Transformation

No - this isn't a Kafka-esque change from human to bug,

It is, however, a result of serious thought and consideration over the past several months (maybe years). I've been a Republican all my life - my first vote as an 18 year old was for Ronald Reagan. Even when I thought the Republican candidate wasn't the strongest, I figured that the conservative values and ideals that the party stood for still made them a better candidate that the other guy. And for the most part I stand by those decisions. I can't imagine how a President Gore would've handled the attacks on 9/11. I can't see anything good coming from a Kerry presidency. But now we're looking down the barrel of an Obama-led country and the Republicans have put forth a strange little man that seems completely out of touch with America. Now, this strange little man has my utmost respect for his service to our great country and his subsequent imprisonment. But I don't necessarily think that makes him the best guy for the job. On the other hand, the rest of the herd running in the Republican primary weren't a whole lot better.

But I digress. My view of the party that I have supported for years (yes, a card carrying member even!) has changed considerably over the past 10-15 years. The party that was supposed to be for smaller government has out-spent and expanded the government more than even the most liberal of administrations while still cutting taxes and further indebting future generations. They have limited personal liberties in the name of security. They have allowed religion to become too much of an influence in the governance of the nation. They have allowed our nations borders to continue to be open passageways. They have, in effect, failed the conservative agenda which is supposed to include smaller government and more individual liberty.

Please don't misunderstand the above paragraph. I fully believe that the Democrats in control would work hard on the project of ever increasing government intrusion into our lives in the name of "fairness" or "leveling the playing field". Their values of redistribution of wealth and trying to hook the citizens on the teet of the government will lead us down the road to a socialist or Marxist society. It's started with Social Security and government run schools (don't we call those indoctrination centers when they are in other countries?) then moved to Welfare and next is Healthcare, Energy and Banking. With each of these "services" being provided by the government we give up more liberty and control of our lives. When government provides everything we need, they can just as easily take it away.

"With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320

As a people, we already work for the first 5 months of the year in order to cover our tax burden. How ridiculous is that concept? And there is no option to not pay. We are forced to give up a significant portion of the compensation for our labors under threat of violence or imprisonment. And a significant portion of that goes to those that choose not to work. That choose not to make themselves ready or prepared for employment. That choose to live off the teet of government.

"To constrain the brute force of the people, [the European governments] deem it necessary to keep them down by hard labor, poverty and ignorance, and to take from them, as from bees, so much of their earnings, as that unremitting labor shall be necessary to obtain a sufficient surplus to sustain a scanty and miserable life." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:440

Liberals have become the thought police of Orwell's vision in the book 1984. PC language is becoming law and don't you dare have that thought that might not be consistent with the collective. Speak up and you're considered mean-spirited. Think about that word "mean-spirited". They are referring to someone as having an evil soul, unsaveable, and not to be tolerated. If you disagree with them, head straight to the exorcist to get yourself straightened out.

While I may have problems with the direction of the Republican party, I fear for this country if or when Democrats gain control of the Executive and Legislative branches of our federal government.

So - I don't identify with either major party, then what's a voter to do. That's a really good question. Personally (and here's the transformation part), I have read the platform for the Libertarian party and agree with it. I suggest you give it a look. It seems to be the only political party that is paying attention to the constitution and the dreams of such nut bags as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington and the rest. You know, those crazy bastards that took on the King of England and kicked his ass all in the name of ending a suffocating tyranny and injustice and for the pursuit of liberty. Yeah, those guys.

Give the platform an honest read and tell me we wouldn't be better off.

Now, I'm a realist. I know that there won't be giant tsunami of Libertarian-ness sweeping across the country all at once. I know that even if, by some quirk of electronic voting screwiness, we get a Libertarian president they will have to deal with a legislature that is deeply rooted in their partisan alliances. I know that a large part of the major party base constituents (bible thumpers for the right, socialists on the left) would never go along with some crazy idea like personal liberty.

