the United States wrote a Constitution, but before that they wrote a Declaration of Independence. In that declaration, the Founding Fathers had two goals: to state what they wanted and to explain why they wanted it. Their audience was not their fellow colonists or even England. Their audience was every other world power. The F.F.s understood that they might be construed as rebellious ruffians in the eyes of the world, so they distinctly referenced their "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" and then succinctly listed their previous problems and attempts at reconciliation with England.

But nowhere in that Declaration did they attempt to legislate. They laid the groundwork for the Constitution, and that is evident in many direct links between the lists of problems they had with England (in the Declaration) and prohibitive laws delineated in the Constitution. So the Declaration cannot be misused as a basis for legislation. That's the purpose of the Constitution.

In that Declaration, they specifically claim their god-given right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." But in the Constitution, the Framers understood that you cannot legislate happiness, so they changed it to "life, liberty, and property."

If only current legislators, Presidents, and judges would understand that. There is no right not delineated in the Constitution. There is no right to education, abortions, vote, healthcare, pensions, etc. These may all be elements of individual achievement of happiness, but nowhere is it allowed in the Constitution that the government must provide for any of these.

You as a citizen of the United States are allowed the right of many things. The Framers provided the structure within which the most people would find happiness: laws prohibiting the infringement of personal rights by the federal government and laws not allowing the actions of citizens to infringe on the rights of other citizens.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution do not declare happiness or demand that everyone experience it. These documents simply allow people the legal and societal structure to create it for themselves. So I find it incredibly sad that those who have not the imagination, intelligence, or courage to create their own happiness find the strength to demand it of the government. It's like all those clever criminals who, if they would just use their efforts for productive purposes, would probably be incredibly wealthy inventors or business owners.

Barack O'Stalin is Starting to Scare the Crap out of me

2009-09-02T12:24:00.002-04:00

The title of this column says it all with regards to my feelings and beliefs, but why would I write such a thing? Why would I even think such a thing? I mean, this is the man who will bring Hope and Change to a country that obviously possessed neither. Well then, let us ponder.

On August 21, 2009 (a mere 12 days ago), the White House posted a request for bid to contractors on their fedbizopps.com site for a job in which the winning contractor would mine data for the White House. (For those of you who want to see for yourself, it is Solicitation # WHO-S-09-0003.) This in and of itself would be nothing special, but it is the sources of data and the type of data that is to be mined that caused me to cringe in a way reminiscent of a good ol' fashioned suspense movie. It's when you know the scary thing is about to occur, and your body is at its highest level of awareness, skin tingling, eyes darting, heart racing. The White House wants some outside (non-governmental) contractor to sift through Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr, and all other social networking sites on which the White House "has a presence." That simply means that if the White House has a page on that site, then they are going to steal the keys to the achives.

And to what end? They want to monitor persons supporting and going against Obama. Umm, wouldn't that be just about everybody? Because either your with him or your with those who consider America a nation of greatness.

So every time you've written the words Barack, Obama, Rahm, Emmanuel, or any list of other tell-tale signal words for this administration, this contractor will pull your page and start a file. That file would then be handed over to the Justice Department for possible investigation.

I'm fucked.

You've got a power-hungry President (backed by a MORE power-hungry Chief of Staff - Rahm) who wants to find out who is for and against him. He just tried this with his rat-out-anti-healthcare-reformers.com email address, and he got hammered for its overt Stalinistic overtones. Now, he and his subversive Chicago cronies have taken a quieter approach to violating your civil rights.

How's that for irony? Eric Holder is saying that civil rights is the new frontier for Obama's Justice Department all while Obama is violating those same civil rights. Some of you may think that mining data on Facebook is not violating civil rights, but it is. Per the Constitution (a document Obama and Emmanuel have not yet been able to marginalize completely), the government is prohibited to make any law "abridging the freedom of speech...."

You wanna see how this gets REAL damn scary?

If Obama actually pays some vendor to mine date and provide him and his Justice Department with information on nay-sayers, he would not have violated the Constitution. He passed no laws! He simply worked around it. And because Obama and Eric Holder and Rahm Emmanuel would declare all nay-sayers as contrary to the general welfare (at least THEIR welfare), the Justice Department would be in a perfect position to apprehend citizens and violate Habeus Corpus, because Habeus Corpus does not apply in "...cases of rebellion or invasion [when] the public safety may require it."

So let's take another look at this: Obama and Rahm and Eric decide that all nay-sayers constitute a Rebellion. Those rebels can be identified legally through the non-governmental vendor picking your name off of MySpace. The Justice Department can then apprehend you legally and hold you via a violation of Habeus Corpus, or when your lawyer files a writ, through "probable cause."

I read the Gulag Archipelago. I know what comes next: 20 years in the gulag for saying you didn't agree with the President Supreme's decision to take government control of all cell phone networks in order to listen in on everyone's calls.

My next column will most likely be a recommendation for aspiring expats as to which destination may provide them with the best shot at true freedom again. Good luck, my friends. The greasy lawyer President is going to violate every liberty you have for the sake of Power. And he is going to get our names by virtue of us using his name on our websites. So let me act as a diversion for the rest of you so that you can escape his wrath: Obama sucks as President! Rahm sucks off goats for fun and profit! Eric Holder sucks the creamy filling out of Twinkies but can't bring himself to eat the yummy yellow cake!

With any hope, this bought you a few more minutes to escape the insanity in this country.

Chuck Smith has My Vote

2009-08-30T12:26:00.001-04:00

My fellow Virginians, after some soul-searching I have decided not to run for the 2nd Congressional Seat currently occupied by Rep. Glenn Nye(D). Many of you may not have even known that I was considering it. As it stands, I'm just a guy with an opinion, and I try to make that opinion entertaining as well as informative as often as I can. Our country is heading down a road of Orwellian creepiness, and I was more than willing to lay down my M-16 and fight for my country in a much more meaningful way.
But that was until I ran across the website for Chuck Smith. Mr. Smith needs to go to Washington. Mr. Smith possesses not only the experience of Republican politics -- he was the Chairman of the Republican Committee of Virginia -- but also the wisdom of a man who has seen the world. He is a retired JAG officer, was an enlisted Marine, and is poised to be a great representative for our district.
There are alternatives to him. Scott Rigell presents a pretty picture with his all-American family. His website provides his many connections and business successes, but does not list a single statement on his perspectives of any issue. He is a "lifelong member of NRA," so I guess he's for the continued preservation of our 2nd Amendment rights, but since that one really isn't in too much danger, it's irrelevant.
I implore everyone from the 2nd District (yes, that would be all of you who live in the Virginia Beach/Eastern Shore area) to read up on Chuck Smith. He's got my vote.

The Democratic Jedis Strike back

2009-08-27T10:46:00.000-04:00

I'm a moderate fan of sci-fi films, but what I saw today was pure Jedi magic on the part of the Democrats. The great Teddy Kennedy Kenobi was vanquished by a nefarious and unforgiving foe - cancer. It's an ugly disease and not one that you would wish on your worst enemy, but the Democrats see that the great Kennedy Kenobi may be more powerful in death than he was in life.
Democrats have gathered and have laid the path for using Kennedy Kenobi's death as the great catalyst to pass the healthcare reform bill. Moreover, they are using his death to lay blame at the feet of the Republicans for not taking part in a contrived sense of bipartisanship.
And Kennedy Kenobi would have had it no other way. If only they'd use their powers for good.

Obama's CIA Rope-a-dope

2009-08-26T11:41:00.002-04:00

Has anyone wondered why, despite the fact that Obama stated months ago that he would not pursue legal action against CIA interrogators active during the Bush administration, he is now doing just that? Why has he released the Hounds of Holden to probe the CIA (headed by Clinton-friend Leon Panetta)? Does he want to know the truth? Does he want to incarcerate the small handful of operatives (both government agents and civilian contractors) because they broke the law?
The answer to all these questions is, of course, NO. The truth has been known for months, now. And based on legal advice from Bush's lawyers, the acts were part of National Defense during a time of war. It is an ugly necessity, but a necessity nonetheless.
Obama was elected based on his polar-opposition of Bush. So when things are going poorly for the young man, he reverts back to what got him elected, what made him popular -- being anti-Bush.
So he resurrects the CIA interrogators issue. He lets Holden take the lead on it so that he can stand back and play the "It's not me; it's the law" card. It distracts people from the fact that his policies are driving America into a supermassive black hole of socialism. There is no other reason to bring legal action against the interrogators. The CIA will continue to be a treasure-trove of anti-Bush activity for Obama. That's why he is pushing for a more in-depth probe. It's like drilling for oil -- you don't hit the motherlode unless you keep digging. And Obama is looking for an unending source of political energy.

Are Democrats really better at healing the economy?

2009-08-22T10:51:00.002-04:00

The American people believe that Democrats have a better handle on the economy than Republicans. That's why Democrats swept the 2008 elections. Bush and the Republicans ruined the economy, and the Obama and the Democrats would right the ship. But Bush didn't have a Republican-controlled Congress since 2006. And since it is Congress which creates laws, wouldn't they incur some of the blame for runaway spending? Yes, Bush had to sign that legislation into law, but if Congress didn't write the legislation, Bush wouldn't have been able to sign it into law.
And don't try to tell me that Congress would have never signed war funding into law if Bush hadn't lied. British, French, Russian, German, and American intelligence all said that Saddam had WMDs. There were people INSIDE Hussein's government who thought he had WMDs. This was misinformation passed on to the world as as truth, not a lie. A lie denotes an intent to defraud someone. No one in the developed world or even inside Hussein's own administration who thought it was a lie. So keep your "lie" accusations to a dull roar.
So why does the American public think that Democrats understand economics more than Republicans? Republicans have a history of fiscal restraint -- although that has not been exercised since the '50s. Democrats are the spend-it-while-you-got-it party. They understand the transitory nature of politics and will use that temporary power while they have it.
Before I deconstruct the current Democrat plan, let's take a quick look at what common sense tells us about fiscal health. I want to look at this, because, of course, the Democrats got elected on a claim to heal our economy. We can all agree that on a personal level, our fiscal health is attained by minimizing debt and maximizing revenue. If we earn more and pay out less, then we will have more money at the end of the month. That makes us more fiscally healthy. Sometimes we must go into debt to buy something we need to help increase revenue, for instance, a car. We buy a car so that we have the ability to drive to a job where we can make more money than from a job that's within walking distance of our homes. But we have a set end-date for that debt, and the revenue remains at a high level throughout the debt. For many, the revenue will even increase.
But that is not the Democrat plan. We are not maximizing revenue or minimizing debt. In fact, the debt that we are incurring has no end-date, is more debt that we ever incurred before, and has no tie to revenue maximization.
Some may try to argue that government-run healthcare would keep more people healthy, thus allowing them to pay taxes. This sounds great, but government-run healthcare is meant to insure those who are not financially able to insure themselves now. That means that they are "under priviledged" or "low income." These people woudln't pay taxes anyway. Moreover, these are the people who would capitalize on the government's handouts, tax credits, etc. So it will actually cost the government (the taxpayers) more money to keep these people alive. I'm not saying that uninsured people should remain uninsured, but a government-run option is not the answer.
Despite the nation's hope that the Democrats would change the trajectory of the economy, the Democrats are doing what they always do: spend money like it's going out of style. The problem I have is: the Republicans do not offer an alternative. Republicans would simply spend money on other things. There is nothing in their actions of the last 50 years which would make me believe that they would cut the budget in any way. And because of that, they will continue to walk in the wilderness.

War on Terror is actually National Change Management

2009-08-19T09:15:00.001-04:00

I am a Certified Change Manager, and even I missed this one. That's what happens when you are too close to the action. Being a cog in the great American military war machine, I was slow to realize what the machine truly is: a Change Manager -- on a global scale.

Once said, this seems fairly obvious, but when your military is touted as being a deterrent to violent dictators and non-state forces as well as a boost for global humanitarian efforts, you can lose sight of its true nature. We (Americans) are trying to change the world's opinion of us so that we can use them at a later date for a strategic purpose of our choosing. Now, that's a cynical way of looking at it, but it's true. The military is utilized for actual combat, but very little of it seems to be in direct defense to national assets.

So what's really going on?

Afghanistan is undergoing a change -- from tribal savages to organized government. (If they've seen any news during an election year, they should probably want to stay tribal.) Anyway, we're helping them along to becoming civilized. It's a grand affair, and the whole world turned out to help raise little Afghanistan from a stumbling toddler to a self-reliant adult. The U.S. took on a similar, very single-handed role in Iraq -- with Great Britain playing the part of the goofy, yet lovable governess. And now the world wants to be a part of the next national transformation. Ooh (clapping of hands), how much FUN this should be.

All changes need a playbook. You start by establishing understanding what is wrong with the current status of affairs. In the case of Afghanistan, this seems fairly obvious to most. There are terrorists in Afghanistan who are training to conduct violent acts in the U.S. Then you must show your audience/stakeholders why the change needs to occur. You do this by creating a sense of urgency. 9/11 was our catalyst for a sense of urgency, but the Afghanis don't yet understand why they should change. But we plowed forward and showed them our vision of a democratized Afghanistan. Without creating the sense of urgency with regards to WHY they should democratize, then this experiment will never take a firm hold across society.

So as with any organizational change, there are detractors, resistors, aggressors. And whereas in the corporate world those resistors ply their animosity with passive aggressiveness and manipulative water-cooler talk, the resistors in Afghanistan have AK-47s, 107mm rockets, and rocket-propelled grenades. You can't convene a company-wide meeting and talk them into submission. As with corporate detractors, you either have to coop them into your plans or fire them.

But how do you do that when the detractors are not employees? You kill the most resistant (the ones who shoot at you), and gradually build trust with those that are only moderately resistant (those who just don't show up to vote come election day).

Don't be fooled, folks. We aren't fighting a war in Afghanistan; we're executing a change management process with the added complexity of weapons.

What is our true Foreign Policy, and Why?

2009-08-18T10:43:00.001-04:00

When your military is touted as being a deterrent to violent dictators and non-state forces as well as a boost for global humanitarian efforts, you can lose sight of its true nature. We (Americans) are trying to change the world's opinion of us so that we can use them at a later date for a strategic purpose of our choosing. Now, that's a cynical way of looking at it, but it's true. The military is utilized for actual combat, but very little of it seems to be in direct defense of national assets.
Politicians spout off at the mouth about how a democratized Middle East is in our national interests. Why? The oil? We don't get that much from them. If we wanted to expend military effort commensurate with our dependence on foreign oil, we would have our military camped out in Mexico City and all along the border destroying drug cartels. We would patrol the woodlands of Canada for errant moose. We would stomp Venezuela and Chavez into a bruised cap of South America.
So, why are we in Afghanistan and Iraq? It ain't the oil. I believe it has more to do with our national ego. Americans believe that America is great. (It is!) And Americans hold that idea for a wide variety of reasons. Liberals love that American government will provide for them all their needs if they cry "victim" long enough; and conservatives love that America provides them the opportunity to become disgustingly awesomely rich if they so choose to dedicate themselves to the requisite hard work.
But we all believe that the American dream should be shared with the world. We are so eager to share it, we are going to their doorsteps, and beyond, to shove it down their throats. This is the same policy used by missionaries. A do-gooder missionary shows up at a village with a case of bottled water and a mountain of Bibles, stating, "I will let you drink cool, clean water, but first you must read my Book." Does anyone wonder why missionaries get killed?
If our way is so great, then we should allow the world's population to come to America to experience that dream and then, if they so desire, to take it back to their home country and attempt to replicate it. India has done just that. They are not a perfect democracy, and they still violate human rights at every turn, but they have incorporated the American dream onto the Indian canvas for an evolving work of art.
You can see America's global influence resulting from commerce, and foreign citizens have been educated in our schools. The world would have reflected American values whether or not we pushed our military and foreign aid down their throats. Since doing that, though, we have created a world of limpid economies and greedy dictators, begging America for more money and resources. They destroy their own economies, because it is easier to just take money from America than to lead and manage a country's diverse economy, just as it is easier to steal money than to work for it.
We have pushed the world to evolve into our image, and over 1 billion of them are pushing back -- the Muslims. I believe a fundamental change in our foreign policy must be considered if we want to survive the incrementally increasing push of Muslim radicals and Islamist crazies.

Sensitivity and Diversity: Minority-Condoned Segregation

2009-08-18T10:34:00.002-04:00

Since the late 1800s, America worked vehemently to counter segregation. Legislatures signed laws into being, judges reinterpreted existing laws to establish the legal reality that there was an inalienable right of any person, regardless of race, color or creed to be treated like a human being. And the people rejoiced.
But they did not rejoice in the government's ability to lead them to this realization. They rejoiced, because the government finally realized what the people had known for years - that black Americans were every bit the same as white Americans and that they should be treated accordingly. But we can't criticize the government for being slow to pick up on the pulse of society. They are cloistered in their Ivory Towers in Washington, and the little people are so difficult to see when your perspective is from that altitude. That, and the depleted oxygen levels lend to a certain lack of cognitive ability. Employment, wages (in whole numbers and as a percentage of GDP) increased among black Americans from the time of the Reconstruction to the 1960s. President Eisenhower signed the first equal rights laws in the 1950s. Kennedy was more skilled at marketing, so he got more credit...as did President Johnson, but historical revisionists cannot erase the fact that Democrats were not at the forefront of segregation. And since the Equal Opportunity Act of 1964, the quality of life for black Americans (and subsequently for many other emerging minorities) declined significantly. I will not go into all the details. You can read just about anything by Thomas Sowell to prove that fact ad nauseum in a plethora of permutations.
So then the enlightened 1990s came about. Crime is at an all-time high, prisons are filled with minorities who have grown dependant on government largesse instead of their own god-given and Constitutionally acknowledged self-reliance. And so we all must now realize that minorities are not only not created equal - thus needing a Congressional Act to prove to the world that they are "equal" - but are so infirm and feeble to need a movement to be aware - sensitive, one might say - to their inherent infirmity and feebleness. Moreover, that movement must include the awareness of a particular person's infirmity and feebleness based upon their race, color, creed, and sexual orientation - a celebration of the Diverse nature of our society. Oh, tragic fate, that you should allow us to see the fault in our former perspectives on Segregation via the hard work of that dedicated, minority sector of the population only to forfeit our enlightenment to those who would seek a kindler, gentler segregation.
Why should I be forced to see the contrived benefits of any particular crowd when all that truly concerns me is that crowd's beneficial addition to society? Will my sensitivity to a convicted murderer's past erase the fact that he gunned down a young person with a productive life ahead of them? Will my awareness of that same murderer's diverse, Mexican-gang-member upbringing bring back to life the young man who was to start at Stanford in Fall 2009 under a full football scholarship, but who could have also gotten into Stanford on his proven academic achievement?
I care not that the gang-banger in question is Mexican or that he was raised in a rough neighborhood or that he is an illegal alien. I care that he was released from jail only to immediately cruise the rough streets of Watts, Palms, and Compton just to locate young Jamiel Shaw and gun him down as he walked home at dusk. I care that Jamiel Shaw worked diligently to maintain outstanding grades in high school while living amongst a community rife with drug violence. I care that Jamiel Shaw will not be able to pursue his college dream, pursue any kind of life at all. I care that a potential productive member of society was murdered by a completely unproductive member of society.
I am sensitive to the potential benefits of all, regardless of race, color, creed, or sexual orientation. I am aware that people are different, and offer diverse perspectives on life. I am also aware that we spend too much time and effort to bring to light something which everyone already knows exists. We have come full-circle. Just as in the 1950s and 1960s, the populace is at the forefront with regards to sensitivity and diversity. It's the elites who are just trying to codify it with specific training and clubs. And again, people are cheering it. They are cheering a minority-condoned segregation. They cry out, "Love us, because we're different!" And all this time, I thought we were trying to establish equality and a colorless society.

No One Asks the Tough Questions

2009-08-16T07:57:00.002-04:00

As someone who is increasingly seeing a dearth of logic and reason in America (and the world), I get incredibly frustrated when I see people ask a good question and then fail to ask the more important follow-up question. A man in Montana asked President Obama yesterday about the Administration's ability to pay for Healthcare Reform (or Health Insurance Reform or Single-Payer Healthcare or Universal Healthcare or Gimme Gimme More for Less Helathcare) without raising taxes, despite the campaign promise to NOT raise taxes. The President had the decency to admit that he can't cover the costs with current tax revenues, but that he "would have to find additional revenue." That's code for "raise taxes."
So you got the President to admit that taxes will be raised, but where is the crucial follow-up question? Someone needed to stand up at that exact moment and ask, "And what is the current plan to find that revenue? From where does your administration expect that revenue to come?" Oh, the President would respond with something akin to, "We are reviewing all our options at this time, but I will make sure that we do not lay the burden of paying for this policy on the backs of the middle class." It's a crap answer, so then we need to immediately ask ANOTHER follow-up question: "Mr. President, you and your administration and Congress have been touting the need for universal healthcare for months now. You've also said that you will champion a pay-as-you-go system. Well, universal healthcare legislation has been drafted. So are you saying that you and your administration and Congress have NO idea how it will be paid? You are so focused on signing legislation, and you don't even know how to pay for it?"
If we're going to hold our leaders (and I use that term loosely) accountable, we need to start asking the tougher questions. We will only discover their true aims and plans by getting into the details. I've heard before that "the devil is in the details." We need to know the details.

Where Has My America Gone?

2009-08-11T12:04:00.003-04:00

There is already a backlash tide swelling in America, fueled by the over-reaching legislation by Congress and the President. Obama was deft at launching his campaign to capitalize on the failures of the economy, housing market, etc. by stoking the fires of the mildly outraged citizenry into raging wildfires of urgency. That's why Rahm Emmanuel says, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." A "crisis" is potential energy; "urgency" is kinetic energy. They are directly related.
Whereas conservatives like to play down crises in order to maintain good order and discipline amongst the populace, liberals stoke the fires and play to people's fears, sense of disenfranchisement, and egos by telling them that the world is against them and that they have the power to change all the wrongs in our society. The liberals are a party with a perfect view of who they are, and more importantly, they have a perfect view of who their constituents are.
So, in the President's and Congress's goal to reform the United States in their image, they have created a crisis of their own. They have increased spending above and beyond anything that the conservatives had ever done, and there are plans to further increase spending...to the tune of $1.2 trillion. The plan to further spending is so critical that Timothy Geithner asked Congress to increase the Federal Debt Limit to $12.1 trillion. Not the act of an administration which is going to "pay as they go."
So, how does the liberals' outrage at Reagan's $3 trillion debt evolve to a state where $12.1 trillion is A-OK? Answer: Successive crises converted to urgency. And the conservatives, in a quest to be liked by everyone, have allowed it to happen. Often enough they have co-championed bills to increase debt to unsustainable levels. Our debt might be sustainable - even over and above $12.1 trillion, but that would take significant tax cuts across the board, both personal and corporate. Those tax cuts would result in an initial boost in tax revenue from people and businesses (mostly businesses) that are based inthe U.S. Over two-to-five years, companies who had moved offshore and even foreign companies would move their operations back to the States in order to take advantage of the favorable tax codes. That results in more corporate tax revenues. With the influx of jobs, that results in more personal income tax revenues. With more people working, more people can buy...stuff! That's more state tax revenue. If taxes would be cut across the board, we could sustain a debt in excess of $12.1 trillion, but that's not going to happen.
Congress and the President will let the Bush Tax Cuts lapse. Oh, they'll win the PR war by saying that they did not raise taxes, but what they will not tell you is that they didn't do anything to stop the inevitable tax increase. They stood by on the sidewalk and let a tax bus hit the populace as they were crossing the street.
Tax revenues have already dropped because of the recession. Further tax increases will result in lower tax revenues. For those of you who study logic, you know that this makes no sense. I understand your confusion. But the fact of the matter is History has taught us that after every taxcut - EVERY tax cut - in American history, there has been a significant and sustained increase in tax revenue. And that increase in tax revenue maintains itself until someone comes along and increases the tax rates. Then, contrary to simple logic, the tax revenues decrease.
For those who like to engage in deeper logic, you will realize that a decrease in tax rates provides people with an incentive to work harder and make more money, because they will be able to keep more of their paycheck. What is hard for many to realize is that most people are very selfish. Most people do not work for the benefits of those they do not know or to whom they are not related. Most people work for the betterment of themselves and their immediate families. If they have something left over after providing for themselves and their families, they will donate to charity. It has been shown that when tax rates decrease, there is also a significant increase in donations to charitable organizations.
So how do we change our very nature as mild-mannered conservatives in order to create a sense of urgency? We must see the world for what it is and for what it is becoming. I have seen my America give billions to nations around the world who continue to speak ill of us and support terrorists who continuously wage war on our people and our country. I have seen my America provide incredible resources and kindness to people stricken by flood, quake, and other disasters only to be kicked out as infidels or colonialists. I have seen my America shackle itself in war-cries of Diversity and Sensitivity, all the while the recipients of that diversity and sensitivity plague our streets with crime, violence, and intolerance. I have seen my America destroy its industrial innovations and brilliance by allowing the EPA and environmental NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) to hamper the natural progress of business. I have seen my America, in all its strength, debase itself to every people of this Earth who would like to see us removed from the map and enslaved. I have seen my America become the land of the freeloader and the home of the morally relativistic.
That niggling feeling in the pit of your stomach, that subtle ringing in your ears, that stinging sensation in your eyes, the twinge in the small of your back, the twitch of your fingers, the tightness in the muscles of your neck, the heat spreading throughout your limbs is all outrage. It is the culmination of what you are seeing, hearing, and disbelieving every single day. It is the physical manifestation of that emotion which results from wondering, "When exactly is this going to stop?" It is your body internalizing what 4000 of evolution and civilization have told you is unacceptable - a battle cry. A call to arms. A barbaric yawp. Give voice to it, and then give action to that voice. Don't just quietly go home and tell your spouse about it. Don't sit there, watching TV and vote quietly on election day to reverse the tide. Words cannot reverse the current momentum. We must take action. We must actively vote against every congressperson who voted to legislate our America to a position of weakness in the world and weakness at home. We must spread the word. Engage those who would not listen. Engage those who want to listen. Challenge raging diversity and sensitivity. Be a force. Together, we can change the momentum, because if we don't, Our America will no longer exist.

