Rants from a single point of view

Digging Out

2011-08-02T03:30:00.000-07:00

Well, the big debt ceiling show is over and both Republican and Democrat Leaders are claiming victories. Heck, even the White House is claiming it's all a success. Let's all sit around and sing a few refrains of kumbaya. But wait? What? Members of the parties aren't happy? How can that be?

After so much wrangling and back & forth over who is evil and who has a better plan it turns out, no one does. Republicans claim budget cuts, which aren't actual budget cuts and Democrats claim victory for saving Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Oh yeah - and we didn't default on a debt we've accrued to pay for all kinds of crap that we can't afford. There's no one person or party to blame in this particular fact. The reality is everyone that has held a postion in the Legislative and Executive branches for at least the past 10+ years is guilty. Yes, Clinton ran a surplus, and forecasted long term surpluses before the dot com bubble burst, but that surplus was on the back of the bubble. Without all of that money being thrown around crazily it never would have happened, and we suffered for it when it did burst.

So this debt we carry - and continue to carry forward, kicking the can down the road for someone else to eventually deal with or be crushed underneath, needs to be handled. The US Government brings in $2.2 Trillion in revenue each year and can't seem to balance a budget - let alone pay off any debt. Everyone knows paying the minimum payment will never pay off the credit card - so why don't all these smartypants in Congress know this? There are a lot of things we can, and should do to get things in balance.

1. Reduce our military footprint around the world. Sorry world. You may have to police yourselves for awhile, we have some shit to work out over here right now. But don't think for a second that if you start messing with us we won't drop the hammer on ya. Keep your distance, and we'll keep ours. BTW - our shit is remote controlled, do not even think about it.

2. Foreign Aid needs to be looked at in an objective manner under a harsh light. Sure there are things we can do to help poverty and disease in developing nations - but if 90% of that money goes to a tinpot dictator instead of the intended recipients, we should just stop. All we're doing is propping up the dictator who is the one oppressing his people - we keep paying him, he keeps oppressing, because we feel bad we pay him some more. And what about our own poverty right here? Foreign Aid for humanitarian reasons needs to be focused on building self reliance in a population, not just making them wards of the state.

3. Social Security is a tough nut to crack. We made a commitment 75 years ago that if you pay in, you'll get to take back out. I can't speak to the economic sense of it, seems to have the makings of a ponzi scheme, but you can't in good faith just cut people off at the knees that have bought in to the program for 50 years (without a choice int he matter I might add). However, reality needs to be broached here. When this program came into being the average life expectancy was 59.1 years and now (or at least in 2007) it's 77 years. That's a whole voting age person extra. Take that 18 years and multiply it by the 60 million people that receive social security (and it's only going up) and you've got 1.08 BILLION extra years of payments that FDR probably didn't count on. With smaller families meaning fewer payers into the system this becomes untenable. We need to wisely pick a point, stop the benefit for those on the wrong side of that point and we'll have to figure out how to do right by them, but it still won't be completely fair. For those on the right side of the point, reduced benefits may be necessary since lifespan has increased. Does it suck? Absolutely. But we've kicked the can as far is it can be kicked and since those in power for the past 60 years haven't made the appropriate adjustments it's just gonne hurt more now.

4. Elimination of duplicative federal agencies that the states should be responsible for will save a ton of money in both regulatory and employee overhead. One example, there is no need for a central direction on education. Schools in the north don't, and shouldn't, operate the same as schools in the south. Urban schools have different challenges than suburban and rural schools. New York City has issues that San Francisco may not. Why are they all treated the same? Wouldn't the state, or even better, the locality know more about what is needed in their own community? Without federal regulation they'd be more agile in their ability to respond. There are plenty of other agencies, or portions of agencies, that can be looked at and eliminated and their authorities pushed back to the state.

5. The Department of Homeland Security needs to be reigned in and broken up. It's become a monopoly security apparatus that I would say is bordering on Orwellien, but with See Something, Say Something blaring out of TV screens in WalMart I think they've crossed the border. In 10 years and 85 Million domestic flights a year there has not been one successful incident. The incidents that have occurred were stopped by passengers. The 9/11 terrorists got to play the hijacking card once. No one will ever get away with that again as we all now know that a hijacking will not necessarily be for a free flight to Cuba. Passangers will stand up and fight for the chance to survive instead of sitting idly by waiting for the ordeal to be over. So how much have we spent in that 10 years and how much liberty have we given up? Too much on both counts. DHS' reputation and effectiveness in all aspects from the TSA to Border Security can only be graded as low.....but very very expensive. It may have been a good idea in the beginning, but so much power and authority centralized in one organization can at best lead to an expensive and inefficient bureaucratic nightmare and at worst a security apparatus that the KGB would be jealous of.