However! Seeing a better platform. Seeing goals that empower an individual and not a government body. Seeing the value of personal responsibility. Seeing what can only be defined as freedom - we can each begin to make more informed decisions. We can make demands of our employees up on Capital Hill and in the White House. We can shape the debate. We can speak out against the extreme. We can say....

I'm not a party drone. I exist in between the extremes of politics that have had the podium for 20 years. I demand liberty. I demand an end to government that seeks only power over the individual. I demand that the government abide by the constitution and the intentions for freedom and liberty stated and advocated by our founding fathers. I demand a government that does not see the rewards of my labors as an opportunity to fill their coffers. I demand freedom and liberty for all individuals including the right for individuals to live with the consequences of their own decisions. I demand to be heard.

We are the silent majority. We are Americans. The time for silence is over.

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

Quick Hits

There is so much going on these days, and I've got job and a family to take care of, so I jsut plain ol' don't have time to vent or comment on everything that strikes my fancy. If you haven't noticed, I'm a little long winded on my posts, so until someone is willing to pay me for my stupid opinions, I'll have to be choosey....but there's a bunch of stuff I'd like to mention:

1. Tiger Woods and the US Open: This has to be one of the toughest S.O.B.s out there. To walk 91 holes (thats 6 or 7 miles per day for 5 days) on a torn ACL and two stress fractures is a huge feat. To do that, and win the US Open, is beyond my ability to come up with superlatives. Even with such a huge handicap he's still better than everyone else out there. I'm glad he's taking the time off to heal so we can keep watching him in the future. I just hope he doesn't get so comfy that he decidees to retire with his gagillions of dollars and beautiful family.
2. Gay Marriage in California: Good for them! I've never understood the aversion to this. If it's against religion, then that religion should be able to say "no, you can't marry in our church". But we're not talking about religion. This is about the government recognizing that people of the same sex can have fall in love and be legally tied together. This goes to giving the spouse certain rights over healthcare decisions, estate rights, etc. Not to mention, we heterosexual folks haven't done really well with the whole sanctity of marriage thing anyway. And I speak from experience.
3. Flooding in the Mid-West: You folks that are going through this are in my thoughts and I hope everything works out in the end and you can rebuild your lives. Please, do not expect the government to be wholley responsible for your well being. I haven't heard the cries about the government not doing enough, and for that I applaud you. I imagine it's more of a common-sense and self-reliant approach to life that seems to be prevalent in middle america.
4. Al Gore's Power: And by this I mean, the amount of power his big honkin Tennessee house is using. Looks like after spending a shload of money on greening up the house, he's increased his overall usage by 10%. In one month he consumes nearly twice the power that we regular shmoes use in a year. Doctor, heal thy self and quit telling me what to do.
5. The Politicization of Science and the effort to dismantle the first amendment: The opening paragraph to this story says it all "James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer." Uh, what? Since when was an opposing position to a scientific theory a bad thing? This guys is pretty self important as he celebrates the 20th anniversary of his speech. Feh.
6. Obama calls for oil crackdown? Looks like the heir apparent to the US throne is already preparing to jump in and fiddle around with free markets and capiltalism. Pay attention to this and expect more of it in the coming years. The answer, of course, is that we need to drill, drill, build some nuclear Plants, and then drill some more.
7. I'm halfway through a book by Neal Boortz called Somebody's Gotta Say It. Not only is Mr Boortz really funny he lays bare some of the countries biggest problems AND offers his ideas for fixing it. The best part is that Liberals think he's a Neo-Con and Conservatives think he's a bleeding heart liberal. When in reality he's a libertarian.
   

Karl Marx would be proud....

The 2008 General Election has kicked off - Obama vs. McCain - and it's getting a little crazy already.  I'm not a fan of either of these fellows and if the past two weeks of campaigning is any indication, I won't be changing my mind anytime soon.  There is one major difference that I've seen.  Obama wants to increase governments role in our lives and in the process reach into our pockets even deeper.  McCain?  Well, there's no telling.   He's flipped on his opinions and previous statements so much that he has no definitive position.  Both options are scary.