An End to the War Means an End to Radical Islam in America

2009-08-07T12:04:00.002-04:00

As I review the past statements of politicians, American and Coalition, with regards to the War on terrorism, I am struck by some oddities. Namely, I believe that we are trying to fight a war the wrong way, against the wrong people, and with the wrong forces.
Now that statement alone could get me in trouble, but I'm pressing forward. Heck, if a radical dickhead Islamic in Detroit can spout anti-American rhetoric leading to action taken against the U.S. by the Islamic dickhead's listeners, and that dickhead is not taken into custody, I'll take my chances with today's column.
So, how are we fighting the war incorrectly? First off, you can't fight terrorism. You can fight terrorISTS, but terrorISM is a tactic, not an enemy. That's like fighting a nickel-defense. You can use tactics to counter the strengths of the nickel defense, but you are actually "fighting" the opposing team, not their tactics. How is that relevant? If you can't even articulate the object of your offensive, you can't truly execute the conflict and hope for victory. Bush and his administration hosed that one up. But no one ever convicted him of being able to articulate his intent or the intent of his administration. The fact that "strategery" has been added to the American lexicon is proof positive.
How are we fighting the wrong way? Well, this one goes hand-in-hand with fighting the wrong people. Is our ultimate goal to safeguard the American people or the Afghanis? I admit to you that I could not care less about the Afghanis, Iraqis, or any other Islamic nation. And I submit to you that those higher up in our political and military structure are equally as ambivalent. Our goal is to safeguard the American people. What makes this goal easy is that the American people are pretty well focused in one small area -- the United States. The U.S. has defined borders: two are land borders and two are ocean borders. If we merely used the Coast Guard and Navy to patrol the waters off our coast, we could safeguard our ocean borders. Then we should divert some of the $1.2 Trillion spent by this administration on CRAP to build two Great Wall of China-sized walls to our north and south. Alaska is rather on their own, but we're not too worried about radical Islamics invading Alaska. Too cold for their blood. Besides, Sarah Palin would single-handedly slaughter them with a rifle from a helicopter if they came to her neck of the wilderness.
So we build the walls. Next we pull back all 200,000 American servicemembers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and let those countries handle their own business. We pulled out of the cities, and Iraq had a slew of bombings. Either the police figure it out quickly, or the toughies take over. It's kill or be killed. And the same thing would happen in Afghanistan. Better there than in America! Along with pulling our troops out, we pull all financial assistance. If those countries want our help, they can pay for it...dearly. We won't send troops to walk the god-forsaken sandy ground. We'll send pilots in bombers to drop some good ol' fashioned American love on them. And we will be 150% reimbursed by the requesting nation. We have the power, why the hell are we not pulling the strings?!?
So once we pull our servicemembers back to the States, we downsize the military. It needs it. Seriously. Then we make it very difficult for foreigners to enter the country. Visas are not granted according to some quota system. Everyone is background checked extensively. That may cost a lot of money, but since we're not wasting money on wars on foreign soil, we've got the money available. Oh, and on that note, since we are spending less, we could probably give the taxpayers a serious tax cut. But back to the countdown...
So, we've made it difficult for new radical Islamic dickheads to get into America, now we need to deport the ones who are already here. So we do just that. And we shouldn't do them a favor by deporting them to their homeland, we should put them in a plane, fly over the Atlantic (under the guise of flying them home), and push them out the plane while over the north Atlantic. We'll give them a parachute and a power bar!
Now that we've brought our boys and girls home, provided a tax cut to all Americans (especially the high-earners), sealed our borders, and cleared the nation of as many anti-American dickheads as we can find, we need to apply the appropriate force. The FBI would be bolstered to root out the ones who live in the U.S. ICE would be bolstered to deport. Border Patrol would get a SUBSTANTIAL increase to ensure that our borders are monitored by G-BOSS (Ground-Based Optical Surveillance Systems). I can't go into the details, but if we had one every few kilometers along our borders -- and link them to automatic-engaging .50 caliber machine guns -- we could save a lot of money on manpower and secure our borders like you can't even imagine.
Why go halfway around the world to protect our citizens? Fight the fight here. Let the radical Islamics beat themselves to death throwing themselves against our border walls and get shot up trying to sneak through our electronic security. We would be as safe as Hindu cows.

Stimulus: The Intent and the Result

2009-08-04T12:07:00.002-04:00

What is intended is not always what is realized. In fact, in the military we have a saying, "A plan never survives first contact with the enemy." This is an acknowledged paraphrasing of some military leader of yesteryear, but it is a true statement, nonetheless. What does it mean? It means that any plan sounds great and reads great while sitting on a desk in someone's office, but the real world has an uncanny knack of making a great idea become a horrific reality.
The Stimulus Bill has become a victim of this. Where were the wise people in Congress who could have given voice to the adage that the Bill would not survive first contact with the Real World? McCain was a servicemember. I know he's heard that adage. Oh, he was too busy trying to make himself look like a politician ready-for-election to actually make sense. Heck, the NAME "Stimulus Bill" didn't survive first contact. As soon as money started to get appropriated to the many many many many many shovel-ready projects, it became clear that very little of the economy would be stimulated. Moreover, the money was spent on many many many many many shovel-ready projects which will have little or no long-term impact on our country. Money that could have been spent on rebuilding outdated and dilapidated, yet heavily traveled, bridges across this country are now being spent on repaving roads. Yep, that's shovel-ready, but it will need to be redone in a few years. So there is no long-term positive impact to our country's economy or infrastructure.
The Stimulus Bill has created a program (Cash for Clunkers) that seems to be a rousing success. This program was intent on getting people to spend money on the automobile industry. There is also the intent to decrease the collective carbon footprint of the nation's drivers. But why are we providing MORE money to the auto industry above and beyond the billions in direct aid that was already provided? Why are we propping up the destructive United Auto Workers union? Why are we rewarding industries who have systematically ignored more efficient processes and techniques? And if you think that we are decreasing our carbon footprint, you are more intellectually banal than Rachel Maddow (MSNBC anchor). If GM sells 15,000 cars through the program, they will then manufacture 15,000 more cars to replace those. Those cars are made through manufacturing. Manufacturing requires the use of fossil fuels. Then there is the transportation of those new cars to the point of sale, which requires big trucks that run on diesel. So by selling 15,000 cars, there is no decrease in the collective carbon footprint, but as long as the UAW is propped up, then the Dems have kept their true campaign promise...albeit one that no one heard in the media. The only campaign promises that politicians seem to be able to keep are the ones given to lobbyists behind closed doors.
And what about Healthcare? Citizens nationwide are rising up in anger and frustration at the government's attempt to steal more money for a program that will not survive first contact. The intent may be to insure all those millions of Americans who have no insurance, but the reality will be to force young people to pay money they don't have (via taxation) to buy insurance they don't want or need. This is called taking away a person's right to choose. Women have the right to choose if they want to kill a baby growing inside of them, but now all young people will not be given the right to choose whether they want to spend their money or not. This is one of those "I will not tax middle income people" campaign promises that is going right out the window. Another intent of healthcare reform is to take care of every American according to the government's idea of acceptable, standardized health practices. And people are using scare tactics by saying that old people will die because of government healthcare, and the government is denying that that will be the case. Well, the government has already proven that they will sacrifice the elderly. When the government recently came out with their priority list of those who should receive the vaccine for the H1N1 virus, the elderly were nowhere on the list. And this is a simple vaccine. Right now we are prioritizing a limited number of supplies to benefit healthy wage-earners and the young. But what happens if we move beyond that and start prioritizing based on perceived benefit to society? Will professors get vaccinated before military servicemembers? Will community organizers get vaccinated before corporate executives? Will union teachers get vaccinated before non-union teachers? We've already seen how the government favors some sectors of society over others, why would they not continue this with their new world order healthcare? The result WILL be that all will be denied state-of-the-art healthcare, now available to at least SOME through insurance, because the government will decide (through a committee already stipulated in the reform bill) which treatments are available for that low low fee we will all pay and which treatments are considered too expensive. If your life is at stake, wouldn't you spend every penny you have -- and many more that you don't have -- to save yourself...or someone you love? That's why people are going bankrupt in healthcare. To save themselves or a loved one. So why is the government going to hamstring doctors in their availability of life-saving treatments? Heck, the UK healthcare system can't even afford to give painkillers to their citizens. When ibuprofen is too expensive for a nationalized healthcare system, you should realize that you need to run to the hills.
So where are we? We are caught in the middle of an entitled, audacious collective of politicians who are going to indebt our children to a series of programs that will eventually cripple our economy beyond the point of no return. We will effectively make the one-time Superpower in the world into a 2d world country with aspirations of being relevant again. We will be as relevant in the global market as Albania.
The people who are mobbing the many nationwide town hall meetings and slamming the politicians and bureaucrats for trying to push this inherently broken system onto us are doing the right thing. Do not give these vandals the opportunity to speak out. Do not give them the opportunity to collect little sound bites to give to the media outlets to make them look like they are in control. The outrage displayed by the audiences is palpable and a welcome breath of fresh air. The silent majority is now rearing up to show that they will stand only for so much shenaniganry (it's a word, I swear). There are millions of Americans who have listened to the politicians make their case for healthcare. These are the same Americans who listened to the cases being made for the Stimulus Bill. These Americans didn't speak up at that time, despite their reservations, and they are now seeing the disastrousresults. So now they are taking their opportunity to lambaste the self-serving, out-of-touch politicians for their grandiose insanity.
We are about to see a dramatic shift in Congress. Democrats had 2 years to change the world. Now that we know exactly what that change is, we are fighting back. It is time to rise up and not just shout out at townhall meetings. It is time to rise up and lead. Every congressman who voted for the Stimulus Bill or is voting for healthcare reform should find himself or herself up against new political rivals. In Virginia Beach, we had a young buck named Glenn Nye who won and changed the seat from Repub to Dem. I don't care about his color (blue or red). I just know that he supports Healthcare reform. He must go. And because of that, I am seriously considering throwing my name into the ring. I hate politicians who have hijacked our country to remake it in their image. That god complex is too prevalent in a system which is supposed to be filled by people who are SERVING our country. I've served my country without trying to remake it in my image. Am I better than these politicians? I won't say that I'm a better person, but I will say that I'm a better servant to the United States. Perhaps we need more of that in Congress.
Whaddya think?

Maintaining the Outrage

2009-08-01T12:49:00.002-04:00

Over recent weeks I have discovered that my efforts to publicize and opinionize over the plunging of my America into the depths of fascism and socialism have left me drained. I guess an argument can be made that my current geographical location, the activities surrounding this location and the god-awful heat in this location could be the reason for my drain. But that would be incorrect. The heat is bearable, if only because I make every attempt to limit my overexposure. My part of the collosal team effort here is not as active as it once was when I was a young lieutenant. My part now consists of much thinking, decision-making, and the rather frequent running about, ensuring things are getting done according to all that thinking and decision-making.
So what has me so drained?, I ask myself betwixt bouts of vocational thinking. It is my outrage which has drained me. My outrage at the wholesale treason of selling my country to the Chinese, the hijacking of industry, and kidnapping of basic individual Constitutional rights. I see three felonies committed on such a national scale (and beyond), and I wonder, "where are the law enforcement officers who should be apprehending the perpetrators?" The founding fathers could not foresee every little quirk that would occur in the future, but they knew that the solutions should never reside at the federal level. They knew that if the states held the power to create solutions that any damage would be limited to that state, it wouldn't be wholesale.
But the states saw that the federal government could levy more taxes than could the states, so they coveted. They wanted what the federal government had and figured out how to get more. According to the Constitution, if the states could not provide for a particular item, then the Federal government could provide for it. So the states cried "poor." They claimed to have nothing, so sauntered up to the Federal table, held out their grubby hands with their greasy plates and asked, "Can I have some more, please?"
The states voluntarily gave up the rights to be States...for money. The states sold their political souls. And when given the opportunity, the Federal government followed suit. They sold themselves and our security to the Chinese. The Chinese hold more US debt than any other organization or country. And do you think they like the fact that there may be incredible inflation in the US over the next few years? Not hardly. If that happens, their debt is worth much less. The US gets to take the easy way out. But what if the Chinese don't like that arrangement. When you consider the trillion or so dollars the Chinese own of our debt, you can imagine that they might get upset when that value decreases by a few hundred billion. They might get just upset enough...to invade Taiwan...or maybe Guam...what about South Korea?
So with soulless state governments and a soulless federal government, any action by the Chinese would be met with sanctions by the UN and perhaps a strongly worded non-binding agreement. Oooh, I bet the Chinese are shaking in all billion of their boots. And what does the soulless U.S. government do next? How about impose a cap-n-trade scheme on the world? And when China and India tell the U.S. to hit the road, Jack, Obama tells Hillary to get her panties in a wad and tell those Asian upstarts to get in line. And then the EPA says that if China and India don't get on board, there will be absolutely no impact on global climate. (There wouldn't have been any in the first place.) So if there will be no impact on global climate, why are we doing it? Because the soulless Federal government want more money.
Who out there has seen "Tombstone?" If there is anyone right now not nodding their head and saying to no one in particular, "I'm your huckleberry," punch yourself in the face. For the rest of you, remember what Doc Holliday said about soulless people like Johnny Ringo. They can never kill enough or steal enough or inflict enough pain to ever fill that hole inside of them. That's the neverending torture of the soulless. And we have two levels of government who have no souls. They've been sold to the highest bidder, and now it is time to kill, steal, and inflict pain on the world via a message of Change, Hope, and Stability. Be careful what change you wish for. Hope is best felt in church. The U.S.S.R. was stable.
As I've said before, my outrage has drained me. I feel dread most of the time, because there is no end in sight. I don't believe that I have the energy to fight the fight that must be fought and still have enough left over for my work, my friends, and most especially for my family. I bandied about the idea of going political (truly political) a few times in the past. With every new wave of desire comes the realization that I would be fighting for a country who has voluntarily sold its soul. And if I were to sacrifice what little time I have on this mortal coil, which could be otherwise spent enjoying my family, why would I waste it on a country that has no desire to save itself?

Bobby Jindal's Got It Wrong

2009-07-25T11:39:00.002-04:00

Louisiana's Governor -- and 21st Century version of Mr. Rogers --published an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on how to make healthcare reform bipartisan. That in itself is the wrong approach to reforming healthcare. We should not waste breath or synapses attempting to get both tainted sides of the congressional aisle to agree on a reform plan. We should be spending our time putting forth smart alternatives to the current healthcare system.
Mr. Jindal has ever-so-pleasantly laid out his logic that Obama is basing his healthcare reform marketing on false pretenses. Well, duh! He's a politician. When they tell the truth, we can tell, because their heads explode or they turn into a pillar of salt. As their heads have not exploded nor have they turned into pillars of salt recently, we can assure ourselves that we have been told a litany of lies in recent years.
Governor Bobby J. then itemized Seven Principles for a successful bid at a bipartisan healthcare reform plan. First and foremost is the principle that there should be transparency (a congressional staple when spoken but in reality is as elusive as a yeti). And Jindal's version of transparency is contorted. He wants there to be e-records and internet postings of the costs of procedures, tests, etc. E-Chart is already being proliferated throughout the medical community. The medical professionals realized the hassles with duplication, errors, and non-portability of critical medical information from one venue to the next. It was not the federal government who pushed the implementation of this innovation. It was the doctors themselves. As their day fills faster with patients, they needed a way to process as many people as possible. Necessity it the mother of invention, and the doctors had a need.
I agree that the insurance companies need to post the costs on the internet or somewhere that patients can access in order to make informed decisions. After my second child was born, I began the process to get neutered. Two kids seemed like enough, so I wanted to shut down the production line. I could not get a straight answer from anyone (doctor or insurance company) about how much the procedure would cost. I got a lot of talk about codes and negotiations, all in the pretty-obvious attempt to keep me in the dark. I'm a big fan of posting costs.
Mr. Jindal then continues to write about what a good bipartisan plan SHOULD be. The world does not exist in the SHOULD realm. We exist in the IS realm. Jindal spends too many inches of his article expressing the traits of a good healthcare plan. I don't care what traits you like in a healthcare plan. Be a frickin' leader, Governor! Issue an alternative healthcare plan.
But here's why the Repubs won't do that. If they come up with any alternative plan, the Dems will nitpick it and use it against the Repubs during next year's elections. The Repubs are too afraid to be leaders. They are too afraid that the Dems will devastate them in the polls by means of the normal election year politics.
Governor Jindal is no different than any other career politician out there today. It's all about staying in POWER so that they can pass the right agenda. A true leader would be able to galvanize all parties and the imagination and intelligence of the public if they were able to craft a well-rounded, forward-looking healthcare plan and then had the ability to sell it to the public. Let me help them out:
The Bonifant Healthcare Plan, 2009:
-Allow insurance customers to customize their insurance policies just as they are able to do with their auto insurance. This will allow customers to pay for coverage they need, not for coverage the individual states mandate that they purchase.
-Allow insurance customers to purchase insurance policies from companies outside their state of residence. There are states which do not require the insurance companies to force customers to buy fully loaded policies. If a customer in New York, who is accustomed to paying $12,000 per annum for insurance is allowed to purchase a policy from a Wisconsin carrier, who usually charges $3000 for the coverage they need, the New Yorker will most likely purchase the cheaper, more customized policy. That would force the New York carrier to adjust its business to allow for the customized policies.
-Make all medical insurance lawsuits into "Loser Pays" systems. That would make potential suers pause before initiating frivolous lawsuits.
These three simple steps would result in drastic changes in the current medical system. You don't need to force medical coverage on people who don't want it (folks in their 20s), people who don't rate it (illegals), and people who have made such poor choices in their life that they can't get hired on by a company who offers an inexpensive plan. These three simple steps would allow doctors to work without the continuous threat of litigation. I would allow doctors to pay less for their medical malpractice premiums, which would lower medical costs. It would allow companies to compete over state lines for nation-wide business. These three simple steps would allow the market to make many of their own rules, which are all based on the need of the consumer. If the consumer needs customized policies for a lower price, the insurance companies will figure out how to deliver it. And because quality is always of concern to the consumer, the policies will maintain a high level of coverage. If you don't believe me, look at the auto industry. The consumer wanted an inexpensive, reliable vehicle. Toyota delivered. If you want to pay more for performance, Ferrari is the way to go. If you want something in the middle, buy a BMW, Mercedes Benz, or an Acura. Insurance policies would work the same, we just need to let them.

Political Audacity

2009-07-22T11:27:00.002-04:00

When one grows up in any particular environment, one gets accustomed to the norms of that environment. I grew up in a contrarily rural and tourist-beach locale. Some locals even joke about themselves as, "Our tractors have surfboard-racks." I preferred snow skiing, but I can still relate. We owned an old tractor, and I spent lots of time at the beach.
What happens when one matures within the Beltway? The norms of that area revolve around power, money and influence, but these are all cloaked in the benign moniker "service." What about power, money and influence relates to service? If you assume that "service" is merely a shortened version of "self-service," you are absolutely correct.
Since the late 1700s, politicians in the U.S. have worried more about personal gain than society's pain. Let's look back and find out why that is. Could it be because people in the late 1700s worked? There was no unemployment. If you were unemployed, you died from starvation. And since that's a pretty good incentive to work, unemployment wasn't a problem. And since the problem did not exist, government did not even recognize it as an issue that they would need to address.
Fast forward 150 years. America has spread through Manifest Destiny to the west coast. California is still an outback which late-to-the-game gold speculators and first-wave societal cast-offs call home. Land is dirt cheap. Mexican help is easy to find and even cheaper than land. Folk singers warble about the low cost of living a lazy existence by the ocean. Further east, America's heartland has become the breadbasket of the world. We are exporting more grain and staple foods than any other nation. With that surplus, gained on the backs of America's hard-working farmers, the urbanites begin to feel as if we have too much, that we are too successful. The farmers aren't thinking that. They feel as if they have earned their money through long days and ingenious developments in agribusiness. The urbanites don't see the daily toil that results in their food, so they become lazy. They don't need to work very hard to pay for food, because there's just so darn much of it. Supply and demand. People work less. Unemployment becomes a problem.
The courts see the burgeoning societal problems and point the blame at society. We are to blame for our own problems, they proclaim through their many wayward and devastating court rulings. Murderers are set free for not hearing their rights. Thanks, Miranda!
Murderers are coddled, because Judge Bazelon of the DC Circuit Court believes that all crime is due to poverty. And now the torch is lit. Someone has identified the root cause of everything. Poverty. Well, that should be easy to fix. Let's buy food! We've got plenty. But politicians don't want to spend their own money. They are in service to society. They don't make that much. But they use their influence to steal taxpayer money to buy food and housing for those who have decided that working is beneath them. 150 years earlier, we would have let them starve. I rather like that course of action. If someone pities the poor, they are fully and legally able to give money to any charity they want. Churches are the usual recipient of these funds. But now the government has enabled other charities to take money tax-free. The government never taxed charities before, because the charities were always churches. Separation of church and state precluded the government from meddling with church charities. But now we have a bastardization of the original intent. This will not be the first of its kind.
So now that the politicians and judges have set the precedent of exacting influence to steal taxpayer money for their own beliefs, they can easily make the leap to exact influence to steal taxpayer money for their own benefits. Of course, those beliefs and benefits are cloaked in the moniker "service." Service to a needy constituency. Service to a caucus of people who would rather not work for their income but have the government provide for them because of the lofty ideals of their cause or organization.
I read conservative pundits claim that liberals want to revert all control to the federal government in an attempt to create a socialist nation. I read that they want all the power for themselves. But do they want power for its own sake, or do they want power to use for the purported benefit of mankind?
I truly believe that many of them began their crusades striving for more power so that they could benefit the causes near and dear to them. As they matured in D.C., they began to like to taste of power and influence. It's more intoxicating than money. What red-blooded single male wouldn't like the power to go into any bar and walk out with the best-looking woman there? For many it takes money, but if you had power and influence, none of that would matter. The money is a side-effect, albeit a beneficial one. If you doubt me, as Al Gore.
So the power that so drew the liberals in their quest for cosmic justice corrupted them in such a way that they just crave more power. If you have the ability to change a local law or build a local bridge with your influence, how much more awesome would it be to change the way the United States of America, the greatest country in the world (so far), addresses health care, education, and international affairs? It's ego. It's power. It's audacity. Politicians believe (incorrectly, I might add) that they have solved many of the world's ills and that with only a little more money, and a little more power, they can remake the world in their own image.
It's a god complex. So let's wonder for a moment how decimated our country will be with over 400 federal level politicians (not to include the many czars/tsars and bureaucrats) striving to take more of our money to satisfy the itch of over 400 god complexes.

Hit the Reset Button, Part II

2009-07-18T09:20:00.004-04:00

So where do we go from here? Our leading politicians -- the President and Vice President -- state confidently that the Stimulus is working.If so, why is unemployment much higher than even their experts had predicted? And if the Stimulus is working, why is their talk of asecond stimulus? Because double of a good thing results in double the success?
VP Biden declared that not only is the stimulus working, but we need to keep spending money to avoid bankruptcy. Because I am a simpleton, let's approach this from my simple perspective. If a taxpayer making $45k annually racks up $75k in credit card debt, in addition to a mortgage and car loans, would that person be closer to financial freedom by spending more money? Possibly. If that person took a majority of their earnings and spent them on debt, then that person would be closer to financial health, if not full financial freedom. If that person spent their money on new cell phones, flat-screen TVs, and other consumer goods, that taxpayer would be looking over the precipice of bankruptcy with every spent dollar.
What course does the government want to take? Are they going to spend tax revenue on paying off debt or putting short-term money into thehands of unemployed taxpayers and influential congressmen? At this time, there is no plan to buy back any of the federal debt we have issued in any meaningful amounts. Our plan to buy back debt from China and other debtors is akin to depleting a glacier by making a single snowball from the glacier and throwing it into the ocean.
The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the current spending plan will break the back of our country. Accountants, finance wizards, economists have stated that the current rate of spending will bankrupt the country. Career politicians and former community organizers declare that we need to spend MORE to avoid bankruptcy. Who ya gonna believe?
I watched a terrible bit of cinematic train-wreckage called "The Day theEarth Stood Still." It was a vile piece of pro-environmentalist rhetoric, but the John Cleese character said something sage. He mentioned that it is only at the precipice of catastrophe does a society effect any meaningful change. We are not yet at the precipice, but we are close. We aren't looking down the chasm, but we can certainly hear the wind howling in the depths of the abyss. Do we really want to get so close that we see the eternal darkness of societal catastrophe? Do we want to see the efforts of generations lost to the pie-in-the-sky dreams of the anointed few which only serve the laziest sectors of our society?
But there is no one to take up the gauntlet and the banner and charge into the political fray. The military makes leaders who, as they ascend the ranks, see the devastation wrought upon politicians and their families. And those military leaders, who are political in their own right, choose to spare their families from the vile scrutiny of an amoral media and a power-hungry political machine. Only those who areconfident in their own abilities to debase themselves further than the current crop of media elites and political hacks in order to further their own power-grabbing desires enter the fray.
There are more courageous folks in Honduras and Iran than in America. The Honduran Congress ousted a President who was trying to violate their Constitution. Our politicians violate the Constitution every day, but since it is so commonplace, we just let the erosion proceed. There are revolution-minded folks in Iran who ran against Ahmadinejad! That man would just as soon throw you in a dungeon than have a political debate with you, but the election occurred, and I truly believe that Ahmadinejad won fair and square. So what the media shows thousands of people in the streets. These are probably the same type of people who rally in the streets of America: the ones without day-jobs. And, just like in America, I believe that there is a silent majority in Iran who are satisfied (if not thrilled) with the current Iranian president.
Political courage exists in countries with oppressive governments andsignificant challenges, but in the Land of the Free, courage is lacking. We have been free to do as we want to for so long that the majority of folks have decided to do nothing. It is safer that way. We can all fly below the radar and just hope that things start to get better.
Hope is not a course of action. Prayer is not a tactic for improving the situation. Action and courage are needed. Action for the sake of action is not the solution. The solution will be realized when a leader stands up and takes action to neutralize the destructive actions of Congress. Then once the downward spiral has been halted, that leader must change the direction of the country by showing society the path, and explaining why it is the right path. President Bush may have made some important decisions to put the country on the right path, but he never used his opportunities to explain to the country why his decisions were the right ones. Don't get me wrong, I disagreed with a lot that he did. But a leader has the responsibility to improve his country. And if the polls show that a course of action is not popular with the public, then that leader must SHOW the public why they should like it. Obama is doing that with his hour-long infomercials on climate change, healthcare, etc. The problem is: no one is watching. Reagan knew how to galvanize a country into following his lead. I don't want another"Eight Great Years." I want a NEW "Eight Great Years." Old blood can't fertilize a new change. Obama knew this and played that card against the decrepit-looking McCain. Someone doesn't have to be young to be new blood.Where are we to find it, though? Where is the new blood? Where are the leaders we so desperately need? I believe I know. Right now, they are the ones starting new businesses and creating the wealth in hopes of a reborn country.

The Stimulus is Working. I mean it!

2009-07-11T11:40:00.002-04:00

President Obama stated today that the Stimulus Bill worked as planned. If by "planned" you mean got us back on track to an economic system whereby the prices and values of goods and services are determined by the natural law of supply and demand and that businesses are not hampered by oppressive tax codes, then the Stimulus Package did notwork. But, if by "planned" you mean that the Federal Government stole more money from taxpayers by means of devaluing it via turning the printing presses on "FULL" as if it's the day before the end of the world, and using that money to make everyone more dependent on government, then YES, the Stimulus Bill has been a rousing success.
The Stimulus Bill, in the minds of every card-carrying liberal, was a green-light to create dependency on the Federal Government. Obama acknowledges this by stating, "it has already extended unemployment insurance and health insurance to those who have lost their jobs in this recession." Umm, so bolstering dependency programs has improved our economy? You don't improve the quality of a crappy trapeze act by erecting more safety nets. You build a bigger tent so that the circus will hire more trapeze artists and install more trapezes. The government must set the stage for the economy to grow: build that bigger circus tent. But for the government, it will take no works or constructions projects to build the "circus tent." It merely will take tax cuts and cuts on appropriations for programs with weak or non-existent results (there are plenty from which to choose). And once those appropriations are cut (and I mean ELIMINATED), then we can go about cutting actual budgets for those programs.
If any of you aren't following me, there is a difference between cutting appropriations and cutting budgets. A budget is the current year plan of cash flow. Total income applied to the total expenditure is abudget. An appropriation is a legally bound promise by the government to increase the budget for a program year after year. Congress appropriates money for their annual raises. Congress appropriates money for all their programs so that they always know that there needs to bemore money flowing through the coffers every year. It is also a set-up for when campaign ads need to be run against the opponents. If a congressman votes against the $4 million appropriated as an increase to a particular program and instead lobbies for only a $2 million appropriation, then that congressman is slammed in the campaigns for cutting funding to vital programs. No money was ever actually cut, but it's congressional money. Just the thought of money means that its real. Just as the thought of stealing more from the taxpayers makes it real.
Yes, the Stimulus has worked...like a charm. And the liberals care not that unemployment is 3 points higher than estimated by Obama's own brilliant economists and mathematicians. Obama's team estimated that with the passing of the Stimulus Bill unemployment would go to 7% at its zenith and up to 8.5% if the Stimulus Bill was not passed. Umm, gents. You were wrong, but we will not see that in print or in the news. We will be told that the economy is nuanced and that there are complicated factors that we simpletons just can't understand. I can understand this: if the government raises my tax rate, I pay more in taxes; if the government spends more money on programs, that money has to come from somewhere. And if it doesn't come from increased tax rates, then it comes from increases money printing...which basically steals money out of my pocket all the same.
Thanks Obama. I now have a wallet filled with dollar bills which are worth 95% of what they were a year ago, but my mortgage is still the same, and my power bill increased. If I had no self-worth or self-esteem or sense of personal freedom or responsibility, I'd be happy to live off the government teat, waiting for someone to rescue me from the economic Katrina you yourself brought into existence. Luckily, Iwill be one who stands up. I will collect like-minded individuals, and we will together set our own course. We will create wealth for America, despite your best intentions of robbing us. A few years ago, a movie called The Incredibles hit theaters. The villain in the movie worked very hard to create technology so that everyone could be Incredible. His reason: because if EVERYone is incredible, then NO one is incredible. Obama has taken a page from that villain's book, trying to rob society of those incredible individuals who stand above the fray and create wealth. Yep, there are some who are definitely more special and critical for our overall success than others, and they should be treated accordingly. Not in the courts. Not in the papers. But in the taxcode.

Hit The Reset Buton, Part I

2009-07-09T10:15:00.002-04:00

It's time to hit the Reset Button.

Despite the campaign slogans of late, Change is not something that hasjust appeared on the stage at which all of us can "Ooh" and "Aah,"pondering why it was absent from our lives up until now. Change has occurred since the beginning of our Republic. Change is what gave birthto our Republic. The hard-working farmers, surveyors, and merchants ofthe Colonies were fed up with oppressive taxes without the properrepresentation in the British Parliament. Allow me to mention that theBritish Government at this time did not tax the colonials on theirincomes. The people were taxed on goods they consumed: sugar, molasses,newspapers, legal documents, playing cards, glass, paint, lead, paperand tea. These taxes were not even levied directly on each colonialcitizen. They were levied as import duties of taxes on the businesseswho produced these products, but as anyone with any business senseknows, those costs were passed on to the consumer. Everyone whopurchased these items knew they were paying the British Government thesetax revenues so that the British Government could station troops in thecities to enforce the many taxes. Hold on a second! Let's look at that one again. The government took money from the citizenry to pay for thesalaries of those government officials who enforced oppressive laws and taxes. Sounds like "the more things CHANGE, the more they stay the same."

So while the Republic has evolved over the years, galvanized bypoliticians who declare Change in its many benevolent and benign forms,we still hear the battle cry of new visionaries wishing to see some"actual" change -- as if all previous changes were mere imaginarychanges. Ask any black American whether he can choose his own seat on abus or in a restaurant, and I assure you that his answer will show youthat actual change has occurred. Politicians will continue to decry theneed for more changes. There is a driving force amongst the privilegedpolitical class (as well as in academia) to expend as much force asnecessary to effect the desired change. And if, despite the maximumeffort expended, that change is not realized, then the privileged classconvince themselves (and the world) that more of the same effort needsto be expended.

Albert Einstein, a reportedly smart guy, said that the definition ofinsanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting adifferent result. If that axiom holds true (which I believe it does),then additional effort of the same brand that resulted in a lack ofresults should not be the proposed solution for future results. The Waron Poverty and the War on Drugs have been fought for 65 years and 25years, respectively. We still have poor people and druggies in thiscountry. We are spending more per capita today on these Wars than everbefore in history. Federally backed coalitions and programs continue toprint flyers and posters, air ads on TV, and engage social workersacross the nation in an effort to combat these issues. Why haven't the billions of dollars worked?

Here's my take: if you want to combat drugs, you go after the users.You make it so undesirable to do drugs that the thought to buy and dodrugs is abhorrent to them. Then you have to know who is using drugs soyou can get the word out. Okay, so who is using drugs? Teenagers and college-age people, mostly. This demographic has not the experience orwisdom to understand that their consequences have actions. They acttoday without a care as to what tomorrow might bring. Party tonight!Deal with the hangover tomorrow. Hook up tonight! Get tested tomorrow. But the hangover and the STD testing are not detracting enough to getthis demographic to stop their destructive activities. And if luckhappens to shine on them, they may grow out of that phase without muchmore than a fond memory of the last great hangover they had. Too many escape that lifestyle with STDs, unexpected children, and marriages thatwere founded on loose sand and looser morals. Do you honestly thinkthat we can get through to this group that drugs are bad? They KNOW drugs are bad. Why the hell do you think they do it??? They are experiencing life -- sucking the marrow, as deftly written by Mr. H.D.Thoreau.
There are many drug users out there who have grown older but not past that phase. Their plight is sad but of their own design. We watch Dr.Phil and applaud the few who pick themselves up by their bootstraps toforge a new life. These individuals are heroes and testaments to thekind of intestinal fortitude it takes to make the right choices despitethe plethora of wrong choices offered to us. These people, who possessthe qualities of a winner, should never be used as examples for the needof further government programs. No matter how many billions you spend,you cannot buy intestinal fortitude. You cannot purchase a winner. Ifthat were the case, the most expensive horse would win the KentuckyDerby. Every jockey or show dog owner knows that a winning animal isborn with a winning spirit. The jockey and the owner are merely thereto put that animal in a position to succeed, because without the human,that animal would never have the opportunity. But with people it'sdifferent. A loser druggie does not need a social worker to hold hishand. That loser druggie is a person, possessing all the abilities andphysical characteristics to be a winner (or at least an activeparticipant). I refuse to believe that people "in need" need to betreated as animals, corraled into lines to eat and dress and search foremployment. Those "in need" need to be treated like people. They needto be given the opportunity to succeed. How is that done? It's calledthe U.S. Constitution. Without any of the millions of findings sinceits penning, the Constitution lays out the rights of our citizenry toget up off their asses and work. They can work for someone else, orthey can work for themselves. This Republic was founded on work, but itis headed in another direction -- a direction that rewards laziness,amoral behavior, and government dependency. The framework of oursociety has changed so that those who are in need will be provided forby those who have the resources.

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need..."Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

Scared yet?

Where is the Way Out?

2009-06-26T12:43:00.000-04:00

As I lay awake in my bed a few nights ago after a couple of rockets werelobbed into my camp by a few poor laborers who were paid $25 by Islamicradicals to rain fire on the infidel, I thought about things whichfrighten me. Indirect fire is right there at the top of the list. Itstrikes with almost no warning. It kills and injures indiscriminately.It takes one guy with power, money, and influence over a larger group ofignoramuses to make it happen.It's a lot like our current government. That is the #1 Fright-inducingentity in the world today. It matters not who's in power. Everyonewants to add their own programs onto existing programs. To cut aprogram isn't really a cut. It's just a termination of furtherincreases. If my boss cuts my pay, I can expect less every paycheck.He doesn't just stop giving me raises. And speaking of paychecks, cananyone tell me why Congress has voted to continue their insanelyabove-inflation rate salary increases while bashing private executiveswho make money based on productivity? Or that they voted for theseincreases while unemployment increases to 10% and beyond? Let me tellyou why. They feel as if they are working harder to cure the nation'sills, so they feel as if they are due for more money. So, they feel asif they are being productive and want to be compensated for it. Hmmm.Sounds like private enterprise to me. What's good for the goose...I believe that there should be a referendum in each state to vote on payincreases for all government employees (including politicians) in thatstate. You can separate the referendum so that the city engineers whoare filling potholes and repaving highways are voted on separately fromworthless politicians, because you may want those engineers to have anincrease. Let's take a look at the second- and third-order effects:Because there are more citizens in private industry thangovernment...barely, the pay increases would likely fail to happen.Worthless, unproductive government workers would start to see thebenefit in getting a job with a private enterprise...or they would seethat they need to be more productive. Either way, you have an energizedworkforce who wants to create more effectiveness and efficiency, or youcut enough chaff from the governments' rolls to have an efficientgovernment system. Government unions would spend millions of dollars onmarketing campaigns to show the populace what had been accomplished thatyear. Not necessarily a bad thing. That would leave less money tospend on politican campaigns.How does government get away with some of the actions currentlyunderway? Thomas Sowell illustrates it perfectly in his book "Vision ofthe Anointed." He details how those who possess the Vision and haveappointed themselves guardians of the Vision believe that they aremorally superior to all detractors. They rely on the feelings evokedfrom that Vision despite the lack of empirical evidence to prove it, andeven when empirical evidence DISproves it (see: Global Warming). Andwhen detractors raise their voices, they are immediately cut down asbeing obtuse, simplistic, and evil. It's good to be the King. When youmake the rules, you can never break them.So, despite that we know that spending $3 trillion dollars of indebtedmoney on social programs will not result in any further success in thosesocial programs other than to obesify (I think I just made up that word,but I'm sticking to it) those same programs, why do we keep spending themoney? Why not cut spending altogether for planned parenthood? Why notcut spending altogether for any pork project? Why not cut spending ongovernment schools? Ooh, that's an idea! Since the vast majority ofour taxes (both fed and state combined) go to education, if we savedthat tax money, we would have lots more to spend on sending our kids toprivate schools. But what about the universities, you may ask. Well,those bloated institutions get way too much cash from the government.If they are such bastions of intelligence and creativity, why don't theycreate something worthwhile? Why don't they create something with acash value to it? Feats of engineering, books of poetry, future leadersof industry. If the school is worth a darn, they can either createsomething worthwhile within their hallowed halls, or they can producesuccessful individuals who want to donate money to their alma mater.They could charge more for tuition, because the families are not havingto lose so much in taxes. Loans would be controlled by the institutionsthat created loaning in the first place: the banks. The governmentshouldn't feel compelled to guarantee a loan. The banks would loanmoney for the first year of school, and based on how well the studentdid, the bank would feel comfortable lending more.These are really easy solutions, but we have to get the government outof the process. They have no idea how to be effective or efficient.They have never proven that ability. Why do we keep voting them intooffice?

Sanford the Mighty

2009-06-26T12:41:00.000-04:00

Just as you thought that we were cruising up the on-ramp to the"free"way of government dependency from which there is no off-ramp, theRepublicans took one more step to remove any possibility of constructingan off-ramp. The self-righteous South Carolina Governor, Mark Sanford,admitted to having an affair with an Argentine woman. (Well, at leastit was a woman!) And could you criticize him for that? Have you seenany South American women? They are rather attractive. Oh, I know, I'mgoing to catch hell for writing that. I'm married and I shouldunderstand the sactity of marriage. I know, but this is a Politician.They don't live by the same rules. Oh, they talk as if they live by thesame rules and are guided by the same morals and are affected by thesame culture, but they are not. If one marries a politician, one mustknow that people are attracted to people of power. Politicians, morethan ever, are people with power...and fame. And attractive people areoften attracted to people of power. So anyone who marries a politicianshould know that eventually, they will be cuckolded. They will findthemselves speaking into a porcupine of media microphones declaringtheir dedication to their politician spouse, and that they willpersevere through this tumultuous time. It's an inevitability. Okay,so maybe not all spouses are cuckolded in public, but they sure as hellknow that the cute new assistant is going to wear short skirts and tightblouses and cast come-hither looks to the politician until he shows herwhat it means to be on the Gubernatorial Staff.So how does this affect the GOP? Well, the best chance we have rightnow at a GOP front-runner is a whiny mother of 4 (or is it 5) fromAlaska who can't take a joke or two from a late-night has-been. Haven'twe gone far enough protecting the children? The kids are fine. They'rewell-fed and own a Wii. They'll get by. What about other contenders?The Mr. Rogers wanna-be Bobby Jindal? He couldn't command a destituteprostitute to have sex for a million dollars. Dick Cheney? I love theguy, but I think he'd rather be thrown in McCain's old POW cell than bein public office again. Newt? Can you imagine having a President withthe name Newt? Are there any Skips or Chazzes or Scooters available?Everyone should get accustomed to the "free"way. It doesn't costanything to get on, but there is a toll-plaza ahead, and I'm sure youdon't have enough in your ashtray-turned-change recepticle to get through.

The World Wide Web...isn't so world wide

2009-06-14T08:42:00.004-04:00

We've heard the stories about how China bans certain sites from being accessed by their citizens. This is censoring at its best. Well, now that I'm in another part of the world, known for its peace-loving religion, history of acceptance of all faiths, and closet alcoholism, I can see that the Chinese aren't the only ones who censor information.
Information is knowledge -- whether for good or evil. We use that knowledge based on our own morality. If there is a peace-loving religion out there who prides themselves on having the highest moral fiber, wouldn't you want those people to be informed? Wouldn't you want them to be the best and the brightest...as they were in the first millenium A.D.?
It is only through the course of time that people find new ways to see their reality. The elements evolved from earth, water, fire, and air to an entire periodic table of elements. The belief in primitive fire gods and sun gods evoled to a pantheon of gods and then further evolved into a monotheistic faith. And then it evolved more. That monotheism evolved into the Big Three. No, not Ford, Chrysler, and GM. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Oh the Hindus stuck with the pantheon system, but that belief system really only thrives in the poorest parts of that country...which is saying a lot for India! As was lauded on Seinfeld, it is the only country that still has the plague, Jerry!
Anyway, Judaism stayed pretty stolid over the centuries. Rather immovable against the gears of time. The Christians obviously had a ton of tome on their hands, because they shattered Christianity into a thousand little pieces. Because of that dilution, there is a separate denominatin of Christianity for every suburban block. So how do the Right Wingers think they can galvanize the Christians when there are so many different factions? Christians began to see that religion could change according to their needs, and when their needs were such that a religion was not necessary, then they no longer believed.
Islam followed a slightly similar path, although for different reasons. While the Christians changed their religious beliefs based on a culture of ego, the believers of Islam changed their religion based on a culture of dejection. Those with the financial means to be egotistical, changed their beliefs to reflect religious evolution similar to that of the Christians. But for the vast majority of the Uma (the body of Muslim believers, not Thurman) Islam became their tool to regain a pride that had long since left them. Their pride, based on first millenia successes in trade, science, medicine, and overall learning was replaced by another millenia of failures. And who came to prominence in the second millenia? Those darn Christians. So, in the mind of the radical Muslim, it is a zero-sum game. If they lost so much, it must be because the Christians (and the Jews) gained so much. Well, they must be the reason for our defeat and fall from grace.
Where was I going with this? Oh yeah, knowledge! If the radical Muslim (before he became radical!) would just read the internet, he would see that the world has grown. We did not steal our success; we made a new success. If the Muslim world could read the variety of people out there living and loving all over the world, who do so with no thought to stealing from the Muslim, they might start get the hint that we ar enot the enemy.
So why are many sites banned? Why can't I go to the Marine Corps website on this network? Would it be because I (the government) do not want the people to see the truth? That the Americans are not the enemy; it is the severely corrupt governments in this part of the world. it is the Muslim intelligentsia who believe exactly as the American intelligentsia believe: that America is evil, and that we should all be subservient to a Cause larger than ourselves.
Well, I do believe in a cause larger than myself. It's called Freedom. And a cause doesn't get any bigger than that.
Where are the news reports pushing for freedom of speech in this part of the world? Where is the outrage for rape victims? Where is the outrage for dipping your crying baby into a tub of boiling water in order to exorcise the demons? (Yeah, that happened here last week.) Where is the outrage commensurate with the crimes? Perhaps those who are normally outraged at the least little slight to their fashion choice are too blinded by the glow of their new leader to see what's happening in the shadows of the world. Who is there to cast light on it? I have a friend from high school who is doing fantastic work for families and children in Jordan and previously in Georgia (the one next to Russia, not the one next to Alabama). But she works in silence. No one knows she and her company are there. Where is the publicity?
I'm no "Cause-head." If anything, I'm all for the "Adam" cause. That cause focuses on me and my family. Close friends come next if anything's left over. But how do we sit back and let these people treat each other with such violence? What is the path to get out of this dark woods? I truly believe it is Knowledge. Full-scope. Nothing hidden. Knowledge. It may be the Apple that got us kicked out of the Garden, but it may be the only thing that can get us back.

The Best New Idea for Spending Our Money

2009-05-28T08:06:00.002-04:00

As I traveled the 4 hours to and from Camp LeJeune, NC these past few weeks (most recently getting a speeding ticket in the vain hopes of getting there in under 4 hours), I got an idea that will surely gain traction if spread to those in power. The basis for this idea is that we as consumers vote every day by spending money. We vote for Ford over Chevy; we vote for Fuji apples over canned peaches; we vote for ribeyes over tofu burgers. Consumers vote every day, and that vote is more powerful than anything cast on a political ballot. Well, there are billions spent each year on charitable organizations by private citizens. Those private citizens vote with their money every year. They believe that the local Catholic-run orphanage is a more worthy recipient of their hard-earned dollars than the United Way. They believe that their local battered women's shelter is more deserving of their second-hand clothes and money than a museum dedicated to celebrating the long and honorable history of flannel. So why is it that the government thinks that they know how to spend our money better than we do? If the US Government is going to spend our tax dollars on charitable organizations and endeavors via grants, hand outs, etc, then why not give us (the average taxpayer) the opportunity to show which organizations should receive our dough? Right now, our tax dollars are being spent according to grant applications and lobbyists' efforts. These are rather outside the realm of charitable giving. This sounds more like little Mexican children swarming your car just south of the border pushing packages of Chiclets in your face and demanding that you buy the disgusting little gum-drops.

To fight the obscene expenditure of my money to efforts that I deem unworthy, I have devised an idea to help the government focus their spending. No, this idea does not cut government spending, but it does provide the government with guidance on HOW to spend my money.

First, the government provides each taxpayer the opportunity to contribute to the charitable organizations of their choice. These organizations do not have to be not-for-profits. They can also be municipal projects or any other endeavor or organization that has or is able to collect federal funds. You then deduct these contributions -- NOT from your pre-Adjusted Gross Income, as it is currently done -- but from the taxes you pay the government. Because we do need money to pay for a National Defense and other necessities, it would only be prudent to allow people to make these deductible contributions up to 5 or 10% of their total tax bill. But it will give the Federal government the guidance on where to spend my tax dollars.

So after the first year, the Federal government can look at where taxpayers are sending their money and use that as the playbook for were the government should spend the rest of our tax dollars. To hell with the lobbyists and grants from people with their hands out. Let the American public vote with their hard-earned dollars. But the government must listen. If they do not, the it is all for naught.

So, let's recap: for one year, the taxpayers get to deduct up to 5% of their tax bill by contributing to any charitable organization or municipal endeavor that would otherwise be eligible for Federal funding. Then the Federal government would use that data to then adjust the Federal Budget to reflect the "vote" of the American public. No more money spent on bridges to nowhere or museums dedicated to shoelaces. How about some taxation WITH representation, anyone?