Not nearly as scary as the House Democrats calling for nationalizing the oil refineries.   Have we just transported to Venezuela, Cuba, or the old Soviet Union?   How can this government, that has botched every major long term social initiative from Social Security to Medicare/Medicaid to Education to Welfare, expect to be able to efficiently run a fuel production and distribution operation?  Oh yeah, they'll keep prices down by paying for it with our tax dollars and when they fark it up even more, they'll just raise the tax rate some more.

I hate the whole slippery slope axiom - but boy does it ever apply here.   Give the government the oil refineries and next on the hit list will be the transportation of fuel - because they'll "make too much money".  Then it will be the gas  stations - because they'll "make too much money".  Then it will be the auto industry because they're obviously not producing the "right kind" of car to be fuel efficient.

Here's a solution.  Approve the construction of more refineries operated by people that have an interest in it's success.  Approve drilling in ANWR and off the coast.   Someone is already out off the coast of florida, in international waters, sucking up the oil.   And its not us.  If environmentalism is what is keeping us from doing it - well someone else already is and they may not have the standards and restrictions that US oil drilling operations would have.  So besides the obvious advantages to reducing our foreign oil needs, we could actually be helping the environment by being the one's out there.

In addition, we need to approve the construction of more Nuclear Power Plants.   France has a shload of them.   Yes.  France.    The cheese eating surrender monkeys that liberals have a love affair with - have dozens and dozens of Nuclear Power Plants.   Guess what, less reliance on foreign oil to power their homes, businesses and factories.   

On a side note - I heard recently that all of the nuclear waste generated since the 1950s is so small that it would only fill a high school gymnasium.  I don't know if that is correct or not, but if it is - then what the hell is the problem?  Very little waste for a huge gain.  So dig the hole in Yucca mountain and shut up.

Another interesting note - 15% of the cost of every gallon of gasoline is in the form of taxes.  4% is profit to the oil companies.  Somehow the politicians have diverted the American consumers attention to the "evil oil empires" as the bad guys when its our government that takes the lions share for doing nothing and the oil companies take their 4% for doing everything.  Sounds very much like the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984.

The Democrat response to all of these suggestions, and the direct response by their presidential candidate, is that none of these will lower the cost of gas today.  Well, I'd have to agree to a point.  Except for one thing.   None of their suggestions will either.  Increasing fuel mileage (CAFE) standards?   Thats always phased in over 10 years.   Alternative fuels?  Still being developed.   Phased in over several years.  CF lightbulbs?  Phased in over several years - and really, how much will that help?  Have you seen the cleanup procedures if you break one?   This is a big ship - it doesn't turn on a dime.  But it doesn't change direction at all if you never start turning the wheel.

Now for the part where I don't agree - according to the Future's Traders, you know the ones that the Dems are blaming for driving up the price, they trade based on long term forecasts and ride trends.   They don't make the trends, they ride them.   If you change the trend, they will trade accordingly.  By some estimates, if the US were to announce that we would allow drilling offshore and/or in ANWR we would change the trend to the point where within a few months the cost of a barrel of oil could drop $30-$40.  That sounds like an immediate impact.

Speaking of trends, have you noticed the teflon-ness of the Dem controlled congress.   The divert blame to oil companies and Futures Traders without ever mentioning that we haven't allowed anyone to explore for new oil or build refineries or build Nuclear Plants in 30 years.  They fail to mention the very successful lobbying efforts by the environmental movement that has helped to put us into this position.  That conveniently forget that we've been trying to do the ANWR thing for over 10 years - with some of the same arguments back then that it wouldn't help us immediately.  Had we started 10 years ago, then we would be reaping the rewards right now when we need it most.

Which is why our shortsighted politicians (of either party), who seem to only worry about the next election cycle, and the behemoth that is the US Government should NEVER be put in charge of anything more than national defense.

But their answer is to nationalize the refineries just like they want to nationalize healthcare to add to their nationalization of education, retirement, and welfare.  All things that the government sucks at doing.  What's next?  Farms?  Grocery Stores?  Businesses?  Welcome to the collective.

Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Adams and the rest must be spinning in their graves.  Karl, however, is smiling the big smile.  The Democratic Party is working very hard to fulfill Marx's prediction that  Communism will take over without ever firing a shot.

Cap'n Trade saves the day! (or, keep your hand on your wallet)

Look!  Up in the sky!  It's a bird!  It's a plane!  It's Cap'n Trade!

No, wait, it's not a superhero.  Or a cereal.  It's another grand government initiative to obfuscate their intent to reach into our pockets and further control our lives.

So what is Cap-and-Trade?   It's an economic/environmental theory that says governments should come up with a very complex plan to sell pollution credits to companies and then let those companies that don't use them all to trade (sell) them.  Gosh that sounds great.....until you see how it works and what wrath LUC will bring.   Everyone likes sausage, no one likes to see how it's made.  And the Senate is about to start the grinding.

I would wax eloquent on the problems inherent in the whole Cap-and-Trade scheme (and thats the only way to describe it) but George Will, someone infinitely smarter than I, has said it best.

In case you don't have time to read the whole article by Mr Will, here are some highlights:

"The Wall Street Journal underestimates cap-and-trade’s perniciousness when it says the scheme would create a new right (“allowances”) to produce carbon dioxide and would put a price on the right. Actually, because freedom is the silence of the law, that right has always existed in the absence of prohibitions. With cap-and-trade, government would create a right for itself — an extraordinarily lucrative right to ration Americans’ exercise of their traditional rights."

"A carbon tax would be too clear and candid for political comfort. It would clearly be what cap-and-trade deviously is, a tax, but one with a known cost. Therefore, taxpayers would demand a commensurate reduction of other taxes. Cap-and-trade — government auctioning permits for businesses to continue to do business — is a huge tax hidden in a bureaucratic labyrinth of opaque permit transactions."

"Lieberman guesses that the market value of all permits would be “about $7-trillion by 2050.” Will that staggering sum pay for a $7-trillion reduction of other taxes? Not exactly.
It would go to a Climate Change Credit Corp., which Lieberman calls “a private-public entity” that, operating outside the budget process, would invest “in many things.” This would be industrial policy, i.e., socialism, on a grand scale — government picking winners and losers, all of whom will have powerful incentives to invest in lobbyists to influence government’s thousands of new wealth-allocating decisions."

"...global temperatures have not risen in a decade. So Congress might be arriving late at the save-the-planet party. Better late than never? No. When government, ever eager to expand its grip on the governed and their wealth, manufactures hysteria as an excuse for doing so, then: better never."

So, the Republican candidate has chosen to pander to the environmental crowd and support a solution that will undoubtedly result in a beaurocratic  cluster-uh.....you know.

Deity help us all.......

Buying the nomination?

While getting my fill of the news this morning I saw this little ditty about Hillary Clinton negotiating with the Obama camp on her departure from the race. 

It appears that in her state of denial over the past few months her campaign has gotten itself in debt to the tune of $40million.  Thats after already spending upwards of $200million just to lose.   This includes $11million of her own cash she's loaned to her campaign.  

Of course,  no one wants to lose a hard fought campaign and then end up taking a second job in order to pay everyone off, so what's a candidate to do?

Why, sell her endorsement of course!

I'm sure this isn't illegal or anything, otherwise we wouldn't be finding out about it before it actually happens, but it sure does smack of buying the nomination.   $40 million to stop the attack machine and gather up her supporters....sounds like a deal.  

It just sounds shady.

But that's the mindset of the modern liberal.   She made the decision to keep spending money, when the donations aren't there.  She made the decision to keep running her campaign and zipping around the country, but on credit.  And now that it's obvious (and has been for awhile) that she can't win she wants someone else to bail her out of her financial mess of her own making.

Sounds like alot of legislation.  SOMEONE SAVE ME FROM MYSELF!  has become the cry du jour.

But hey, sell your support to the highest bidder.....lobbyists, take note.  

Note to Sen McCain:   Got a spare $45million to garner nearly half the dem vote?  Might be time for a counter offer and buy yourself a presidency.  It seems to be for sale this year.