"Budget Neutral" equals "New Taxes"

2009-05-20T18:35:00.002-04:00

Ya gotta love the way politicians rave about new programs being "Budget Neutral." This would be a great thing if that meant that the politicians were already balancing the budget. But it doesn't. It means that above and beyond the trillions of debt and deficit we are incurring at the fastest rate in history, politicians have devised a clever plan to pay for their universal healthcare: taxing the bejesus out of alcohol. Because most alcohol sales in the US are beer sales, and most beer sales are Bud, Coors, and other mega-produced domestic brews, that means that the lion's share of universal healthcare is going to be paid by those who drink Bud, Coors, and other mega-produced brews. For those of you in Blue states, you will say, "Well that's the NASCAR bunch." For those of us in Red states, we will say, "Those are the people who work for a living and probably do not have extra cash to pay for more taxes." These people are also the ones who probably don't have insurance. So, they are paying for the coverage they receive. Fitting? No, because they will not receive the coverage for which they will pay.
So here's another idea: pay for the $2 Trillion universal healthcare by cutting spending in another area. There are plenty of museums (musea, for your traditionalists) dedicated to flannel or teddy bears or dirt that are funded by tax dollars. I think that if there are enough people who give two hoots about flannel, then they should be the ones who fund their own museum. Leave the rest of us (and our hard-earned money) out of your pet projects.
In the meantime, I will continue to watch -- and cringe -- at politicians who smile and boast about their "budget neutral" projects that merely pull more money from my pocket. It's not neutral to ME. I'm going to be spending more money to pay for these projects. Where is the neutrality? Not in my wallet.
So (according to my last column) "investment" means throwing money at an endeavor that has no chance of returning a profit, and "neutral" means that someone ELSE will pay for it. Nice. Perhaps Webster should publish a "Politicians' Dictionary" so that we can understand what our politicians truly mean. In the meantime, I will be working hard to bring clarity to the masses.

Political Grammar

2009-05-19T19:14:00.002-04:00

As an English major, I enjoy the way people use and abuse the English language to push their own agendas. The one that has been getting a lot of attention of late is the word "investing." The Democrats have been investing a lot of taxpayer money in banks, car companies, and other social programs. Moreover, President Obama just said today (May 19, 2009) that with the forced increase in gas mileage standards for all cars and trucks, there would be an added cost of about $1350 per car/truck (on average). And that added cost (incurred by those buying new cars and trucks -- the Taxpayers) is an investment. Now, I've purchased a lot of cars in my life, usually because I wrecked my prior one or drove it until it fell apart, and I never felt as if I was investing in a car. An investment is, by definition, the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value. Anyone out there ever buy a new car and had it appreciate in value? If cars didn't depreciate as a matter of course, Kelley Blue Book would never have been created.
So where does that leave us? Well, the new Administration believes that investing, in contradiction to its definition, is the spending of money on somethat that has no hope of ever appreciating in value or providing any profitable returns.
Doesn't that make you feel better when the Democrats talk about "investing" in our future, our children, education, the economy, social security, universal healthcare, and energy? I'm just glad they never talked about investing in national security.

Detainees: The Conundrum

2009-05-07T10:57:00.002-04:00

President Obama is finding out something that I have known for years: politicians are happy to tell someone else to make cuts or do something painful, but they will not incur that pain themselves. So, as Obama is trying to find a place for the terrorist detainees in Gitmo, no one is raising their hands to take these folks on...except John Murtha. But, as we know, Murtha would emprison them for a week then release them into the community with a handful of cash, a wallet of food stamps and a fully legitimate social security number.
So what is Obama to do? Some alternative locations to Gitmo are Alcatraz and Fort Leavenworth. Both of these places either currently put dirtbags in cells or have put dirtbags in cells in the past. But the politicians in these areas have violently declined the willingness to take on the responsibility. If Sen. Fienstein of California thinks that Muslim terrorist detainees in Gitmo are not being treated fairly, why wouldn't she want to keep them close to home and under her expert eye so as to ensure that they are being treated fairly?
As many experts (true experts) are discovering, the Muslim terrorist detainees will end up in Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. There are already a boatload of detainees there, and the place is capable of handling the Gitmo detainees as well. And if these dirtbags are sent to Afghanistan, they will not be eligible for legal rights under the U.S. Constitution. I'm not sure why that is even a question, becuase they are foreign nationals who threatened the sovereignty and safety of the U.S. They should be interrogated for as much info as possible then fed to the pigs. But I failed my last Diversity training course, so perhaps I'm too insensitive.
As I will be heading to Bagram in a few weeks, I will be interested to see how quickly the Obama administration transports the Gitmo dirtbags to Bagram. And if you think that the Bagram detainee facility will not be watched like a hawk so as to avoid another Abu Ghraib, you are sorely mistaken. I bet that there will be numerous Democrat politicians and bureaucrats travelling to Bagram on frequent visits to ensure the civil treatment of the dirtbags.
Let me tell you from an insider's perspective that detainees are treated very well. Better than they should be, if you ask me. They are fed three times a day, and their meals are better than anything they'd get at home, although the food may not be as copious as we in America enjoy on a daily basis. What the great oblivious masses need to understand is that these people are used to living on a few pieces of fried flat bread every day and maybe some lamb a few times a week. Some poor bastard gets nabbed for emplacing a IED and gets thrown in the detainee facility. There, he gets three meals a day, consisting of all 4 food groups and clean water. This is his version of the Four Seasons. So he gets paid by true terrorists for emplacing the IED, and then he gets whisked away to the Bagram Four Seasons for an extended stay. Can you understand why released detainees pass through the facility multiple times? It's a win-win for them. The famliy gets money, and the dirtbag gets free food. If we ran a detainee facility with an eye toward making it rough (not like Hanoi Hilton), we might see a decreased amount of dirtbags coming through the doors. It would be a deterrent. That is why our jails used to work so well. They were understood as being rough, and then it was a deterrent. When jails got wussified, crime increased. Same for the detainees and the detainee facilities. The facilities are not deterrents, so the crimes continue.
Send the Gitmo dirtbags to Bagram. What's the repercussions of sending them to Bagram? They are closer to home. They are closer to other dirtbags. The other, free dirtbags might decide to risk a strike on the base there to free their incarcerated brethren. And with the Army in charge of base security, let me tell you that I will be on my guard for the 6 months I am there. I am a very good shot, and I don't fire warning shots.

Putting the Mental in "Environmentalist"

2009-05-05T21:53:00.002-04:00

I've always known that environmentalists are unwaveringly annoying. They whine if you don't believe in the same brand of environmentalism as they do. (In that respect, they are much like any of the disparate versions of Protestants.) Anyway, environmentalists have donned the mantle of "Friends of Earth" as if the rest of us wake up in the morning with a eye toward killing at least some portion of the earth that we encounter each day. Or, as if it were an even MORE unthinkable atrocity, the environmentalists accuse many of us of being...gasp...unaware! Unaware the the earth is dying. Unaware that the earth is different now than it was 200 years ago.

I'm glad the world is different than it was 200 years ago. Toothpaste had not been invented and mass-produced as it is nowadays, and that makes my daily routine a much more pleasant experience. Everyone realizes that the world is different today than 200 years ago. We also realize that we are the cause of that. But that's okay. We've made the world a better place. Hear me out, all you green-whackos! We have harnessed the power of water in numerous places around the globe to provide electricity to millions. We have harnessed the power of wind in a fewplaces to provide power to additional millions. We have evolved the farming industry so that we can grow enough food to feed everyone around the world. Why are there hungry people in Africa? Ask the U.N. and the despotic African leaders. Don't ask the farmers from North and South America, Russia, and Asia. The farmers are doing their jobs, and they are doing it at a herculean level. Leave the farmers alone.

How else have we made the world better? We have built those evil roads and filled them with evil, pollution-spewing automobiles so that people living in remote areas can travel to other areas to learn needed skills, provide a new, previously unknown skill, or just spend some money at a tourist trap.

There are necessary evils in this world. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. There are a growing number of hybrid cars on the road that are letting environmentalists and other Friends of Earth feel good about commuting 45 minutes to work each day. But those care have batteries. And if you think that empty water bottles in a landfill are bad news, can you imagine all those batteries. There are already campaigns to limit the number of batteries in landfills. There are battery-recycling campaigns, because batteries are hazmat! Wow! I guess there is a soon-to-be-realized downside to those sweet little hybrids.
Obama is now realizing this in other ways. His designs to establish wind farms in Oregon are being poo-pooed by the environmentalist locals, because they don't want their pristine hiking areas tainted by those nasty spinning blades. They actually said that they want alternative energy, "...but at what cost?" Aren't these the same people who expect car companies to spend millions to research ways to deliver to market more fuel-efficient cars? Aren't these the same people who expect so-called dirty industries to pay more for the pollution they create, despite that the levels of pollution decrease every year? Aren't these the same people who slap bumper stickers like "Think Globally, Act Locally" on their hybrids? They have been given the chance to act locally, and they've decided to meet up at the local Starbucks and say "No" to any effort that might sully the glorious greenery of Oregon. And it's not just Oregon, there is a proposed wind farm in the Mojave Desert in California, and, despite that there isn't a single resident of that desert, the environmentalists have decided that the Mojave Desert, which can get windy as hell, isn't a good choice, because it detracts from the Joshue Trees and other barren beauty of the desert.
Well, if the realistic environmentalists have chosen out of the way places to propose wind farms, and the whacko contingent has decided that those are not viable options, where exactly can we build a wind farm? The moon? The cables needed to pump the power back to Earth might cause some issues for shuttle launches or various space debris. Might even knock Halley's Comet out of its orbit!
I like the Earth. One of the things I like about it more than anything else is that no matter what we do to it, it will recover. It may mean that humans will have to die off, but the Earth is not some fragile ecosystem. It created life from single-celled amoeba. I am confident that a few factories and a few billion cars will not cause its demise. And if the earth's climate gets warmer, doesn't than mean a longer harvest period? Doesn't that mean more food? If you start following the logic chain, you see very quickly that environmentalists don't think very far into the future.

Arlen For Arlen

2009-05-02T10:23:00.002-04:00

Alright, I don't begrudge a guy for changing political parties once every 43 years. I don't consider that "flip-flopping." Arlen Specter entered office as a Republican after having spent 13 years as a Republican. He was swept into office with the Republican wave of Reagan in 1980. For the next 8 great years, every politician got every penny for which they asked. Reagan gave money to the Democratic-run Congress, because he wanted money for SDI and National Defense. And our debt grew to $3 Trillion. So Specter immediately got used to holding out his hand and having it filled beyond his wildest dreams. When things look to get skimpy for Specter's constituency (and his own pockets), he jumps ship. Specter is the consummate fair-weather friend. I'm sure he rooted for the Steeler when they won the Super Bowl (as well he should, as a senator from Pennsylvania). But then I'm positive that he rooted for the Patriots, the Packers, and the Cowboys when these teams went to the Big Bowl. Specter strikes me as a follower. After 3 decades in Congress, he has such a winning personality and leadership potential, that as a new Democrat, they are going to reward him with his own...subcommittee?!? Shouldn't he be the head of multiple committees and even a major player behind the scenes? He's so hard-up for help that the Prez is going to have to campaign for him in 2010.
And what do you think the Dems will ask Arlen to do for that help (both Obama's personal campaigning and democratic bank accounts)? Arlen will be that 60th vote, despite what he says. Arlen said in March 2009 that he would definitely NOT switch parties. Perhaps at that time the Dems weren't offering enough money. Arlen is a liar -- which is an oxy-moron, because he is also a politician. So we shouldn't be surprised when he goes against his word and becomes the 60th vote for the Dems. Bet on it. If there was a hedge fund for politicians, I would be rich.
But Repubs can't get their panties in a wad about this. They were irresponsible and lost the power, lost the initiative, lost the trust of the American people. It wasn't but a few years ago when the Repubs had the 3 branches of government by the short-and-curlies. Now they are relegated to being parking attendants for the Dems. Arlen is a product of his own irresponsibility...his and the rest of his former party. He's just wily enough to follow the money and be forthright about why he is in office...to serve himself.

100 Days of Craziness

2009-04-28T16:13:00.002-04:00

He has spent $2 Billion an HOUR since his inauguration. I don't care if he spent every cent of that money on a cure for AIDS and Cancer, it ain't worth it! And for those who have lost loved ones to either of these diseases, I stand by my statement. I have lost friends to AIDS and loved ones to cancer, and I still stand by my statement. President Faux-bama can't claim fiscal responsibility at this point. That would be like trusting a wife-beater who has just beaten his wife to death and then states confidently that he condemns all acts of violence, especially domestic violence. Umm, you've lost credibility, my friend! Faux-bama has succeeded in spending all available tax dollars for the next 40 years. Congrats, Barry! You're a real pal!
Now, I'm a supporter of going into short-term debt to get through a tough time. Let's say you have lost your job, which is happening more often than not these days. Someone in this position, may need to use their high-interest rate credit card to pay bills, buy groceries, etc. But the laid-off person understands that they will not be able to keep charging into perpetuity. The laid-off person also understands that they will need to pay a very high price for their charging. These are not concerns of the current Administration. Faux-bama is spending money at this rate, because he will not be in office when the debt needs to be repaid. He will be long gone from the Oval Office, probably on the Speaker Circuit, making millions per engagement. And good for him, but at that point, no one will be asking him about how he bankrupted America, not only fiscally, but fundamentally.
I saw a gentleman yesterday driving a beat-up pickup truck on the highway. He had a Vietnam Vet sticker on his bumper and another home-made sign in the back window. The home-made sign said "USA: It's not just a place; it's an IDEA." I could not agree more.
Obama has been successful at appointing and getting confirmed more appointees than any President in history with the exception of Reagan. Obama has surpassed Reagan in overall appointees, because Obama has been naming "czars" to every agency and issue. This is Obama's effort to expand the power of the Executive Branch. For the uninitiated, the Executive Branch may nominate the people to head different agencies, but it is the Legislative Branch (Congress) confirms these people, and has the ultimate power over these agencies. With his liberal use (no pun intended) of czars, Obama has circumvented that system of checks and balances. He has expanded the power of the Executive Branch more than GW Bush. And don't be fooled, GW Bush expanded the hell out of the Executive Branch, too. He was wrong to do it. And so is Obama.
Why is it that when those in the minority or those not in-power are trying to gain power, they talk about equality. But when they get in power, do everything they can to strip the power (both current and future) of those who WERE in power? Let's take a gander at gay marriages. Why do homosexuals want to be married? Marriage is a creation of the Church. If a particular church wants to accept homosexual marriages, that choice is available to them with the separation of church and state. But since homosexuals live what can arguably called a life of sin, why would they even want to be associated with the Church? I'll tell you. It's because they want to stick it in the eye of those close-minded church-goers. They want to debase the foundation of those who have a moral compass. They want moral relativity.
This is the same for those militant civil rights activists, like Sharpton and Jackson and the Rev. Wright, who want whites to pay for the transgressions of those who died a long time ago. If we want to live with an eye on making everyone pay for the transgressions of those who came before, can we make all homosexuals pay straight people for the proliferation of AIDS? Can we make black people pay for harvesting all of those tobacco crops when their great, great, great grandparents were slaves? I mean, cigarettes kill, ya know?!? Can we make the Kennedys pay for providing alcohol to the populace during prohibition? I mean, there are a lot of drunk drivers out there. Maybe we should get Bill Gates and Steve Jobs to pay for all the internet predators out there. I mean, they created computers. Maybe we should make the French pay for all the economic issues befalling the world right now, because the French created the Knights Templar in 1099, and the Knights Templar created the worldwide banking system that is still used today (albeit we have updated the technology).
We are now confronted with a major shift in the moral compass of the world. Just as the global polarity changes every few million years (and we are about 250,000 years past due for a polarity shift), the world's moral polarity shifts. For all of those who fear (yes, fear) the coming shift, we either have to go off the grid or fight it. Michael Steele ain't gettin' the job done. Lindsey Graham is off the mark. Ol' Lindsey stated today with regards to the GOP that "we need to grow the party." I beg to differ. We need to gut the party. The party needs to rediscover their core values. The party needs to hire a strategic communciations expert who can galvanize the followers and reveal the Democrat party for what it is and what it is doing to America. But the GOP will not do that. They will use the same idiots they always do to the same effect. The Grand Old Party has outlived its usefulness. Put it on a raft and send it out into the sea (like the eskimos do). It's time for a 3-party system. And the Libertarians aren't the answer. It's time to invent. Necessity is the mother of invention, and we have a definite necessity.
Congratulations, we are 100 days into a 1461-day Administration. Only 1361 more days to go.

Bank Nationalizations

2009-04-21T20:44:00.003-04:00

President Obama may have mentioned that nationalization is not in the cards, but all his actions state quite the opposite. Now, a bunch of whacko economists have gotten together (with no dissenting view being covered by the media) to say that our economy would recover more quickly is the Government took over a few of the larger banks (temporarily, of course) to help the banks run better. So Obama and his administration (czars included) don't have to try to sell the idea of nationalization when there are economists (who people will just assume are intelligent and without political bent) planting the seeds of that idea in society. So when (not "if") Obama finally decides to broach the idea officially, he and his administration can say, "Well, there are world-reknowned economists who have been calling for this, and we are going to follow the suggestions of the smart people."
The road has been paved. Obama will wait for the right moment to drive it. God help us.

The IMF Debacle

2009-04-18T10:23:00.003-04:00

President Obama, speaking at Georgetown University, laid out an odd array of actions that he claims will help the economic landscape return to its former superior existence. Everything he proposed and reported on was government handouts to people, corporations, and countries (not necessarily ours). Nowhere in the plan did he say anything about entrepreneurs, tax cuts, or other proven ways to generate velocity in a lagging economy. He claims his steps will make sure that this shattered economy will not happen again. He claims that the top 1% of people (not "earners" or "workers" or "wealth generators," mind you) are not paying enough taxes and that their incomes increased while the income of the average household decreased. Obama is never hampered by Truth.

Let's try one of his economic plans on for size. Obama says that the U.S. has rededicated itself to the IMF to the tune of TRIPLE what we used to contribute. So now when our country needs to keep wealth at home, we are exporting a trillion dollars to the IMF to funnel to tyrannical despots and other irresponsible countries impacted by the global economic downturn. He claims that since America is dependent on other countries buying our stuff, we should give them the money to buy it. Huh? That's like giving your child $20 to buy you a Christmas gift. Since the parent could have purchased the $20 gift on their own, it doesn't result in any net gain in wealth for the parent. It only results in a sense of warm-fuzziness for the parent, because they allowed the child to take part in the false economy. And the child is not fooled by the transfer of wealth. As someone who was the recipient of parental funds for gift-buying, I always knew the reality of the situation -- that my mom or dad could have purchased the gift themselves, and they probably would have bought a better version of that gift. So now we have promised a trillion dollars to the IMF so that we can let them buy our stuff. Umm, what that does is force our tax dollars to purchase something we may not have purchased in the first place. Moreover, the money loses value, because it is funneled through the intermediary of the IMF and the foreign country. So if we give a trillion bucks to the IMF, the IMF will lend out that money...minus the amount needed by the administrators of the IMF. That will result in our trillion-dollar "investment" only being worth billions of dollars when it gets to the foreign countries. Then the governments of those countries will need to skim some of that money off the top in order to administer the money. And the more corrupt those countries are (like MOST of the countries who borrow money from the IMF), the more money they will skim. So while Obama wants our money to end up in the hands of foreign governments and citizens so that they can purchase our exports, most of the money will end up in the personal coffers of those corrupt foreign government employees and leaders.

If Obama was truly intent on pumping tax dollars into our economy, why wouldn't he just take that trillion dollars and give it to Americans directly? By the time our trillion-dollar investment gets back to us, it won't be worth 10 shares of AIG. Obama needs to re-evaluate his economic policies. It seems he is more intent on currying favor with foreigners than with taing care of the Americans who are looking to him for leadership.

Obama Declares Proxy War Against Right-Wing

2009-04-15T09:22:00.002-04:00

You have read my repeated statements that my America is becoming a very scary place. So much so, that despite that I am about to deploy to Afghanistan to defend its rights of sovereignty and to squash terrorists where they train and breed, I continuously consider moving out of my America. And what has me even MORE scared today? Department of Homeland Security.

Last week, on April 7th, DHS released a report stating that the MOST dangerous domestic terrorist threats to the United Socialist States of America are...wait for it...Right Wing, single-issue radicals. What exactly are right-wing, single-issue radicals? Well, the DHS details it for us, because they want us to know who they are targeting. Anti-abortionists, pro-gun activists, anti-tax activists (think: Tea Partiers), and -- you gotta love the way these DHSers think -- RETURNING VETERANS. So, the very people who are fighting (and dying) in the effort to protect the homeland are now considered one of the most dangerous threats to the homeland they are defending. I have the overwhelming urge to scream.

Why would the DHS all-of-a-sudden decide that right-wing, single-issue radicals are the single biggest threat to the United Socialist States of America? Well, they've gotten their marching orders from the Obama administration. Are you skeptical? Do you think that maybe Obama has not conveyed his desires to the folks at DHS? He hired Janet Napolitano, the immigration-soft, ex-governor of Arizona. This woman has taken great pains to weaken our border to allow more foreigners into my America.

So what is the rational next-step in this process? Well, when the DHS first identified Al Qaeda cells in the U.S. as a significant threat, the President got the go-ahead to tap phones, monitor bank accounts, and various other (and as-yet-unknown) actions to track their movements. This is the obvious next-step for Obama. He will begin to track everyone who shows up at a rally, signs a petition, and...blogs. Hmmmm...

And when the administration wants to perpetuate the fascist rule, they will open up the files of the leaders of these movements and bring them in for questioning. They will hold them indefinitely on "probable cause" based on past actions (like Tea Parties and gun shows). This is one small step away from Gulags and Black Marias. And if you don't know what those are, read The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsin. (I probably spelled that incorrectly, but I'm too mad to spell-check it.)

The government has solidified its hold over the banks and other major industries via a benign message of assistance and investment. Obama and his ilk will smile right at you while they are stealing your freedoms in the name of fairness and justice and investment for the good of the whole. Before we lost everything, we need to stand up and bring this country around. A few tea parties will not do it. Fox News will not do it. It will take a ground swell the likes that have not been seen since...the 2008 elections. We've seen in 3 months what ultimate power can wreak in my America. In 2010, we have the chance to turn this boat around. For every Democrat whose seat is up for election, we need to back every Republican candidate. It almost doesn't matter if the Republican is the best candidate. As long as they take away the Democrats' ability to pass laws without impunity, then it is worth it. Polls don't get the job done. Politicians do not have to listen to polls. Bush didn't do it much. Obama isn't doing it. We make our voices heard on election day, not on a phone survey.

Will the tea parties work?

2009-04-14T08:19:00.002-04:00

As almost 700 cities across America ready for April 15th Tea Parties, I can't help but wonder, "Will they work?" Thousands of people are fed up with the Federal Government's anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-sovereignty actions. They have organized community-level gatherings to show their objections to the government's actions. (I wonder if Obama is worried that the conservatives have taken up his successful mantle of being a community organizer to organize actions against him. Sort of a dose of his own medicine, eh?) And the conservatives, who have spent the past 30 years reigning from an ivory tower, have yet to figure out that their constituents don't themselves live in neighboring ivory towers. So us salt-of-the-earth conservatives have decided to take the power back. (And if you want to challenge my use of "salt-of-the-earth," knock yourselves out. Yeah, I know I'm not using it based its original meaning, but it conveys my intent based on the modern understanding of the phrase. Get over it, you etymological phreaks!)

As I was saying (or writing), whereas our leaders have lost their ability to lead anyone but the lobbyists and sycophants, the first step of the conservative grassroots campaign has started. But is it really a campaign? Have these grassroots groups planned anything past tomorrow? Yeah, they'll get some media coverage on April 15th, but what happens on April 16th, and beyond? I don't see any strategic plan. Are the conservatives hoping that a leader will rise? And if so, when did Hope become a strategy? If the conservatives pick up the liberal mantle, we will become liberals. And we already have enough of those already.

But do we? There is a cyclical nature to politics. When the country started, Republicans were the liberals, and Democrats were the conservatives. Just as with the polarization of the earth, that switched. Perhaps as the Democrats have gone from being liberals to fascists, Republicans should go from being conservatives to liberals. Not that we need to focus on social programs and pro-abortion issues, but we will need to focus on strategically changing our government to reflect the tenets that established this country. Whereas Obama promised Change but had no plan for that change (other than stopping the evil plans of Bush), we need to develop a strategic plan with tactical goals and objectives that will show the world that we are an organized in a way that the liberals never dreamed possible.

But since conservatives (as with all politicians) are more interested in getting elected and getting into power, we will probably run into the same issues as before -- a few power-hungry bastards who will create in-fighting such that the Democrats will continue to reign. And if you think reign is the wrong term, you should open your eyes and see what Obama's adminstration is doing.

As I ready for deployment...

2009-04-12T18:31:00.002-04:00

Although I am not part of the half-hearted surge that Obama has approved for the forgotten war in Afghanistan, I am going to lend my logistical hand to the effort by providing the Marines who are "out there" in the hinterlands with all the stuff they need. It is something I have done before in Iraq, and I can't wait to be a part of it once again.
For those who want to continue reading my toxic blog about Obama and his slap-stick administration, you may have to go without for about 7 months. There is a little legal document called the UCMJ. Short version: it's the law for military members. And it states that someone on active duty (or called to active duty) cannot say anything disparaging about their Commander-in-Chief. This is especially true if those statements are made in public, like, say, on a public blog site. But that doesn't mean that I will cease and desist on all comments. There is the distinct possibility that I will have to follow the methods of the thousands of court jesters who preceded me. I will spout my views with the same vehemence as usual, but the names will be changed to protect the guilty. For instance, if Iwant to discuss the insanity of President Obama's current tax cuts, which resulted in another $10/week in people's paychecks, I will not mention Obama. I would reference a hypothetical 5th grader who has won the election for High School student body president, and how that 5th grader has lobbied and won extra snacks for the students, but the extra snacks would only be an extra chocolate chip or cinnamon sprinkle per week. Oh how the 5th grader made progress in the spreading of sweets to the hyperactive masses, but when one analyzes the actual progress, it is more tangible on paper than in reality.
But since I do not have to covertly blog as yet, let me espouse:
Democrats have become fascists and communists. If they had become merely socialists, I might not be so scared. Democrats, led my Obama and Pelosi, have ensured that they have their hooks into some of the most powerful companies in the country. And these Board of Directors should have told the President to go fuck himself. Where are the lawyers who would scream from the topmost parapets of the Supreme Court about the abomination that Obama is perpetuating? They are in Obama's pocket. Lawyers love Democrats. And since the Prez is a barre-certified lawyer, they wouldn't do anything to go against him or his posse.
Republicans are standing in a kitchen of a house that is burning down around them, and they are bickering about whether Splenda is superior to sugar. They don't get it any more. And although I was never a huge fan of Newt, he has the best idea yet. Start a third party. But can you believe that a career politician can start a new party and not just provide more of the same ol' crap as before? I like the idea, but the originator of that idea is just one of the old boys. He's going to have to convince me with actions. The country followed a guy who spoke eloquently and continues to speak eloquently while the foundations of our country are being eroded beneath us. But he doesn't care, because he will be on a boat to France by the time my America is destroyed. And he will blame his successor and his predecessor. He will point fingers like a shamed 4 year old who has been accused of peeing on the floor. And history will excuse him, because of his skin color. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. asked that we judge not based on the color of our skin but on the content of our character. I believe this is truer now than ever before. Black be damned! He is unfit.

More Entitlements to Fuel the Crisis

2009-04-05T10:38:00.002-04:00

As the majority of people in this country have been ignored, and the current administration spends like a 17 year old with a hit rap single, we who pay the taxes to keep the lazy in the manner to which they've become accustomed are going to be levied up onto finance yet another program which incentivizes people to do nothing. News just broke that people's unemployment benefits will run out by the time this recession ends. Moreover, since hiring generally does not start to pick up until a year after a recession statistically ends, this means that we may not see a significant increase in hiring until May 2011. The word you're looking for is, "Yikes."
Because the previous administration was more concerned about being "compassionate" conservatives vice actual conservatives, they increased the limits on unemployment benefits...twice. Yep, Gee-Dub and Pelosi came together to extend the normal 26-week benefit limits to a grand 59-week total. That's 14 months. And if that weren't enough, there is a federal law that requires (yeah, I wrote "requires") states to provide ANOTHER 13-20 weeks of unemployment benefits is that state experiences extremely high unemployment, based on some purportedly complicated equations. (I'm an English major, so long division is about the extent of my mathematical knowledge. That's why God created calculators.)
So let's add up the benefits. 59+20=79 for a total of 17 months of unemployment benefits. (No need for a calculcator for that equation.) If someone went on unemployment in October 2008, they would collect your money, in the form of unemployment benefits, until May 2010...what is expected to be the end of the statistical recession. Clinton revoked unemployment extensions to return to the basic 26-week benefit. N one could make me want Clinton more than Obama...and to a certain degree, Gee-Dub. The word you are looking for is, "Yikes."
But that's not good enough for Heir Messiah. We must invest in our employees in their time of need. We must provide them with cash on a weekly basis until we are able to provide them with a tenurable government job. We must provide them with a stigma-free EBT card (think: Food Stamps) to pay for snacks while they sit around collecting checks and watching premium cable. We must provide them with government-approved self-esteem, which means we will applaud them for doing their best, even if they graduate high school with an abilty to read and comprehend and calculate math at a 6th grade level. (No jokes about my computation abilities. I passed College calculus; I just forgot it all.)
For a moment, let's address the issue of a federal law which requires a state to provide ANYthing to to its populace. That is unconstitutional, pure and simple. But since the states would split the payment with the federal government, the states are complicit in this travesty. It just goes to show that the state representatives are ignorant of political history and the Constitution. Our lawmakers are unfamiliar with the legal document which is the basis for all our laws. The word you are looking for is, "Yikes."
Let's just hope that this new entitlement program doesn't cost another $750 billion. If it does, our great-grandchildren will be pouring bleach on our graves and cursing our very existence. But they'll probably be doing that anyway, since they will be living in a Stalinistic New World Order and will likely spend 10-20 years in the New Amerikan version of the Gulag.

Republicans are an Embarassment

2009-04-01T11:44:00.002-04:00

To all of those who think that Republicans are good and Democrats are bad, think again. They are all worth the same thimble-full of guano. To wit, Senator McCain has acted as bravely as any ex-POW by...calling for the Presidential pardon of dead boxer Jack Johnson? It seems that Mr. Johnson drove across state lines with a white woman who became his wife. Some backwoods judge back in the early 20th century thought that was an abomination and sentenced Johnson to prison. Johnson did what any smart person would do in that situation. He left the country. (Hey, if the laws of the land are ludicrous, find a new home!) Years later, Johnson returned (purportedly for the Big Macs) and spent 10 months in prison. Now McCain, with an amateur boxer-politician out of New York and a documentarian, is calling for the first black President to right a wrong committed against a black man a hundred years ago. Now that's standing up for Equal Rights, McCain! Did you decide to take that stance before or after you voted against making Dr MLK, Jr. Day a Federal holiday back in 1983? McCain, is your soul so crushed by your Presidential loss that you have now relegated yourself to court jester? McCain lost bids for the Presidency before. Americans don't like a loser. McCain was destined to lose.
And while we're bashing idiot Republicans, let's address former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska -- also known as Captain Pork Barrel by his best friends and political beneficiaries. This clown, who was gratefully voted out of office, just escaped being sentenced for his political shenaniganry. Ol' Ted got oil execs to rebuild parts of his home in exchange for political favors. Someone thought Ted should have labeled that "income" on his financial disclosure statement with Congress. I don't know who that "someone" was, but I'm sure they were sitting on that information for years, waiting for the time to discredit Ted...or some other Alaskan politician who made it to the national stage.
But here's where Ted gets labeled with my "Stupid Republican" stamp. Ted's team's response to his reversed conviction was, "This case is a sad story and a warning to everyone. Any citizen can be convicted if prosecutors are hell-bent on ignoring the Constitution...." Umm, it was the Constitution that cleared him, based on a technicality. Ted is no different from any rapist or thief whose case is dismissed, because the CSI unit accidentally contaminated the original DNA test. Guilt or Innocence plays no part in this. It's all procedural. And since the Constitution allows for these procedural loopholes to be manipulated for the benefit of the guilty, there are rapists walking the streets, there are murderers who roam the highways, and there are corrupt politicians living a comfortable retirement in Alaska...in a house built by their political beneficiaries.
I'm not about to become a Democrat, but as with Jack Johnson, I may just find a few address to call Home.

Business Comes to Washington

2009-04-01T10:06:00.003-04:00

I want to apologize to all 3 of my loyal fans. I have not posted a blog in over a week. I spent a week in Colorado enjoying being snowed into a ranch during a blizzard. There was no internet or cell phone service. Then I just got out of surgery Monday afternoon. I got my deviated septum corrected. It was so bad that I could barely breathe and it adversely affected my sense of smell. The doc thinks that I will be amazed by all the new smells. We'll see. I saw a Spongebob Squarepants episode recently where his starfish friend got a nose and had a tough time dealing with the new smells. Let's hope my experience is a little better than his.
With all that time to recover, I have experienced extreme pain at reading how Obama is remaking America in his image. Capitalists and Business need to say Good-Bye Sweetheart to all that they knew and loved. And it's their own damn fault for it, too. Socialism is here to stay. Let's deconstruct, shall we?
So, Obama fired Rick Wagoner, the troubled CEO of General Motors. How does Obama have the power to do that? Is it in the Constitution? Nope. He partially owns GM through loans and other TARP funds. That provides influence. Through that influence Obama only has to wave the scepter of office, and Rick is ousted. Why doesn't the GM Board of Directors argue to keep Rick? Becuase they do not want to be called before Congress to speak. They don't want to be vilified by politicians who have never earned a dollar in their lives.
On one hand, we have Obama, who has never worked a day in his life to further the ends of capitalism and business. On the other hand, you have a Board of Directors at GM who has spent their entire lives climbing the corporate ladder through hard work and sacrifice in order to attain that level of power and authority. And because that Board allowed the incipient politicians to get a foothold into capitalism, they are now subject to the whims of a group of people who believe that business exists to fund government.
You can see this with colleges. If you went to a land-grant university or any institution that accepted government funding, you were taught according to the Federal Government playbook. There were obviously classes in Diversity, Fingerpainting, and Feminine Sexuality. If you went to a college like Hillsdale College in Michigan, then you were taught based on the best standards as decided upon by the Board of Directors and the Dean. When the Federal Government called Hillsdale a dozen years ago and strongly suggested that they change their curriculum to reflect the Federal Government's norms, the good folks at Hillsdale told them to copulate with themselves. When the Federal Government threatened to revoke funding, the good folks at Hillsdale laughed uproariously and told them, "Go ahead. As we do not receive one penny of funding from you or any government agency, you can't even tell us to use number 2 pencils for testing purposes."
Hillsdale College represents how an organization can ensure that it is never influenced by outside agitators. They do not owe anyone anything. This is just like debt. If you have debt, you are influenced. Our government has immense debt, and they are influenced...unfortunately by our enemies. Now our government has forced indebtedness to all the major banks. So when you hear that JP Morgan has offered to pay back the government for all its TARP loans in a few months...much earlier than expected...you should feel a chill when you then hear that the government DOES NOT WANT THE MONEY BACK. The administration told JP Morgan that they -- The Government -- would decide when JP Morgan was fiscally healthy enough to pay back the TARP funds. Now you have forced indebtedness, forced influence, forced indenture. That was considered slavery by many. So is Obama now the #1 Slave Owner? He owns some of the biggest corporations that ever existed.
If JP morgan can't pay back the loans, the government can fire that company's officers at will. If you think your JP Morgan stock will increase, you are sorely mistaken. If you are investing in any company that has accepted money from the government, you will lose. That's why I invest mainly in companies that have no debt. Let me tell you that I am not a stock broker, nor have I been immensely successful in the stock market. But I started investing about a week before the crash last year, so I consider the fact that I am about even-steven a pretty good sign. When others have lost their shirts, I have broken even.
Run for the hills. Stay away from government money. It's tainted and not worth the paper on which its written. "Full faith and confidence?" Not anytime soon.

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

2009-03-23T10:53:00.002-04:00

With the stock market increasing over the past week or so (despite a few stumbles along the way), people are thinking that the money infused into the financial market by the venerable President Obama might just be doing the job for which it was intended. Well, duh! If you spend $3 trillion on ANYthing, the corresponding situation will improve. But for how long? We've all seen the commercial showing a medieval round table of advisors to a king who is under attack. One of his advisors suggests loading the catapults with money and flinging money at their barbarian problem. We all chuckled while watching it, and thought, "That's absurd!"
Well, Little Lord Geithneroy and the Prez are throwing so much money at the problem, that the king in that commercial would probably have beheaded his advisor for doing that. But Obama is backing the Little Moneyhandler to the deterioriation of our dollar and overall long-term economy. Who is watching this guy, other than the Prez who seems just as interested in NCAA brackets as inflation? Yeah, I get it: the Prez can "multi-task." But does he really think that one of those muktitudinous tasks should be the NCAA brackets? A withering economy, jobless rates, credit crunch, AIDS at ridiculous rates in D.C., and stock market that is impacting every single baby boomer who will start retiring in the next few years.
"Go 'Zags!"
Leaders focus on those things that either require their attention or are their passion. What is Oama's passion? He has lateral-passed the economy to Geithner -- who has not hired a single undersecretary (out of nearly 20), so he is single-handedly running the Treasury (yikes!). He agrees to spend money, because that's what other financially ignorant people do (who are his constituents). He spends taxpayer dollars on weekly Wednesday night social parties (ala the Kennedys). And he has someone print out an NCAA bracket poster.
I could care less about the damn poster. But it is a symptom of a man who is trying to do all things rather poorly than to do a few things exceptionally well. At the end of his 8 years (because Republicans can't figure out which way is Up), Obama will have leveraged our children's futrure with confidence, because he knows that his constituents have a memory equal to the lifespan of a fruitfly. Despite what anyone says, the jackassery element who voted Obama into office do not care about anyone but themselves and the "cause" for which they represent on any given week.
Did anyone ever see the movie PCU? Remember the "cause-heads"? Yeah, that's Obama's voter base. A bunch of "I'm 21 and the smartest kid on the planet" jackasses who support a different cause every week and have the placards to prove it. They usually smell of Sharpie and body odor.
Does Obama believe in anything? I don't think he believes in anything himself except to get elected to another 4 years. Other than that, he believes in whatever his pollsters tell him that he should believe in, because those are the issues his cause-head supporters believe that week. Obama will probably be a seriously gray-headed fellow by the time he gets out of office, because he will have had to change his course to accomodate every shifting of the opining winds caused by his constituents.
Have fun, Mr. President. How does it feel to be (arguably) the most powerful man in the world, but know that you only hold that title for as long as you appease Pelosi and cow-tow to your smelly, thronging mob of supporters? It's like a beautiful house built on quicksand.

Volunteering for the Army of ACORN

2009-03-18T11:58:00.000-04:00

President Obama has been gracious enough to continue his campaign of insanity so that can have even more fodder about which to write day in and day out. Speaker Pelosi has also added fodder to my gristmill, and I thank her whole-heartedly. With the exception of those two appreciations, I would rather those two jackasses follow either of Sen. Grassley’s suggestions of March 17th, 2009.
But because neither has the personal integrity or honor to rid the world of their brand of “justice,” I will be forced to continue by own campaign of commenting on the insanity for some future hope of a rediscovered Republic.
We are about to see two bills come up to the President from both the House and Senate which will breathe life (and $1.3 billion) into a volunteering program. To put this into perspective, the current AmeriCorps (signed into law by Clinton and allowed to remain by Bush) received $260 million in FY09. The new allotment of taxpayer dollars will amount to a five-fold increase in funding in a single year. Who out there got a five-fold raise last year? I didn’t think so.
The new volunteer program will allow youngsters to volunteer for a wide variety of programs to include education, health and veterans service. Of course, if Obama merely maintained the current funding for VA hospitals, then there would be no need to initiate the some of the health and all of the veterans service programs. But he has to be able to say that he created something. Reducing funding for an existing programs (VA hospitals) for a sector of society that intelligentsia shuns (veterans) but relies on for the very freedoms they bastardize is not newsworthy, so Obama knows that he will avoid any true berating for his choices.
I always thought volunteering was to be done out of the goodness of someone’s heart and that the volunteer did not receive monetary compensation for his/her time. Clinton changed that, and Obama is about to make volunteering a growth industry. Whereas the current crop of AmeriCorps volunteers make up to $4500 per year for a living stipend and $4000 for school, Obama wants to expand that program. There is no details available for the extent to that expansion, but there is nothing Obama like so much as to steal my money and give it to do-gooders who reek of patchouli and self-aggrandizement. Ahh, they know how to be patriotic, unlike all those veterans walking around on one leg or kissing their spouses through burn-scarred lips. The audacity.
While we are on the topic of patriotism, let’s discuss Pelosi’s hispandering this past week. She claimed that border-jumping, tax-evading, government service-syphoning felons are “very, very patriotic.” But VP Biden said on September 18th that paying higher taxes was patriotic. So which is it? Paying taxes or not paying taxes? If we judge the Democrats by their actions and words, then not paying taxes is patriotic. Only for those who are already roped into this federal heist already can we be called patriotic but then only if we pay MORE taxes. So, if you are not already paying taxes…good on ya! You are as patriotic as apple pie and carne asada served up on the back of some illegal’s rusted Chevy. If you are already paying taxes, you are not truly patriotic unless you pay more, resulting in less food for your family, less gas in your tank, less opportunity to buy clothes for your children as they grow out of what they already wear, and less ability to save for a rainy day. But that’s okay, because if its raining, and you don’t have any money, there will be an army of 22-year old volunteers to tell you how to get through the tough times.
From where will the government find these volunteers? Well, ACORN has embryonic programs in place just waiting for the government teat to make itself available. So when the bill gets passed, ACORN will spring to life. And when Obama stated last July that “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded,” about whom do you think he was referring? I’ll give you the answer: The Army of ACORN. Scared yet?

Obama Inadvertently Helps in the War against Terrorists

2009-03-17T09:24:00.002-04:00

In what I would call a singular bright spot in the new administration’s fight against terrorism, Obama signed a bill last week which wiped out funding for a program which allowed Mexican trucks to transport goods directly into the U.S.
For those of you who have not been initiated into the world of trans-border logistics, there is a buffer zone between the U.S. and Mexico. If a Mexican truck brings goods north-bound, they stop at the Mexican side of the buffer zone where the goods are transloaded onto another truck. That truck drives the few hundred yards to the U.S. side of the buffer zone where they are transloaded onto a U.S. truck which has the ability to drive anywhere in the U.S. and Canada. This has been a great racket for those buffer zone trucking companies, and the fees they charge increase the price of the goods we buy from Mexico. Here’s the deal, though: I’m okay with paying the extra 2 cents for my burrito shells if that keeps even one potential terrorist out of my country.
Enter NAFTA. This cockamaymee idea was hatched in the spirit of Lennon’s “Imagine,” but it has resulted in compromised border security. NAFTA began in 1994 -- BEFORE 9/11. Instead of immediately revoking our NAFTA participation on 9/12, the U.S. continued on, trying to apply Band-Aids judiciously to areas that were hemorrhaging along the border. Yeah, try to stop an arterial gusher with a Band-Aid. The only thing that happens is that you get a lot of blood over everything.
So we are bound by this treaty, based on the law of the U.S. Constitution. And Mexico is barking loudly to make their demands known. And sovereignty be damned! Because we signed the treaty, it’s edicts become more superior than our own domestic laws. I guess we can have all the crappy Mexican toys we want, but we have to take the terrorists, as well. And if you don’t think that there are terrorists coming across the Mexican border, you are living under a rock. There are dozens of Middle Eastern terrorists caught every year along our southern border. How many are not caught? The El Salvadoran gang MS-13 has proliferated into every major city in the U.S. They are teaming up with the Colombian drug lords, the Venezuelan government, and Hamas to form a logistical transportation and supply chain from the Middle East to your hometown. And along with Middle Eastern terrorists, you get to have hyper-violent gangs and drugs along with it. GOD, our country is an awesome place to live!
So that gets me back to Obama’s bill. He eliminated an easy way for terrorists to get into our country, but then Mexico retaliated by raising tariffs on over 90 products, specifically chosen to impact as many states and industries as possible. So Obama’s bill effectively hamstrung a $2.4 Billion industry of goods shipped to Mexico. Personally, I think that portion of the bill was a good move. There is talk that Obama’s Transportation Secretary (under direct order from Obama) is working on a new plan to allow Mexican trucks into the U.S. What I wonder is: Did Obama sign the bill with the intent of protecting us from terrorists or breaking the backs of more businesses? If he is going to sign another law which allows the truckers back in, then I would have to say that the law was strictly aimed at mauling out economy. Way to go, Obama! You da man!

Drug Wars and the U.S.

2009-03-16T15:54:00.000-04:00

In an op-ed piece in the WSJ on Feb 23, the former presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico called the war on drugs a “complete failure” and said that the U.S. needed to revamp their drug policies. These clowns went on to say that the drug trade has created an environment where their own systems of government are threatened to be overcome by violence and crime. And because of this threat, those three enchilada-eating ass-clowns have put the onus on the U.S. and the EU to solve the problem.
Umm, don’t the militaries of those three countries own guns?!? Here’s a solution: take those military units (don’t for get the guns) and systematically hunt down and destroy any drug factories, plantations, leaders, foot soldiers, and peddlers. Mexicans can tell the difference between El Salvadorans and the locals, so when one shows up, just assume that they are MS13 and shoot them in the head. Let me tell you, no one goes to Mexico for the outstanding economic opportunities there…other than the drug trade. So anyone who is not local is probably there for shady reasons. Arrest them, and when they are found to be conducting illegal activity, shoot them until they are dead. It’s rather simple.
For those who think that my love of capital punishment is all-encompassing, please do not misunderstand me. I have one major disagreement with capital punishment: it takes too damn long to administer. Day 1 - arrest. Day 2 - determine residency and reason for being in the area. Day 2 (evening) - fire bullet into head. Unless we institute Judge Dredd-like policing forces, this is the most expeditious law enforcement system we could use.
It is not on the shoulders of the citizens of the U.S. and Europe that the Latin Americans can rest their troubles. Latin Americans come to the U.S. and work their tails off. I went to a Mexican restaurant last week, and the food was served 4 minutes after I ordered it. That’s faster than a Burger King drive thru! Latin Americans in this country work as migrant farm labor, they hang out all day at local Lowe’s and Home Depots and U-Haul rental facilities, trying to make $50/day to feed the family. These people learned that expending energy in their home countries is useless, but hard work pays off in the U.S. What is left behind in those countries are the lazy and corrupt. And I say that we need to build a big damn wall along the border, manned by locals and Border Patrolmen who are armed like a regiment of U.S. Marines. We need to shoot the ones that try to cross. Deport the ones who have already crossed and are committing crimes throughout our country.
We should probably build a wall along Canada as well. The Canadian border is about as porous as my spaghetti strainer. Or better yet, we should tell Mexico and Canada that if they want to continue doing business with us and receive all that damn financial aid, they need to build the wall themselves. In the business world, that’s called Return on Investment (ROI). We have allowed the world to penetrate our borders for too long with no filtering mechanism to keep out the bad elements. The U.S. needs to secure itself against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If we do not, we will be destroyed from the inside.

It's Obama's Baby, Now

2009-03-10T09:28:00.003-04:00

This past week, economists came out in force to declare that the Recession is now Obama's. Whereas Obama inherited a severely debilitated economy when he took office, he had ample opportunity to take action to shore up job losses in the private sector. Extending the Bush tax cuts (why those weren't permanent to begin with is beyond my understanding), exercising fiscal restraint via an elimination of all new earmarks, and spearheading a concerted effort to scrub current bills and budgets by line-item in order to cut back where the government could. This would have resulted in an emboldened private sector even if it meant that government might shrink a tiny bit. But here's the thing, there is enough wiggle-room in most agency budgets whereby any budget cut would not necessarily have resulted in a loss of a single job. Moreover, if Obama would have declared that any budget cuts to government agencies and departments would NOT result in job losses, then the size of government would not have shrunk (a Democrat Fear Factor nightmare), they would have become more efficient...and possibly more effective.
Obama still needed to prop up the financial institutions, though. This is an unfortunate reality. The banks, investment firms and insurance firms all practised risky business (and not the kind that results in a passionate evening with Rebecca DeMornay...yum). They established risky lending practices to comply with the ill-conceived Community Reinvestment Act of the Carter era. They established more risky lending practices on the west coast to enable people to move into housing whose costs were skyrocketing over the past 15 years. They were selling credit default swaps to people who did not own the securities that were insured by those same default swaps. And those firms spent all their time evading government-mandated oversight, which was almost never put into practice, instead of overseeing each other.
In science, we learn that "nature hates a vaccuum." (I prefer Oreck.) If there is a valley, nature will spend millenia filling that valley until it is a plain. It is self-regulating. While mankind will do its best to build cities that reach the heavens, the Earth is doing its best to break them down. For those of you who believe that mankind will irrevocably destroy the Earth, you have severely underestimated the entity which you revere so thoroughly. If we destroy ourselves in our quest for glory, the Earth will sigh a bit in relief (just as you sigh when a messy friend finally leaves the party) and then take a few millenia to clean up the mess.
The same theory holds true for the capitalism. If left to its own devices, the riskiest businesses may thrive for awhile, but they will fall in the end, only to be replaced by more risky businesses. For those stalwart businesses (Coke, Reynolds, Kellogg, etc.), they will continue on being the tortoise, racing the hare. It may take them a bit longer to get to the finish line, but get there they will. The market will find violators and remove them from the system, because the system has ingrained rules. Those rules do not need government intervention and will in fact choke if those rules are emplaced. Government intervention into market capitalism is the city being built into the sky. Free market capitalism is the Earth, just waiting for the other to implode.
Obama has a choice. If he is truly on the side of long-term success, he needs to be the Earth instead of the audacious builders of shiny cities. These require tough decisions by tough people. With great dispair, we are realizing that Obama and his administration are not tough people, and they have no experience making tough decisions. When this occurs, it is time for the people to make the tough decisions. People must now vote against their ingrained party lines. They must not vote a color: blue, red, or black. They must not be caught up in "being part of history." They must now look to "being part the future." While the administration and its followers are looking back to right all the wrongs ever committed, the rest of us must look forward to a brighter solution.

American Economics

2009-03-05T14:25:00.003-05:00

On the same day the Dow saw record lows at 6600, Venezuela reported 31% inflation, and China reports an expected increase in GDP of about 6% (8% if you listen to the Chinese Premier). American politicians and economists were upset with China for not being more communistic and throwing more money at China's economic problems. Huh? It seems that American experts wanted China to be more communistic in their actions so that America wouldn't seem to bad. But here we are, sitting on trillions in spending, and China has spent only a half-trillion. And they have three times the people we have! China has decided that they are not going to throw any more good money after bad. And that is why they have had no quarters of schrinking economy in over a decade. They might not be growing as fast as they used to, but they grew 6.8% last quarter and expect only 5.6% growth this quarter. If the U.S. had 5.6% growth, we'd be singin' in the rain. But the Chi-comms are acting like capitalists, and the U.S. government is acting like a bunch of communists. What the hell happened? Maybe we in the U.S. ate too much lead paint on those Chinese toys.
And what about Venezuela? Well, that's what happens when you are truly communistic and regulate prices on every product on the market as well as nationalize energy, transportation and food processors. Venezuela's 31% inflation is pathetic, and Chavez has just nationalized an American-based factory (Cargill) in an effort to curb inflation and control pricing. It is not the job of government to decide what I think a bag of rice is worth. I'll decide that. And if I don't find a bag of rice within my price range, I will either adjust my expectations or buy potatoes. And when you have 31% inflation, price-fixing is tough. The Venezuelan government will have to fix ever price on the market on a monthly basis to keep up with the inflation. I guess that means job security for those price-fixers, but it's a serious waste of government money.
The U.S. will go down that road sooner or later. If you look hard enough, you may see it on the horizon even now.

Where's the Shepherd to Lead Us Through This Valley of Darkness

2009-03-05T13:24:00.003-05:00

The Repubicans have appointed Michael Steele to lead the Republicans out of their self-made wilderness, but I see Mr. Steele as little more than the Republicans' response to "be a part of history." No disrespect meant toward Mr. Steele. He's a smart, focused man, but I don't believe that the former Lt Governor of the great D.C. suburb of Maryland is Mr. Right. He's only Mr. Right Now.
President Obama was voted as the Shepherd to lead us out of the Bush craziness, but it turns out that Obama was merely a wolf in shepherd's clothing. He has his own wilderness through which he is guiding us, kicking and screaming. He is that Central Park rapist who is dragging his victim into a dark, wooded area to violate and eventually leave for dead, bludgeoned and bleeding.
Where will the Republicans find a leader? No, we don't need a savior. Those are unreliable and tend to die young. A leader is easier to find. Leaders can be found more often than saviors. Leaders will most likely not be the ones searching for the spotlight. Leaders will tell you that they are not the person for the job. Leaders will offer viable solutions to problems, not just stand with arms akimbo belting out their gripes with the world. Leaders will think before acting. Leaders will sometimes be forced to act without benefit of a complete planning process. Leaders are morally firm but realistically flexible. Leaders do not believe in moral relativity or overly nuanced issues. Leaders know that there is a firm Right and a firm Wrong on most issues. Leaders make tough decisions. Leaders stand up to other leaders and powerful allies. Leaders are not afraid to lose an election...or a re-election. Leaders speak their minds only after they have formulated a defensible thought. Leaders know the desires of their people and act in the best interest of those people. That being said, leaders do not operate by committee or polls.
The Republicans have not offered any viable leaders. McCain was the worst possible leader. He undermined finance rules in an attempt to level the playing field for politicians, because he couldn't collect the contributions that others collected. His Napoleanic quest to make all political candidates equal through the lens of finance backfired. Because Obama could collect cash at a rate not yet seen in a Democrat, Obama told McCain to take his publicly available funding and stuff it. McCain shot back with a whining complaint about how Obama changed his mind. If you can't take a lying politician, McCain, you never deserved to win.
Bobby Jindal, the Republican's second attempt to "be a part of history" is shaping up to be an immense failure. Jindal appeared onto the public scene in response to Obama's national address...and sounded like a Wal-Mart greeter. If he was intended to be the Republican tip-of-the-spear, then we soon found out that the tip was blunted. Jindal may be smart, and his speech may have READ well, but he has the charisma of a penny loafer. Leaders do not resemble shoes.
Limbaugh: give me a break. He's not a leader; he's a voice. The court jester. And by that, I mean, he's a smart guy who knows that he can do better for himself by being entertaining than by trying to be king.
Other Republican mouths are equally as worthless: Lindsey Graham sounds "sweet;" Ron Paul is a financially astute goofball; Palin may have the chops, but she'll have to overcome every bad thing that was ever said about her (and that's a lot!); and any Republican congressman/woman should be immediately stricken from the list, because they are part of the reason we are in this wilderness. Maybe there is a governor out there who can do it. Is Mitt Romney the guy? Maybe. So, he's Mormon. Whatever. Weren't we founded on religious freedom? At least he has a moral compass that always points North. And if he's to be our guy, then every PAC and politician needs to back him. This is not the time for Republican power-strugglers to wage war amongst ourselves in a primary season to see who comes out on top. This is the time to settle on a leader well before the primary season. We should stand behind one person (I believe Mitt has the ability) and have them be the voice of the Republican party for the next 4 years. That way, when the time comes, we will already have become comfortable with that leader in a position of leadership. If not, we are risking another major loss and 4 more years of increasingly socialist/Stalinist programs.

Obama Predicts the End of the Recession Will Occur Sometime in Late 2020, and It Will Still Be Bush's Fault

2009-03-03T15:24:00.003-05:00

So, Obama spent the entire campaign saying how Bush had screwed things up and how he, the Messiah, would fix everything in short order. The wars would end in 16 months; the recession would end within a year; your freedom would end far sooner than that...er...I mean social justice would reign far sooner than that. Obama will deliver on that last promise...you can bet your diminishing Constitutional rights on it.
If you are wondering why I would mention that the recession will not end within a year, despite how Obama's words galvanize the poor, guilty middle class, and general moocher portions of society, it's because of a little slip up by Secretary of Treasury, Timothy Geithner. Little Lord Geithneroy told the House Ways and Means Committee recently, in speaking about taxes for high income earners, that the new tax hikes would not occur until 2011, once "we are safely in a recovery." So he -- the President's pick to be supreme czar subject matter expert on all things monetary-- is telling us that the Obama administration believes that we will be in a recession until 2011. That's what that means: "in a recovery." We will not be "recovered" by 2011, but only "IN a recovery." So the administration knows that nothing will change for another 2 years. If that is the case, why did they just pass a $787 Billion stimulus package with "shovel-ready" projects. Does "shovel-ready" mean that some mafioso type will knock you over the head with a shovel and then bury you with that same implement if we didn't pass the bill? Or does it mean that any "shovel-ready" project will bury our children and grandchildren deeper in debt? Or does "shovel-ready" mean that we have to dig ourselves out of the neck-deep lake of bullshit that the administration is dishing out?
Obama, Little Lord Geithneroy, Rahm-it-up-your-backside Emanuel, and the rest of the tax-evading, lobbyist-happy, freedom obliterating administration knows that they need to spend our money as fast as they can before we rise up. There are too many people out there who earn their living and are seeing it stolen from them. Hell, ABC news did a story today about how high-income earners are looking for ways to cut back production as a precursor to the impending tax hikes. A cut in productivity is not what our country needs. We just suffered a 6.2% contraction in production the last calendar quarter of 2008. That is the first sign that the economy does not like Obama. When the economy, when business, found out that Obama was going to be at the helm, it ran for the hills, scared shitless. The economy didn't contract 6.2% because of Bush. Everyone said that Bush was a lame duck President at that point, and he was. Lame ducks don't cause contractions like that. Impending freedom-obliterators do.
And we've seen it all over the economy, the signs that Obama is terrible for business. The Stock Market has shrunk to less than half of what it was last year. It has dropped about 2000 points since Obama was sworn in. Not the change I was looking for. In fact, change is about all I have left in my 401(k). Jobless rates are falling. GDP is falling. Interest rates are low, if you are saving, but they are high if you are trying to borrow to, let's say, open a business. Then, even if you can get financing, the rates are insanely high. Money is being printed at a rate 1000% more than any time in history. We are looking at the event horizon of hyper-inflation. You want to know what that looks like? Look at Yugoslavia in the late 1980s. Not a pretty place. Still isn't a vacation spot.
Obama has lied to get into office. He has lied to the American public about his moral character and the intended moral character of his administration. He has lied about his desire for bipartisanship. He has lied about his desire to make America better. He has lied about not using fear as a galvanizing influence. He has lied about everything except the names of his wife and kids. It is time to rise up and let our voices be heard. Rush is not the voice of the conservative movement. Neither is Hannity, Boortz, or Michael Steele. The true voice of the conservative movement, and the waning heartbeat of American productivity, is found in each and every person who wakes up in the morning disgusted at what is happening. That voice is found in the back of your head, the bottom of your stomach, and the tip of your tongue. Lash out with all of those. Don't write your congressman. Fuck them! They all let us down, and they do not deserve our time, our consideration, and definitely not our money. Don't think your congressman is some great guy. If he/she turned down Stimulus Package money, then they might be worth a darn. If they accepted it, turn your back on them. Find somebody new. We have been cuckolded by those we trusted to monitor the enemy and keep our way of life safe. That way of life was then given away to a domestic terrorist and his merry band of tax-evading miscreants.
As the days pass, I feel age taking me over at an exponential rate. I will live to see a free society...even if it means I have to move to another country.

Obama: The New War Hawk

2009-02-26T13:33:00.002-05:00

Obama spent tons of time on the campaign trail railing against the billion dollars per month being spent to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The new President just requested another $75 Billion to carry out the war for the remainder of this fiscal year, and he has asked for $130 Billion to keep up the good work started by former President George W. Bush for FY2010.
Even with the scheduled pull-out of troops to begin in earnest any month now so that we are out of Iraq in 19 months, Obama still believes that we need to keep spending money at the same rate. So let me get thsi straight. We will have a steady decrease of personnel and gear in Iraq over the next 19 months (with only a fraction of the troops being diverted to Afghanistan), but the president wants to spend the amount of money as if the surge were still in full effect.
Gotta love this guy. He'll spend all of his time talking about the needs of the domestic poor and passing trillion dollar packages, and no one will care about a measely $130 Billion. Heck, Obama can spend $130 Billion before breakfast on San Francisco mass transit and Detroit foot baths for the local Islamic jackasses.
The military will continue to keep this guy in their peripherals, because although he is providing the, the funding to continue the good fight, he is a Democrat, and Democrats love to hamstring the military. Think: Blackhawk Down! The military had enough money to accomplish the mission (if you could call it a mission), but with the absurd rules of engagement, they could not fire on anyone unless they could collect a drivers license from their assailant, call it back to their local DMV and verify that, yes, this parson had outstanding warrants for parking tickets and shoplifting hard candy from the local ma-and-pop store.
Obama loves money. And he loves other people's money even better.

Obama Believes That Two-Thirds Equals All

2009-02-26T09:13:00.002-05:00

So President Obama has recanted on yet another campaign promise. The first and most embarassing recant was the President's inability to choose straight-arrow cabinet members. The candidates were either tax-evaders or lobbyists. The msot egregious bowed out, while the least egregious (or maybe just the most egotistical) stuck around knowing that Congress would approve their appointments.
But now Obama has recanted for a second, and equally embarassing, time. In his campaign spiel, Obama claimed that he would end the war in Iraq and bring all our troops home. Well, Obama eventually got a briefing from the military flag-level officer and his own military experts (which includes Gen. James L Jones, USMC Ret. -- ooh-rah!), and Obama has changed his tune. Obama will absolutely, positively get all our troops out of Iraq...as long as by "all" you take that to mean "two-thirds." Yep, Obama is happy getting 100,000 troops out of Iraq in 19 months (not the 16 months he bandied about naively during the campaign). the remaining 50,000 troops could be in Iraq in support and even combat roles for "years to come."
How is that different from when McCain said that we could be in Iraq in some way, shape or form for 100 years? And let me tell you, with very few exceptions, U.S. troops are in every part of the world we once called hostile within the past 100 years. Germany, Japan, Italy, Somalia, Korea, Kuwait, Iraq, Colombia and Southeast Asia. The U.S. sticks around in these areas to develop ties with those countries. We infuse money into these places over long periods of time, because that is more amenable than sending our sons and daughters there time and again to quell uprisings or battle Communism or fight pirates or combat the Lollipop Guild. It's part of our foreign policy, and Sec of State Hillary Clinton will do no different. She sees the reality of the situation and knows that we will be in Iraq and Afghanistan for 50 years in some capacity. It's how America mitigates the possibility of future wars.
So, Obama finally figured it out, too. He plans on keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq for "years to come." But he and Congress will call these folks "support personnel." Here's a little reality check: We were ALWAYS support personnel. We were doing what the Iraqis didn't have the stones to do. They didn't possess the backbone or the resources to stand up to terrorist thugs. We have spent the past 6 years supporting the Iraqis even when they couldn't support themselves...especially when they couldn't support themselves. Now that they are learning to wipe their own backsides, we will step back and simply supply the toilet paper...and a 50,000 personnel to offer a helping hand incase they forget how to wipe.
As a side note, Iraqis (and most folks in the Islamic world) wipe their backsides with their left hands. No toilet paper! That's why they never shake hands or eat with their left hands. They consider it dirty. Well, YEAH! You just had dookie on that hand! Don't double-dip the chip!!!

Obama Philosophy: If It Ain't Broke, Fix It Until It Is

2009-02-25T16:59:00.003-05:00

In typical Democrat fashion, President Obama made a pseudo-State of the Union address last night and made the most of his place in the spotlight...being flanked by Wrinkled Infuriating Duo -- Biden and Pelosi. He promised that government will save the day through more social programs and entitlement programs than can be counted. He promised that he will focus on making us all successful through the power of an omnipotent government. He promised everything short of 50 acres and a mule. I don't doubt his veracity. In fact, I'm scared shitless of it. The thought of his well-spoken, well-crafted messages reminds me of past well-spoken, well-crafted messages that resulted in the Holocaust and the Crusades. These well-spoken, well-crafted messages ushered us into eras of violence and revolt.
I know that people want to think that Obama's message is on par with the messages of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., but that just isn't the case. Dr. King spoke of peace and harmony. His messages were truth. His messages transfixed a generation and will continue to have positive impacts for generations to come. I mean, of course, they made a positive impact. A black man is the President of the United States. That doesn't happen unless there is a dramatic paradign shift in the culture of a nation. But Dr. King's message didn't affect policy. When he spoke, he wasn't making laws or spreading the word about future laws. He was only talking about the laws of the heart.
Obama speaks, and his words become law. He has passed the largest bill in history. He has brought over $70 billion to the unionized construction market. He has expanded entitlement programs to Native Americans. And why exactly can't these Native American's get off their backsides and plant some maize? They've been here longer than any of us. You could assume that they would have figured out a way to grow plants by now, or get a job. But the Native Americans are a little test-bed mocrocosm of what will happen in this country.
The U.S., feeling so bad for running the Native Americans off their tribal lands, gave them millions more acres around the country or arable tract and them gave them tons of money and government benefits (no taxes!) on top of it. And as the Native Americans learned that the government would do everything for them, they began to do nothing. And so shall it happen to the greater populace of this country. Those who are provided for will do less. Those who do the providing will ignore them and move on. Not the integration about which Dr. King spoke, eh?
So Obama stole $787 Billion from all of us taxpayers to help the lazy. And how many supporters of this bill think that $787 Billion isn't that much? I would bet you that everyone who supports this bill opposed the cost of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The sum total of those wats to date is $647 Billion. Yep. Obama blew in one month what Bush was able to spend over 8 years. And when it's all said and done, I bet you everything I own that there was more wealth created IN IRAQ and Afghanistan during the course of these wars than will be created in the U.S. from Obama's Economic Stimulus plan. Oh yeah, and we also freed a few million people from an oppressive dictatorial regime, the crazy dictator himself and his two psychotic sons. Not bad for a schlub from Texas, eh?
And now Obama is ready for another $410 Billion Spending Bill. Exactly what needs money now? Did the politicians forget something? Was there a swingset in Akron, OH that needed new chains? Is there a school bus in Jacksonville, FL that has a little bit of the yellow paint coming off? Come on, people. How are we going to stop this mad man and his Bloodthirsty Congress?
We can't. We had the chance a few years ago, but the Republicans duped us and became what we most hated. Now we are reaping what we sow. My recommendation is to hunker down, pay off your debt, grow some veggies in the back yard, buy a gun, buy two guns, learn how to shoot deer, buy a cabin in the woods with a clean stream close by, and wait for the next election. I don't pray as much as I should, but in times like these, I don't know if a new, flashy Republican can turn the tide. We made need something more. But I'll let those of stronger faith than I finish that thought...

Oscars Surprise No One; Dresses Are Biggest Attraction

2009-02-23T15:53:00.003-05:00

Yet again, Oscar rewarded homos, Nazis, and the poor. If you want an in-the-bag Best Picture statue, make a movie about how Heinrich Himmler started out poor, discovered he was gay, and eventually attained the level which he attained in Hitler's Third Reich. If you can incorporate alcohol addiction and obesity, all the better!
Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Aniston sneered at each other. Gasp!
Brad looked radiant...or was that Glenn Close. I forget. Some bimbo showed up wearing an atrocious dress. Another one wore gaudy bangles. Another's hair was unkempt. Some guy didn't shave. Some other guy wore a hat. Another guy didn't shave, but it looked better on him.
Unless they bring back Ashley Judd strolling across stage wearing a floor-length dress sporting a slit all the way to her belly-button and no panties, I'm not interested in watching.
Fake people were nominated. Fake people won. Fake people got drunk at the after-parties. I just can't get into people who spend their whole lives trying to be so good at being someone else. Heath Ledger played a psycho, and because he didn't have the solid sense of Self, he cracked and killed himself, leaving a child behind. I feel bad for his kid and for Michelle Williams, who is raising their child. She's stuck with having to tell their child that "Daddy was an empty vessel of a man who only found joy in being someone else." I'm a dad to two kids, and there is no one on earth I'd rather be than the father of those two...and the husband to my wife, or course. But I already got the role down-pat.
So, in summation: Oscars -- another wasted Monday night of TV. Nice tux, Hugh.

Obama Swears to Cut Deficit in Half Right After He Doubles it

2009-02-23T14:56:00.002-05:00

The Pres is absolutely certain that the average American memory does not go as far back as the last commercial break. President Obama just spent $787 Billion dollars that do not belong to him or Congress (according to the U.S. Constitution), and that more than doubled the national deficit this year. In an audacious display of magnanimity, Obama stood before the gathered masses of Beltway elite (both Obamites and Nobamites) at a White House summit (perched atop $787 Billion) aimed at declaring the travesty of run-away government spending.
WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!?!?
Now, to his credit, he pointed no fingers at anyone -- which would have been the ultimate in audacity if he had. But Obama calmly and collectedly stood before those gathered and -- with a straight face! -- said that he would bravely cut the spending levels that he just (a few days prior) signed into law. So if he plans to cut the deficit by the end of the first term, that means he is giving himself the ability to spend like a drunken sailor (no offense to my sailor friends) for three of his first four years in office, but as long as he cuts it in half by the last year, then he's achieved his goal. That's stellar! So he can spend another $750 Billion each year for the next two years. That equates to half of the national DEBT at the end of Reagan's presidency -- a time when people stood aghast at the $3 Trillion in debt Reagan had amassed while defending us from the Soviets. Looking back, that $3 Trillion bought us freedom and serenity which led to the Roaring '90s. What will Obama's trillions buy us?
Medicaid. Obama has taken yet another step to nationalize medical care. Sure, Medicaid is co-funded by the states, but that doesn't make me feel any better. Any government-run organization is bound to be a complete cluster-f**k. Whether federal or state-run, medical care will diminish in effectiveness to a point where the government will charge you 2/3 of your salary in order to provide you with multi-vitamins.
Obama again shows his disdain of business when he states that he will end tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas. A couple of things here. One - we do not ship jobs overseas. It's not like there is a guy in shipping who wraps a job in bubble-wrap, drops it in a corrugated cardboard box full of Styrofoam peanuts and slaps a label on it sending it to India. Two - that statement suggests that these businesses are doing something evil when in fact they are doing something very good for their customers, usually Americans. For example...
A company based in the U.S. determines that a Chinese manufacturer can prototype and manufacture a product for pennies on the dollar. Even when you figure in the $2500 to ship a container of that product from the Chinese mainland to the U.S., that still represents a savings over having an inefficient American company prototype and manufacture the product. And depending on where the customers are located, you can have the container shipped to any of two dozen ports along the American (and Canadian) coastline to ensure the shortest possible overland route to the customer. That savings is passed on to the customer. And for those who think that the company keeps the difference in cost, you are sorely mistaken. Especially in these troubled economic times, only the leanest survive. Companies are not only passing along any new savings, but they are also giving away profits in order to maintain or grow market share.
And if you think that by eliminating tax breaks on these businesses will eliminate work going overseas, you are just as myopic. Those clever folks in India, China, Brazil, or any of the dozen or so other developing nations with a strong class of workers, will develop more cost efficient ways to deliver the same product and pass the savings on to the U.S. company, so as to maintain or grow market share.
But the statements sound good on the nightly news to people who just don't get it. If Obama wanted to get it right, he would forget about eliminating tax breaks for businesses who export jobs and start eliminating over-burdensome taxes on corporation. That would increase the rate in which jobs are imported to America. You want an example of this? A few months ago, Ireland publicized that they would federally insure every last dollar, yen, yuen, pence, and euro deposited into their banks. Within MINUTES, investors around the globe started dumping large sums on money into Irish banks. Now, the EU thought that was a dirt trick, but Ireland is smarter than they look. (I'm half Irish, so I can say that.) If the U.S. eliminated the corporate tax burden to a minimal 5%, we would see a drastic increase in jobs in the U.S. within 6 months. Couple that with a lower individual income tax (or even the Far Tax!), and you would have a stimulated economy without ANY additional spending.
I told you, the Irish (and half-Irish) are smarter than we look!

Stimulus to "Create Wealth" and Eliminate Wealth All In One Fell Swoop

2009-02-23T12:58:00.002-05:00

Obama and his team of intellectuals have spent countless minutes becoming experts on the economy, national defense and hypoallergenic dog breeds for the kiddies. Too bad they didn't take a few extra minutes to read a few chapters of ANY economics textbook. In his desire to create wealth -- through increased taxes (they are coming), greater spending, and increased national debt and deficits -- the Prez is driving full-force into a plan to nationalize the banking industry. Oh, he states that he "prefers" a privately run industry, but haven't all his political actions leaned to the opposite. He has pumped money into the banking industry at a rate never before seen, witnessed, heard, or hypothesized. And as far as I can tell, there is merit in doing this.
Yeah, you read that right. I agree with the plan to pump money into the banking industry...not in the spendulus package, though.
He is obligating money to everyone across this great nation, and the few Republican politicians left are elbowing their way to the trough to get their apportioned slop. But in 2012, be ready for Democrats to relate the stories of how the Republicans ate ravenously at the slop of the Stimulus Package, and how those hypocritical Republicans do not deserve to be re-elected. And they will be right to say that.
Yeah, you read that right. Any Republican or fiscal conservative Democrat who wishes to be reelected in 2012 should stay away from the Spendulus funds as if they are depleted uranium.
So the Prez keeps pumping money into the banks, claiming that nationalization is something for Eurore, not for us...even though Obama thinks the EU is the best managed outfit west of the Continental Divide...which is somewhere out West where people cling to guns and God. The banks will become nationalized, because the government will find yet another reason to marginalize corporate structures and management in order to expand government power -- a political pasttime...like congressional softball leagues. And when this happens, Obama will have become David Copperfield. He will have made over $32 Billion of wealth disappear. How? BofA's market cap is $20.4 Billion; Citi's market cap is $10.5 Billion. When these banks become nationalized, their stock values will drop to ZERO. Every investor (individuals, pension plans, IRAs, mutual funds, you name it) will find that they have lost all value in these stocks. But the government doesn't care about that, because then the government will provide these folks with a nationalized retirement plan, brought to you by taxpayers.
Ooh, you see how this becomes real ugly real quick, right?

Actors Always Willing to Give Away Other's Money

2009-02-20T12:58:00.002-05:00

Sydney Poitier has hit the news again for being a loud-mouthed pseudo-political, communism-loving hack. Why can't he just make a movie so that when newspapers call him an "actor" I don't experience instant acid reflux? He hasn't acted in a movie since 1997. Let's think about that. In 1997, you could pick up your sweetheart from the airport right at the gate. In 1997, Princess Diana died (and with her, the push to end the use of land mines). In 1997, an iowa woman gave birth to septuplets without invitro fertilization, with a husband, and without the use of government assistance. What a world of difference in only 12 years. So can we please stop calling Mr. Poitier an actor. Hell, the last time I acted was in 1997, and no one is linking a one-time spot on "Saved By The Bell: The New Class" to every mention of my name in a newspaper article. But strangely enough, Mr. Poitier is always linked to "In The Heat of the Night" which occurred in...1967!!! Don't get me started about what was going on in 1967 vs. today.
Anyway, Mr. Poitier (communist activist, token symbol of Black pride for millions) claims that no CEO should make more than $500k a year. Any more than that would just be downright greedy, I guess. Mr. Poitier thinks that CEOs should accept paltry sums of money to compensate for their expensive MBA educations and hard-earned progression up the corporate ladder. Bonuses are not warranted, because shouldn't they be satisfied with their paltry salaries? Mr. Poitier thinks so. But let's look at Hollywood:
Sydney Poitier turned down a salary for the lead in "Lilies in the Field" (1963) for a piece of the total revenue (over $3 million). I guess he was a fan on capitalism back then.
George Clooney made "Batman Forever." If that isn't enough to prove that actors sell their soul for money (see: Sandra Bullock in "Speed 2"), Clooney worked in producer roles on "Perfect Storm" among other films of his. Why is that? There's more money in it. Oh, the actors will tell you that they take those roles so that they have more control over the quality of the film, but if that is the case, then why is the quality of movies decreasing at a more rapid rate than the value of your 401(k)?
How about we ask any up-and-coming actor in Hollywood. If you ask them what they want, I will bet my federal refund check that the vast majority of them will tell you, "a paycheck like Jim Carrey's or Tom Cruise's." Is that because all up-and-coming actors want to give it all away to charity? Doubtful. Actors are greedy, god love 'em, but they are too good at lying to themselves to even admit it. Show me an actor who doesn't mind being poor, and I'll show you a washed-up hack who never made it past community theater.
Poitier, Clooney, Soros, and the rest of the already-riche want to isolate their club from the rest of us. Capitalists want to create more wealth (see: Mark Cuban's blog regarding his Stimulus Plan for America). Capitalists want everyone to make it big, but capitalists want people to work for it. Socialists want no one to be rich (except for the powerful), and they want to ensure that they can give away all the mediocrity that the tax laws allow.
Here's my capitalist plan for America: although I am against gubmint cheez, I am not against collecting that which I have paid into the system. As America will hit an economic wall in the next 2 years, people will be laid off, and they will go to the gubmint for help. The gubmint is too stupid to realize that giving money away doesn't help in the long-term. So, they will expand the Section 8 benefits. That sets up a structure where fiscally responsible people can buy up foreclosed homes (which are written off my banks who know that the gubmint will bail them out) at discoutn prices, advertise for Section 8 vouchers, and let the gubmint subsidise the renters. As owners of these homes, we will collect money from the idiotic gubmint and even some from the renter themselves. You will have to contend with the fact that these fiscally irresponsible folks will destroy your home, because they value nothing, but since the gubmint will keep the money flowing to you, make the repairs and stash the cash in TIPS (Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities). Once the economy finally rights itself, the gubmint will constrict the Section 8 benefits, limiting your ability to get gubmint money. But by this time, more people will have the ability to buy their homes. You sell your homes for fair market value, and retire in the islands.
I want everyone to do this. I'm just starting the process to find my first rental home right now. I dont know how this will work out, but it's better than putting money in a 401(k).

What The Government Could Learn From Suze Orman

2009-02-18T09:50:00.002-05:00

As I read articles every day regarding our the putrid state of our economy and the decades-long path we have taken to get ourselves here, I shake my head in dismay and frustration and feel as if Congresses, both past and present, as well as Presidents, both past and present, need to have the country wag our collective fingers at them. Now, now, Mr. President and Congressional bloodsuckers, we have lived high on the hog (or on the cow, for all my kosher readers) for quite some time. We started small -- borrowing from our allies to pay for little federal defense initiatives. We paid back the loans quickly, so as not to allow ourselves to be beholden to a foreign power. We were smart then. But then again, that was during the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. Back then, landowners were the gentry, and city-dwellers were scum-sucking immigrant trash.
As we progressed through the years, we found how easy it was to borrow and pay back quickly to fund our little pet projects. So we started borrowing more from our allies and paying back a little more slowly. Our allies loved it, because they earned money on the interest, and although they never overtly used their leverage on us to their own advantage, I'm sure that there were backroom deals amongst dignitaries that paved the way for some friendly colonialization across the globe. But that's conspiracy theory. I'm sure no politician ever used his leverage to gain personal or government advantage. Nah. That's CRAZY talk!
As we began the 20th century in earnest, the government felt really bad about borrowing from its allies, so it decided to steal from its citizens. Granted, this was to be a temporary solution to the financial difficulties of supporting our efforts in WWI. But as every drug dealer knows, once you get the junkie hooked.... So the government pulled a 180 degree turn from its revolutionary roots, where we fought the illegal taxation of the British Crown, and told its citizens, "We're stealing your money for your own good. We forced your sons to fight a war against a Germany many of your have never seen, so doesn't it feel right to give even more to the cause? I mean, you wouldn't want your sons to fight a brutal enemy with old guns, would ya?"
Hoover and FDR spent so much money trying to battle the depression that they extended it. Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury Secretary stated, "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work ... After eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!" Perhaps Geithner should take a page from the book of the guy who was at the ground floor of the Great Depression. The tax rate on the top earners jumped from 25% to 63% in order to bolster tax revenues. It backfired. In fact, tax hikes backfire every single time. Einstein claimed, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." I've known for years that Democrat tax theory was insane, but it is now proven by Einstein. Now if we can just get him and to The Hair Cuttery...
So here we are, repeating mistakes make decades ago in the blind hope that they will change the current path of our economy. We borrow and spend to pay for debt incurred by previous borrow and spend initiatives. That's a lot like using our Visa card to pay our Amex bill, and then doing the opposite the next month. Oh yeah, and each month we are charging more expenses on those cards. So eventually, these cards will be maxed out. What do you do then? If you were a typical American over the past 20 years or a politician over the past 100 years, you apply for a new card to help perpetuate the cycle. This is a twisted version of a Ponzi scheme. Bernie Madoff is going to jail for his scheme. Why aren't politicians right behind him in line to get de-loused and handed a small stack of light blue jumpsuits and toothbrushes?
Suze Orman was right. The responsibility of personal finance impacts all of us. Politicians' lack of personal financial responsibility has been perpetuated in Washington. We are all victims of the politicians' inability to live responsibly. So now it is our turn. Americans should rise up...and save. We should put every last bit of our discretionary funds in savings. We should pay off debts as quickly as possible. Hey, I've got student loans that are nearly a decade old. I'll be paying that for another year or so, but it will be paid off sooner rather than later. I don't need a flat screen, despite that I'd much rather watch my kid's cartoons in hi-def. I don't need a new car or a new cell phone or a flashy new suit. (Okay, so I probably need the new suit, but I'm still not going to buy it.) My kids don't need the newest toys or the most fashionable clothes. Look at Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs. Nowhere on the pyramid was consumer electronics or Coach handbags. (My wife is sure she saw Coach on there somewhere, but we're getting her eyes checked next week.)
Save your money. Obama and the rest of the D.C. political machine's Spendulus Package will result in $13 more for each working American each week. That's right. We've leveraged our children's and grandchildren's future to allow us to buy one more KFC family dinner a week. Where did the rest of the money go? Ask your politicians. Whatever answer they give you, punch it into any English-Bullshit translator on the internet and the answer will come back "Pork" or "Earmarks."

Stop Thinking! Obama Can Do that For You

2009-02-15T09:13:00.003-05:00

On Sunday's "Meet The Press," Obama's Chief Strategist, David Axelrod, spoke confidently about the benefits of the new Spendulus Package. Every point, whether regarding healthcare or executive bonuses or foreign trade, either laid the groundwork for a larger socialist plan or set the stage for fomenting our foreign partners' ire. It has become increasingly apparent that the Decmocrats, despite the claim of bipartisanship now that they are running the circus, are using their majority rule to pilfer all the caramels they want from the national candy store.
Mr. Axelrod claimed that although the original definition among Democrats of "bipartisanship" would reflect a strong desire to draft legislation that garnered the support of both sides of the aisle. It appears, according to Axelrod, that the new definition of "bipartisanship" is merely for the Democrats to "talk" to the republicans. If I told a Democrat in passing that I thought he was an idiot, under the new Democrat definition, that would be "bipartisanship." How magnanimous. So for every piece of legislation, as long as the Democrats get Arlen Specter and the Maine Witches to vote for it, then bipartisanship has been achieved. Swell!
Obama's Chief Strategist spoke about a dire first step to nationalized healthcare: a government board whose only purpose is to compare various treatments for the same diseases/conditions and determine which one is most effective most of the time. Why is that a bad thing? Let's say that your spouse or parent is diagnosed with morbid obesity (which is probably a pretty good chance, because there are a lot of lard-asses out there. And the government, in an effort to excuse all sorts of irresponsible behavior, will provide a government-approved treatment. After much research (which will cost more than anyone would thing possible) the Board determines that Gastric Bypass surgery is the most effective way to combat morbid obesity. So every morbidly obese person must go through gastric bypass surgery if they want to get better. But what if your spouse or parent is overly large because of a malfunctioning thyroid gland? Tough noggies, folks! Morbidly obese? You get gastric bypass. It matters not what the actual problem is. Now parlay that into other, more severe diseases. AIDS, Cancer, heart disease, etc. The government is now playing God. They will decide which treatments are the smartest to use. You will have no ability to converse with your doctor to determine the best course of treatment. The government knows best. Welcome to nationalized healthcare.
And if you are still okay with executives being hamstringed with minimal (if any) bonuses for great work...smack yourself. Incentivization is as normal as eating. Why do we eat tasty food? Because it tastes good. It is a basic incentivization. Why do we have sex? Because in the end, we are rewarded for doing such a good job (usually for ourselves). Case closed.
Then, despite Obama's claim to want to reach out to countries around the world to mend the strained or broken relationships of the past 8 years, David Axelrod states that we are in a trade war with foreign nations, and that we will not use any of their products for any of the rebuilding projects listed in the Spendulus Bill. Now that's a great way to mend fences.
And to wrap up, how did the Great "O" Face deside on what needed to be in the Spendulus Bill? He told Nancy and David and Harry that the total proce should be around $775 Bil. Now that's just stellar! To hell with choosing the right projects or targets for my taxpayer dollars, just pick a bottom line dollar amount, and the rest will fall into place.
When making the movie "South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut," Trey Stone and Matt Parker's first version pulled an NC-17 rating from the MPAA. They were told to cut a few scenes, then they would get an R rating. Matt and Trey, being just about the smartest people in Hollywood, made a newer version with MORE NC-17 rated scenes...including the ones the MPAA originally stated must be edited. What happened when the second version went before the MPAA? The original scenes were deemed just fine, but the MPAA board stated that the more graphic scenes should be edited. Matt and Trey played this game a half-dozen more times until the final movie was 10 times more graphic than the original version.
This is what just happened with the Spendulus Package. The House offered a $870Bil package. The country gasped. The Senate offered a $826Bil package. The country gasped...but not as much. Obama put his official foot down, wagged his nicotine-stained fingers at Congress, and the final package is at $780Bil. And the country is not gasping as much. Oh, there are a ton of us still gasping like a trout in my kreel, but the gasping has quieted to a degree that Obama finds agreeable. He doesn't need the majority of people to agree with him. Just the poor folks need to agree. Those are his chosen few.
Good bye, America. It was nice knowin' ya.

Obama

2009-02-15T09:13:00.000-05:00

Yo, Obama. Where's MY Chips?!?

2009-02-13T09:36:00.002-05:00

So President Obama attends a Town Hall meeting in Ft. Meyers, FL and a woman by the name of Henrietta Hughes gets up and basically asks for a handout, gets a handout (and a HUG no less!!) from the President and we're all supposed to shed a happy tear and applaud? I'm sorry, am I missing something here?? So, some woman and her son who appear able-bodied (I've been unable to locate anything to the contrary in any news source) make some poor financial decisions, wind up broke and living in a car and because she can manage to show up and prostrate herself in front of the President she gets a handout? Where's mine? Oh, I forgot! I've actually managed to make responsible (or mostly responsible) financial decisions. I put off having children until I was A) married and B) financially secure enough to ensure I could afford them. I bought a house I could AFFORD (what a concept!). It's not exactly what I wanted! I would love some more square footage. Where's mine? I have a Discover card balance. Yeah, I ran it up, but why the hell should I pay for it? Where's mine? I have a job at which I consistently perform to the best of my abilities. I continue to educate myself in my field, achieve additional licenses and certifications to further prove my value to my employer. I made, as previously mentioned, relatively responsible financial decisions in regards to me and my family. Hell, even the ones that were questionable are issues that I am taking responsibility for and for which I am paying. I just don't get this "hand out mentality". WAKE UP, PEOPLE! Warm fuzzy, brother-can-you-spare-a-dime policies are NOT what made this country great! Personal responsibility and ingenuity, risk-takers who took the consequences of their risks and built upon them (whether successes or failures), free-thinkers, self-actualized individuals and not those waiting around for someone else to do it for them are who founded this country and built it to what is quickly being torn down. We need more of THAT kind of thinking. Everyone should be outraged, not applauding, this move by Ms. Henrietta Hughes. Get a job lady! I'm sure Walmart is hiring!

-Written by Amanda Bonifant

GM Driving Off A Cliff

2009-02-12T14:48:00.002-05:00

In the latest display of corporate ineptitude and ignorance of consumer desires, GM arrived at the Chicago Auto Show without a single new car idea. No flashier Corvette or mileage-conscious Malibu. No hybrids to help consumers capitalize on the tax breaks offered by the Federal Gubmint. GM, in all their deterioriated wisdom showed up with four Transformer versions of their autos. For every six year old in the place, I'm sure they were excited about it and wondered when they'd be able to buy one. But for everyone who took at least a week of algebra, it is obvious that GM is out of schlitz. They're running on empty. I can only hope that GM fired all of their R&D employees, engineers, artistes, big idea guys and gals, and the enigmatic color-palette specialists (those who help determine which colors are going to be next year's big draw). Since the entirety of this group produced not a single product for the flashy Chicago Auto Show, I can only hope that they were fired for lack of productivity and that Michael Bay (producer and director of the shamelessly bad movie "Transformers") was put on the payroll. Not that he brought anything to GM's bottom line, but at least he provided the creative impetus for GM's oversized Happy Meal toys.
Or is GM truly marketing these types of cars as the next generation of automobile? Is GM thinking long-term as the Japanese have been doing since the beginning of time? (You do know that the Japanese think so long term that they knew back in 1273 that Obama would be elected this year. They won't tell you that unless you ask real nicely, but it's true.)
I'd like to think that GM dedicated any thought to any reality past the coming weekend, but history has proven that GM is probably the worst-run corporation in history and has been floated lifelines for far too long. They products are decent, but only if you really need a pickup. Everything else in their lineup is uninspired -- other than the Transformer Camaro, of course. The Corvette is a mechanical nightmare whose past success can be attributed to people who truly believe that the Mustang is not a real sports car. The Cobalt, Metro, Malibu, Nova, and every other passenger car in their lineup deserve to be obliterated from our memories as any other useless filth -- such as episodes of "Webster" or "Mr. Belvedere." GM would be greatly served to end all production of Buick models, all sedans that cannot be used as either police cruisers or government-use sedans. And for thise lines, GM should only make as much as those government agencies order. No more, no less. GM should then make 3 varieties of pickup truck and one van. This would close factories worldwide. Wonderful! Once they file bankruptcy and kick out the unions (which can only be done after filing bankruptcy), they can then hire all sorts of eager would-be employees for those plants which make the few lines that consumers are buying. GM would become the Worker's vehicle. Trucks, vans, government-use vehicles. Nothing flashy. Everything profitable. And once they again master the ability to maximize profitability on these pared-down lines, they might be in a position to bring back the Corvette for its 75 year anniversary. As long as they get a chief engineer form Porsche to design it, it will be worth the money. (In case you didn't know, Porsche is a very reliable car.)

Bank CEOs and Congress

2009-02-11T09:54:00.002-05:00

Why are bank CEOs testifying to Congress? (Why does anyone testify to Congress other than to give power-hungry politicians the ability to see themselves on TV hunching over their microphones, asking unimportant questions of clueless, liars?)
But back to the point -- the CEOs of the banks which benefited from the first round of the $700bil stimulus package are talking to Congress about how they spent the money. They will talk about how they've shored up gaps in capital assets, rid themselves of toxic assets, bolstered their balance sheets all in an effort to feel more financially healthy and thus be more prepared to lend. They will show how they have lent millions of dollars since receiving the stimulus money, but will they show how much they lent historically over the same period? They may have lent $500mil over the past 6 months, but if they are historically lending $4bil over the same period, then we are a long way from being healthy again. Something tells me that they will bandy about those large numbers in an effort to amaze Congress and the American public, because they know that both are filled with idiots that have no concept of the dollar amounts banks usually deal in.
And is it me, or wasn't there supposed to be some Oversight Guru for all those billions? Where is he (or she)? Why aren't they sitting in front of Congress? For well-managed organizations, that oversight manager would be the single-point of contact for the Board of Directors (Congress) to ask questions and receive answers. To decentralize the responsibility is to allow for shady dealings and fuzzy math. Decentralization allows for the worker bees to claim that there was no guidance from the queen bee, and that any incorrect usage of honey cannot be blamed on them.
Get ready for the circus. Congress will ask the CEOs what brand of hybrid car they used to drive to Washington. Congress will ask if their suits are all green energy, hemp-made fabrics. Congress will ask how come Wall Street executives received bonuses when Main Street has seen boarded-up storefronts. Congress will ask the CEOs what they think the American public thinks about the CEO's thoughts about thinking too little about the thoughts of the American worker.
To all of these questions, the CEOs should respond: Get a life. We've got businesses to run, and being here for the Congressional dog-and-pony show is only limiting their ability to make their organizations healthy, again. And if Congress didn't subpoena these CEOs, they would not have been forced to drive to Washington in the first place.
"Pro" means "for:" "Con" means "against;" "Progress" means "moving forward;" "Congress" means...

And the Oscar Goes to...

2009-02-11T09:52:00.002-05:00

President Obama, for being the biggest, lying-est, Socialist-est (yes, it's a word!), fear-mongering, power-grabbing prick to inhabit the White House since FDR. And he's doing it for the greater good. Yay. That makes me feel better.

Baseball and Congress

2009-02-11T09:45:00.002-05:00

Why the heck does Congress care about some ballplayer taking steroids 5 years ago? Don't they have more important things about which to worry? I took a couple of aspirin the other night, does Congress want to know that, as well? Where is Congress's jurisdiction over baseball and the Drug Enforcement Agency? If A-Rod's and Tejada's and Conseco's steroid use was so atrocious, then the DEA and local law enforcement should have slapped the cuffs on them, sheperded them to the local pokey, and filed charges. Does it really take our Federal Congressional representatives? And didn't these guys just do what everybody wanted them to do? Everybody wants to see more action in sports. They want to see balls hit out of the park, players sliding into second base, acrobatic catches above the wall. You can't necessarily jump ten feet high if you aren't juicing a little. These men are taking their own health into their hands for the greater enjoyment of all. Porn stars do that every day, and you don't see Congress grilling them with questions like, "Did you wear a condom during the shooting of "Buffy, The Vampire Layer?"
Congress has enough on their plate. And how many people are outraged that their favorite ballplayer was a juicer? I doubt many, and I would bet not enough to warrant millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars to "get to the bottom of" a pathetic steroid usage "scandal."

How You Know The End May Be Near

2009-02-10T13:23:00.003-05:00

Something may have been amiss in the state of Denmark, but Hamlet would have crapped a gold-plated Twinkie if he had seen the litany of arrogance and insanity that is plaguing the United States. Something amiss? How about something terribly awry accompanied with the feeling you are slipping into an inescapable morass of oppression and group-mentality. Let's begin:
-Obama litigates his way onto the Illinois State Senate, getting all opponents kicked off the ballot;
-Obama loses his first bid at U.S. House of Representatives, because Chicagoans know he's full of crap;
-Obama wins U.S. Senate bid after a stellar campaign and support by both Clintons;
-Obama spends 183 days in the job of Senator before kicking off his campaign;
-With only 6 months' experience working at the Federal level, Obama claims to the world that he is the only person who is qualified to lead the country. By that rationale, Richard Burr of NC shuld be qualified to be President. Who is Richard Burr???
-Obama passes no legislation and votes "present" on bills so that he cannot be held accountable for being on the wrong side of any issue. The only time he votes one way or the other is when there is an overwhelming concensus among politicians voting one way or the other. Obama is a follower of group mentality;
-Obama picks elder statesman Joe "Lunchpail" Biden as his running mate. Joe is proudly from Scranton, PA but represents Delaware in the Senate. Riddle me that one, Batman;
-Obama promises Hope over Fear; Change over the Status Quo; Bipartisan over partisan;
-Obama appoints a raging liberal as his Chief of Staff, a union junkee for Sect of Labor, a tax cheat for Sect of Treasury, and tax evaders for numerous other positions;
-Obama attempts to appoint a lobbyist/ex-congressman (Daschle), but Daschle has been a dirty politician for too long to even get through a Democrat-crontrolled congressional panel;
-Obama expands a government that he claims Bush expanded too much;
-Obama plans to spend another Trillion dollars to revive the economy above the trillion that Bush approved;
-Obama has already halted the Afghanistan surge which was proven to work in Iraq;
-Obama has given a departure timetable for Iraq to our enemies;
-Obama has leveraged our children's and grandchildren's futures with the new stimulus package, despite that he argued Bush did the same over his Presidency;
-House and Senate pass stimulus bills valued higher than the original stimulus bill...which has not eased the pressure on our economy;
-Obama ready to talk to Iran and Venezuela as if they are friends;
-Judges order release of 57,000 prisoners so that an irresponsible state assembly can save $900 million;
-An Arizona rancher and true American is getting sued by Illegal Aliens who he stopped from crossing the border;
-Obama was asked at a press conference what he thought about A-Rod using steroids 5 years ago; and
-Two losers set an exotic dancer on fire.

Doesn't it seem like there is whirlpool of increasing speed in which we find oursleves being pulled? There are people out there doing good things, but they get sued. There are people out there stealing from the people (we call them politicians) who are empowered to do more by the very people from whom they are stealing. Evil people are being released to the larger populace for the sake of a few dollars, and they are telling people that there is no real increase in risk to the public safety. If not, why were these people incarcerated in the first place?
We are so interested in the pant-suits of Michelle Obama (maybe the most America-hating individual in D.C.) while her husband secretly sneaks control of the Census from the Legislative branch (per that little-reviewed document called THE CONSTITUTION) to the Executive Branch. Obama is spear-heading the push to go against everything our forefathers fought for and give government more power. Obama will soon tell us that we need government to provide all of our needs. He will get Congress to steal more money of ours to give back to us in the manner they devise as appropriate. And when they have turned the country into a mewling, drooling version of its former self, he will declare that we are in a state of emergency and propose extending term limits so that he can personally oversee the reconstruction of our country to its former glory.
As soon as Democrats propose extending term limits, you will see a vapor trail behind me as I high-tail it out of this country for more tropical climes. I fell in love with my wife, my children, and a country that represented freedom. But if the country cheats on me, I will gladly find another to take me in.

The Census and Our Future as Socialists

2009-02-09T16:29:00.002-05:00

By definition, a census used to be "a listing and property assessment of citizens." Now it is merely "an official enumeration of the population, with details as to age, sex, occupation, etc." If you look at that, and you don't see any significant difference, then you should keep reading. If you do see a significant difference, you should keep reading, too, but just because I'm probably going to tell you something you already know and make you feel better for being able to tell you that you are a very smart person.
Whereby in the original definition every single person was counted (along with their posessions), for decades, the U.S. Census has been a mere sampling of the population. This gives the Federal government some general insight as to how many people there are in the U.S. Based on this ambiguous number, Federal spending is established, the number of U.S. Congressmen per state are set, and congressional districts are (can be) drawn -- a technique known as "gerrymandering." As you can see, there is a lot of money and power that stems from this event. And if you are naive enough to think that power-hungry politicians do not exert maximum influence to their benefit during the census, you should not be eligible to vote.
In 1980, we had a Democrat President. In 1990, we had a Republican President. In 2000, we had Slick Willy presiding. In 2010, we will have The Messiah. And now Obama has taken control of the Census from the Department of Commerce (it's doctrinal home) and placed it in the hands of...his Chief of Staff??? How exactly does Obama qualify for Rahm Emmanuel as the Chief of Staff to be supervisory over the Census Bureau? It makes no sense...if you are naive and believe that all politicians are selfless servants. If you have 3% brain activity and know that all politicians are self-serving crap-weasels, then you know that when an extreme partisan personality like Rahm (and Obama) take control of the Census, it's not because they want to count everyone. It's because they believe in the ambiguity and manipulate-able nature of a sampled populace. It's fuzzy math! Whereas Obama's pick for Secretary of Commerce (a Republican) believes in a head count of Americans, Rahm and the rest of the Socia-crats believe in sampling and the surreptitious fuzzy math that will result in redrawn congressional districts to blot out Republican strongholds with Socia-crat majorities. This will greatly affect elections until the next Census. So get ready for at least a decade of Socia-crat rule. You have to remember that Obama won his first election in Chicago by getting the other candidates thrown off the ballet with fuzzy law. He stacked the deck. This is no different. He is working to eliminate Republican strongholds by redrawing districts to include just enough Socia-crats to outnumber Republicans. Gerrymandering -- for those of you with an eye toward non-partisan politics, this word should evoke images of social horrors.
God, this sucks!

Not Eligible to Collect from TARP Funds? The Govt Will Help

2009-02-09T12:37:00.002-05:00

...at least if you are GM. A stipulation of the TARP program is for all recipients to be a bank or a bank holding company. That is why many investment firms became bank holding companies so that they would be eligible for TARP funds. But when you are GM, you can't afford to buy bread, much less reorganize into a bank holding company. So what do you do? You ask the gubmint for some cheese to help you become that which will enable you to ask for more cheese. In the case of GMAC (the financing arm of GM), the gubmint gave $1 BILLION to GMAC to help them reorganize into a bank holding company. And because GMAC would have gone the way of the dodo prior to spending that $1 BILLION, the gubmint gave them an additional $5 BILLION to keep them solvent...all on the assumption that they would, of course, become a bank holding company with the first billion dollars.
Let's say that I want to be able to bid on government contracts to provide logistical services (one of my specialties). In order to bid on a government contract, you have to file certain paperwork and follow a certain process (which requires an initial investment ofyour own money) to be eligible to bid. This shows the government that I have followed all the prerequisite rules and hit all the prerequisite wickets to play with the big boys. If I had not, then the government would not waste time fielding a simple phone call of mine. It's all about due process. But in this new world order, if I want to bid on government projects (and I'm priviledged like GM) I just tell the government that I would love to be eligible to bid on the project, but I'm not. And would you give me a ton of money to become eligible? But in the meantime, why don't you grant me a contract win so that my c ompany lasts long enough to become officially eligible for the contract on which I am already working.
When logic starts to work backward...be afraid.

Obama Gives Green Light to Unions, Bars Non-Union

2009-02-09T10:22:00.004-05:00

Little media attention has been given to Obama's quiet repeal of a Bush Executive Order that opened up federal construction projects to non-union construction companies/employees. Clinton had originally signed into law an Executive Order that stated all federal consruction projects would require Union-only companies/employees. Now Obama has delivered a silver platter of money to the unions. Let's take a look at How:
Obama is pressing hard to pass a bill that will create billions of dollars in new construction projects. How many total billions? Well, after getting through 10% of the Senate's version of the bill, I calculated $9.75BILLION in construction costs and over $330 million in administrative costs. And now all of those construction projects will go to the unions. This should provide the Unions enough money to donate to the DNC and to Obama's re-election fund when the time comes. But for the 84% of construction workers who do not belong to a union, they are left out in the cold for all federal projects. So this Executive Order is geared to deliver preference to 16% of the construction worker population. That sounds like a special-interest group to me.
I know that I've been appalled by driving by construction projects where all the workers are standing around watching one guy do some work. This has occured over the past 8 years when non-Union workers are on these projects. Now that there will be Union workers, you will see ALL workers on a construction project standing around watching their supervisor talking to them about how great it is to be part of a Union. This will guarantee that the federal government will get less for their spending dollar than if they utilized non-Union employees/companies.
If there were two grocery stores in your neighborhood, and one was unionized while the other was not, you would find that the prices for groceries at the unionized store are noticeably higher than at the non-unionized store. As the products are the same, why would you shop at the unionized store. Bread is bread. Buying $2.50 bread is smarter than buying $3.50 bread. That means consumers would choose the non-unionized store more often. This limits the revenue for the unionized store and results in lay-offs. Now those unionized grocery store employees can't get a job at the non-unionized store, because it is against their union charter. They are now unemployed, pulling unemployment benefits.
So isn't it smarter -- for all involved -- to stay non-unionized? This is smarter for the consumer, the grocery store owner, for the neighborhood, and for the overall economy? As that is the case, why would the federal government spend more on union labor than non-union labor?
Lobbyist payoffs for federal contributions, that's why. Change you can believe in.

Obama Will Talk to Iran, but Time For Talk with regard to Stimulus Bill is Over

2009-02-07T17:35:00.002-05:00

The title says it all. Obama has let Iran know - through the very eloquent mouthpiece of VP Biden -- that the U.S. is so incredibly ready to sit down, share a cup of herbal tea, and chat with Ahmadinejad (aka El Pollo Loco) about becoming better buddies. This comes a day after Mr. Loco let the world know that the U.N. and U.S. sanctions against Iran have had no effect and that Iran has actively and aggressively pursued nuclear armament creation (and most likely)acquisition. Obama is ready to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with a man whose whole purpose in life is to foment chaos. Mr. Loco believes that if he creates enough pure chaos in the world, it will instigate the return of Mohammed. For all you infidel out there, that would NOT be a good thing for us.
So why is Obama so ready to talk with Mr. Loco, but he feels "the time for talk is over" with regards to the Socia-crat Spend-uh-bus Bill? Are we not loco enough for the President? Do I not read the right "faith books"? Why would Obama cut out our freedom of speech and our right to question the frivolous spending of nearly a trillion of our hard-earned dollars, but grant an audience with Senior Crazy?
I believe in the attempt to project a global feeling of good-will, Obama has misplaced his loyalties. Americans voted him into office. (Although ACORN may have enabled thousands of illegals to vote for him, but that can't be proven nor would that number necessarily have swayed the ultimate result of the vote.) Iranians didn't vote him into office. So why are we getting the short end of the stick?
Answer: Obama (and Socia-crats) only believe in the participation of the population when it pertains to voting them into office. Actual action by the populace is frowned upon and will be short-circuited at every opportunity.
This is called Communism.

How to Fix the Economy -- and Obama Knows This

2009-02-06T14:26:00.002-05:00

Obama was interviewed on NBC Nightly News on September 22, 2008 stating, "rescinding the Bush tax cuts in a recession would be destructive." Umm, okay. So our President knows what NOT to do during a recession. That's half the battle.
So what are the ways that you can heal the injured economy? Well, let's take a quick look back at how we got here. The mortgage fiasco has resulted in the banks not having the capital to cover the losses incurred because of the write-offs of the bad mortgages. So, the banks don't have the cash. When the government gives them a few billion dollars, they continue writing down bad assets and stockpiles the cash to improve the balance sheet. So, if the government billions can't get the banks to lend again, what will? More government billions? Nope. And why not? Because the banks know that the government money is a once (or twice) in a lifetime infusion. You can't make a business plan on that. The risk assessment says "Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!"
The way you can make the banks feel better about their own financial health is to have the customers (businesses, individuals and organizations) start paying down and off their debt and increase their savings accounts. Once the banks feel healthy again by virtue of a steady stream of capital from their customers, they will start to lend and get involved in normal activity.
But the government wants to pump dollars into the economy (which are worth less than ever before, because we have more dollars in circulation than any time in history..about 1000% more) to get people to spend money. But that is a once (or twice) in a lifetime event. It does not increase consumer or corporate confidence to a degree where people or companies will resume normal operations. Saving and paying off debt is the best move for the future health of our economy.
So now let's take a look at the reality of Obama's plan. It will pump $860bil into the economy...starting in 2011. HUH?!? But how will almost a trillion dollars 2 years from now help? Short answer: it will not. In the meantime, the recipients of the Socia-crat lobbyist pay-off package will feel rewarded for their support of the new President and the American public will continue to pay off debt and save. By the time the money starts to pump into the economy (in 2011), the economy will already be well on the road to recovery...if not already recovered. Then the results Obama's plan would either be masked by the new strength of the economy or would even set it back as people realize the ballooning National Debt, and confidence will wane. And then we will be back in the same boat in which we currently find ourselves.
Socia-crat Reward Package? Just say no.

Obama's Latest Stellar Cabinet Pick

2009-02-05T12:31:00.002-05:00

Obama must be thinking, "Where did all the idealists go?" He must feel like a man lost in the wilderness, surrounded by Republican wolves who want to eat him alive to make room for their aggressive domination and Socia-crat Bears who are bludgeoning everything in their site and blaming it on wolves, badgers, squirrels, and anything else that goes bump in the night.
Here we have California Socia-crat Representative Hilda Solis. Obama picked this nice, cute Latina to be Secretary of Labor. She comes from CA and loves unions, so that makes her a perfect fit. Only Obama says he doesn't want lobbyists in the White House. Why is this a problem? Ms. Solis worked as the Treasurer and a Board Member for the pro-Union group American Rights at Work. I want to repeat that last piece: Ms. Solis worked as the Treasurer! That means she was an Officer in the organization. She controlled their money. All the while, she was serving her constituents (ha!) as a Congresswoman. Although some might think this is bad enough, wait...there's more!
She sponsored and co-sponsored legislation to allow public safety officers to unionize and to authorize the card-check in the unionization process. So she's creating legislation for an organization for which she is an officer. That's called Conflict of Interest. Of course, Socia-crats only believe in their own interests, so it wasn't a conflict for her. Think that's enough? Wait for it...
She never once revealed this information on her House financial disclosure forms (which are a requirement).
Are you disgusted, yet? You should be. Here is another Socia-crat playing multiple sides of the same system, all in a blatant conflict of interest, and all in the effort to create more Personal wealth for themselves, and because they know that with a simple apology, they will walk away from these devious activities with nothing more than an unofficial censure.
A Change DID come to Washington with Obama. All the Socia-crat egotists are coming to light. The White House, Capitol Hill, and in every Agency and organization in D.C., there will be senior leadership who has flaunted their power, cheated policy, evaded legal statutes, and worked tirelessly for personal gain at the cost of taxpayer wealth and security.
If only Dick Cheney could don a red cape and burn a swath through these deviants with his heat-beam eyeballs. If we all chant loud enough, maybe he'll come back. Help me with this. Wherever you are, lean back and shout at the top of your lungs, "I WANT DICK! I WANT DICK!" Don't worry about hecklers. Mr. Cheney will expunge them as well, so you will not have to tolerate the ridicule for long.
I WANT DICK. I WANT DICK.

How to get yo chips

2009-02-05T12:11:00.002-05:00

The Feddle Gubmint be handin' out cash moneys, so get in line stick yo hand out. Wondering for which benefits you qualify? Here's an example:
-Make your house more energy efficient by installing insulation, energy-efficient windows, doors, roofs, water heaters, furnaces, and air conditioners (???). The Gubmint will reimburse 30% of your expenses on these items up to $1500.
-Buy a new home.
-Buy a new car. I recommend Hyundai. If you lose your job, you can just hand the car back without any strings attached. They don't give you back your trade-in, so you'll be riding the bus to get home, but at least you won't have a car payment.
-People who don't pay any income taxes and receive Gubmint Cheese Checks of $628 will now get a check for $5656. No, that's not a typo. That's a 900% increase.
-People who don't pay taxes and get $1000 child "credit" per child currently have to make less than $12,600 annually to qualify. Under the new plan, they only need to make $6000. That's called reinforcing good behavior amongst the poorest of our population. Great. Some idiot 16-yr old working at McD's gets knocked up by the drive-thru attendant and now gets $1000 annually to take care of the child which could have been avoided with a $750 procedure (Essure), a $1.50 condom, free birth control pills, or any number of inexpensive methods of contraception. Why take personal responsibility when the Gubmint will ease your burden?
-Send your kids to college. You will be eligible for an additional $2500 in credits. If you make more than $160k (filing jointly), the Gubmint considers you rich, so you get severely diminished credits. And for all of you making $160k annually, I want to apologize. I know you are probably very nice people, but the Gubmint has handicapped you so that we po folks can get ahead. Isn't ham-stringing you allowing me more opportunity?
There will be additional ways to get yo chips. De Gubmint always takes care of us less fo'tunate folk. We got to get ahead, and the only way to do that is to keep them damn rich folk down. I mean, they stood on the shoulders of us giants. That's how they got ahead!
And once poor people figure out that the more you hamstring the wealthy, the more it adversely affects their own chances at success. But morons will be morons. The rich will get richer, because they continue doing those things that made them rich. The poor will either get poorer or stay poor, because they will continue doing what made them poor. And the middle class will continue to persevere and move up. There are more millionaires and billionaires in the US than ever before. Well, with the Stock Market woes, I'm sure that number has fallen, but the numbers will increase again. And it will not be the poor who swell the ranks of the rich. It will be the hard-working middle class who break through and create wealth. Oh, I don't want to short-change the wealthy. They will -- God love 'em -- continue to create wealth, jobs and capital, and set a landscape fertile to allow the growth and development of the eager middle class.

Converter Boxes Unavailable, Congress Postpones Action

2009-02-05T10:36:00.002-05:00

In another stellar example of how Congress can fuck up a wet dream, the relatively simple task of converting the broadcast signal from analog to digital, and distributing converter boxes to support same by mid-February has been postponed to mid-June. Congressional experts have decided that more analog bandwidth is needed for "public safety," whatever that means. What, do they want to have more frequencies to broadcast that annoying public service announcement squeal?
So instead of telling people with analog TVs to go to their local TV station to receive a new converter box (to be supplied at no charge from the Federal Government), the Federal Government opened up a customer service center to take phone calls from people who needed converter boxes. Then the customer service rep sent a card to the customer which would then need to be sent in to the government for a free converter box. But there aren't enough cards. No word on there not being enough boxes, though.
So what does that tell you? Government added a layer of complexity to the issue by creating a customer service call center when they could have connected the people directly with their local stations.
Idiocy. Change I want to believe in.

Panetta To Face Congressional Whiffle-ball Game

2009-02-05T10:04:00.003-05:00

Whereas Socio-crat Congresses in the past have grilled Republican candidates, Leon Panetta, the Pres's pick to head the CIA, will face a a panel of smiling faces and whiffle ball pitches. Congress grilled automaker CEOs on their MapQuest directions and whether they bought Slim Jims or Funyuns from Wawa on their way to D.C. for the hearing. But Congress will not ask Panetta about the $700k he earned as a speaker in 2008 for companies like Merrill Lynch and Wachovia...companies that were accepting bailout money from the government BEFORE they hired Panetta to speak. Obama wants a clean, ethical, lobbyist-free White House, but we have seen his picks drop out of contention based on tax violations and now unseemly involvement with companies on the Federal bailout list. Now, Panetta has commited no crime in speaking at these companies' gatherings, but it shows that Obama's picks are self-centered egotists who care more about lining their own wallets than doing the right thing.
I'm beginning to think that Obama may actually believe that Change line he vigorously espoused during the campaign, but he was sorely naive in thinking that anyone else in Washington believed it. I think that he is coming to terms with the fact that he is surrounded by unethical political power-mongers and that he is quickly getting in over his head. Perhaps the Socio-crat Machine thought that Obama would simply be their House Boy and do what they told him to do and say what they told him to say.
I would love to see Obama turn on his Socio-crat masters like a rabid pit bull. I would love to see Obama sit behind his desk in the Oval Office and tell the Nation via live broadcast that he was misled by his Democrat brethren is thinking that they cared about anything but themselves. I want him to tell the Nation that the system is broken, and that there is a need for new blood in Washington. I would love for him to tell the Nation that he is going to disband agencies who have spent decades claiming that victory is close but always just beyond reach. I would love for him to explain the need for a tax code that requires attorneys and fosters loopholes within loopholes and allows those who live outside the law (drug dealers and pimps) to never pay taxes. I would love to ride a unicorn to work one day and be surrounded by elves who provide me with chocolate and peanut butter at my bidding.
Dang it! I got off on another tangent. My wife keeps telling me I do this.
To get back to my original point: Obama needs to convince the American public that he stands behind his claim of a more ethical administration. This will require a complete grilling of Panetta. He may still survive the grilling. That's fine! But at least make him stand and be accountable.

S-CHIP Paves Way for Universal Healthcare

2009-02-05T09:46:00.002-05:00

Obama signed into law the SCHIP. Now more children who were previously covered by established healthcare structure are now covered by MORE healthcare. People don't have to be insured to have healthcare. When I was younger and unstoppable, I had a few scrapes and bumps along the way. Occasionally these caused a need for an emergency room trip. With not a health insurance card insight, I boldly stumbled into the emergency room and declared that I needed some medical attention. Not only did the doctors not paint a scarlet A on my forehead and send me out into the cold (it was southern California, so it wasn't really cold, but you get my drift), they welcomed me into the bosom of their facility, took my name, income information and told me that medical service costs would be prorated based on my income. Whereas I didn't earn very much, the costs for tests, x-rays, prescription meds, and doctors' expertise was only about $150. And the evil hospital allowed me to pay that bill in installments!
So why is there a need for MORE coverage? Because a handful of people out there have really serious medical conditions. And those people's medical costs, even when prorated for income, are significant enough to cause serious financial hardship. Okay. I get it. Life's tough. So why do we need to insure ALL children the same when only a precious few need that level of coverage. Why not develop a list of service offerings or medical conditions that meets the criteria for Federal Government assistance. The rest can do what I did and rely on the hospital to follow their normal rules for billing. The government will always expand a program if it is "for the children." This is just another step away from "for the less fortunate," "for the poor middle class," and "for those who are spending their money on cell phones and flatties and thus can't be bothered to buy healthcare."

"Irreversible Recession..."???

2009-02-05T09:32:00.002-05:00

What the hell does Obama know about economics? He is now threatening Congress to pass the $920bil Socialist Spending Bill or risk an "irreversible recession." If you truly want an irreversible recession, the following steps MUST be taken:
1) Grow government -- this ensures that the government will continue to tax the populace to keep the great beast growing. And there will necessarily be government agencies whose job it is to enforce the collection of taxes to feed the Beast. And there will necessarily be agencies whose job it is to ensure the steady and continuing expansion of the Beast. In the military, we call that a "self-licking ice cream cone." No one gets to enjoy it except the confection itself. Everyone else just sits by and wonders why they can't have a bite.
2) Restrict Private Business Growth -- This can be achieved in a few ways. The single fastest way is to raise corporate taxes, income taxes on the wealthy, and capital gains taxes. The second, and slightly longer-term, way to achieve this is to ensure that businesses can only hire mediocre talent to create a vision and lead the way ahead. By placing a salary cap on executives of companies who are experiencing financial difficulties, this ensures that these companies will continue to have problems. The result is that the government will discover the shoddy work done by these new low-rent CEOs, and the government will again lower the salary cap. Eventually, the salary-cap will allow fry cooks to take a pay cut and still run a corporation. This will end in the government taking over the companies and placing an appointed official to run it. it will look a LOT like Fannie and Freddie. And we all know how THAT turned out.
Obama and his Socio-crat friends in Congress are dismantling what has made this country great. He claims that not passing this bill will steer us toward an uncertain future. I, for one, would rather risk the uncertain future where we saved ourselves $920bil, than barrel ahead into a future that is very certain...to be fraught with persistent economic woes. And when this bill passes, and the economy takes a nose dive deeper than it ever has in the past, Obama will sit back in his balmy Oval Office and state to the People that he acted on the best economic advice at the time. Please remember that these minds (Geithner, et al) have tough time filing their own personal taxes. If I can figure it out (all by myself with a little help from an online filing service), why do these geniuses have problems? And they are here to help sheperd us through the valley of darkness which they themselves created?
I hate to sound cliche, but: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

"Come On the Right Side of History."

2009-02-03T10:15:00.004-05:00

Can you believe that Sen Patrick Leahy (a Democrat from the state of Who Gives a Rat's Ass) told senators reluctant to approve Eric Holder as Obama's choice for Attorney General that they should, "Come on the right side of history." Leahy and other Obama sycophants went on to laud Holder's shiny resume (most likely a result of high-quality pulp) and how this was a fulfillment of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream.
If you are Eric Holder, are you even remotely appreciative that you were just hired based on the fact that you have some black folks in your ancestry? You know you worked hard to get where you are, and some white guy from Vermont (who didn't see a black person until they went to college) speaks lovingly of MLK's dream and your part in fulfilling that dream. Umm, and have you seen Holder? I'm not saying he's not black, but he makes Obama look like he's fresh off the boat from the motherland. There are days in late Summer when even my pasty-white self is darker than Holder.
Am I trying to get lynched by these comments? No. I've got a family. My death would be a great disappointment to them...I think. I make these comments to merely point out that there is a significantly diminishing difference between whites and blacks. Fifty years ago, whites were all the color of vanilla, and blacks were the color of rich, delicious chocolate. Then the population got smarter. They figured out that love has no color boundaries. They figured out that George Washington Carver, Frederick Douglas, McCoy, MLK, Sowell, and all those black smart guys were not enigmas or anomalies. They were just like every other smart guy in the world...only they looked better in short sleeves, because of that wonderful, full-body pigmentation.
So, what do we have nowadays? George Hamilton (white guy) is darker than any person alive in the U.S., and Eric Holder (black guy) is lighter-skinned than anyone in D.C. -- with the exception of maybe Sen. Leahy. I say let's keep cross-polinating. I say let's keep throwing racial purity out the window. (We all know what kind of defects come out in pre-bred dogs!) Let the KKK and the NAACP and the Railbow Coalition go the way of the Dodo and the dinosaurs. Let's truly promote equality by NOT mentioning divergent ancestry. Let's promote unity, not diversity. We are all of one mind: peace and prosperity. These are unifying ideas, not diverging ideas.

Record Snowstorm May Cost Britain $4.3bil: Ain't Global Warming a Bitch

2009-02-03T09:54:00.002-05:00

The British found themselves confused as they awoke this morning to another frigid day of snow and ice. Their confusion did not result from their daily encounter with the odd little plastic tool with bristles located in their loo used to -- supposedly -- clean teeth that surely don't need it. No, their confusion stemmed from all that darn snow and ice falling from the sky while they are knee-deep in a global warming trend. They are confident that global warning is happening and that this cold weather is either an anomaly or similar to the perfect storm idealized in the real-life dramatic movie "Day After Tomorrow." If you haven't seen this cinematic masterpiece, it shows how global warming leads to raging snowstorms that freeze people mid-step. Umm...wouldn't that be global cooling? Perhaps my Oxford English Dictionary is out of date. I'll Wikipedia it.
Anyway, Great Britain now says it may cost $4.3bil to recover from the disaster of this winter storm. If they are worried about where they will get the money, I recommend diverting some of the funds used to buy air conditioners to combat the impending global swelter and buy a few space heaters. Another potential solution: have Gwyneth Paltrow talk. Her blathering Hollywood "intelligence" should heat up London and maybe even part of Wales. If you are looking for a complete thaw, add Coldplay and Elton John to the mix. Well call it "Ice Aid '09."
Al Gore would be a lively speaker, but his plane would probably be redirected to Milan due to icy conditions at Heathrow, so you have to stick with locals.
Maybe all that teeth-chattering in London will break up the gobs of plaque filling everyone's mouth! You see, there's a bright side to everything!