6. A complete reconsideration and rewrite of the tax code. Burn it all and start over. A national sales tax would do wonders for the economy in general. Eliminate income taxes, establish a national sales tax, and fund the federal government on consumption of goods. This favors the economy as a whole in two ways - it puts our entire paycheck back in our hands instead of just losing it for what turns out to be no real good reason and it spurs economic growth. The more money we have as individuals the more stuff we buy. The more stuff we buy, the more stuff needs to be made. The more stuff needs to be made, the more people are employed. Then they buy stuff. No loopholes. No mega corporations generating billions in profit and not paying taxes. They'll pay taxes...on stuff they buy. No frickin loopholes.

7. Eliminate subsidies to oil, farmers, and pretty much anyone else. I've never understood why we ever paid oil companies or farmers to do what they do. Either the market will support the business or it won't. Corn farmers (as far as I know, I'd love to hear more and be further educated) get paid by the government for the over production of corn, which drives the price of a bushel down, but they still make a profit from the govt. There are no market forces in play here. The farmers know that they will not lose and have figured out that overproduction = government subsidy. And this isn't the corn that we eat all summer at cookouts, this is the tough stuff that's turned into corn syrup and feed. So it wouldn't impact the produce section if the subsidies were cut off - the price of beef may go up a little and prepared foods may stop using corn syrup if it's not the cheapest alternative. And Oil? How about we stop both the subsidy AND the taxes we have to pay. Think about it - oil companies make approximately $0.08 per gallon while state & federal taxes make up anywhere from $0.27 - $0.60 per gallon. That subsidy is coming right out of our pocket and being passed to oil companies. Eliminate both and only apply the standard sales taxes for consumption mentioned above.

8. Dump healthcare. Can't afford it without rationing it. Sorry. This country was built on self reliance. Another giant program that creates a giant amount of overhead is not what we need. I certainly don't have the answer on how to take care of those that fall through the cracks, but I imagine a review and reduction in over-burdensome regulation and an increase in the competitiveness in the medical industry would right that ship. Fixed pricing for medical services makes everyone lazy. Have you tried walking into your doctors office and negotiating a rate if you were to pay cash? You'd find the prices drop pretty dramatically. Have you ever looked at what you or your family spends on health insurance, and what the insurance company actually pays out in benefits? Unless you have a major issue or a long term health problem, you're over paying. That's the nature of insurance. So why not pick up a fairly cheap catastrophic policy and pay for the rest out of pocket? Especially if you're young.

9. Forget carbon taxes and the green movement for the time being. We need to become energy independent and cannot wait for some magic bullet of technology to make it happen without fossil fuels. Half or more of our interests in the world involve securing oil supplies in some form or another (though it's never fully admitted). Fire up the oil wells. Drill off the coast. This would go a long way to meeting item one and reducing our military presence around the world. Not to mention the revenue generated by the oil leases given out - which may need to be more expensive and have gigantically expensive penalties if you run your rig like a preschool playground. Give the oil companies incentive to do it right by making it more expensive to do it wrong. Thats how the BP disaster happened. A little math showed that cutting corners was an acceptable risk given the penalties. I don't hate the planet or anything, I'm just being realistic. Taking oil out of the ground isn't evil...doing it thoughtlessly is.

10. Stop the Junkets. I know, this is probably a teeny part of the budget but you know what, if I don't have the money, I stop doing the small things like going out to lunch every day. Individually it's only a couple of bucks, but it adds up. I see no reason that any member of Congress needs to travel the world. We have a State Department that represents us out there. You weren't elected to represent the people of [insert anywhere else here] so why are you going? Perhaps spending more time in your home state and talking to people would keep you in touch with them. And with Items 1 & 2 above, we'll be reducing your excuses for going anyway. Want a vacation? Then go on one. Just not on my dime please. And to the President - you really don't need to go in person everywhere. There are plenty of summits and meetings that you can hook up with everyone at one place. I appreciate that Air Force One is one badass plane and I would be tempted to spend a lot of time making use of it. But enough is enough. How about this - spend one hour's worth of fuel on Air Force one and get the most awesome video conference setup there is - it's like being there. Heck - take the cost of ONE trip to anywhere - and buy all of your world leader buddies a high def video conference setup. Then you can chat whenever you want. Really - that shit works.

There are many other ideas out there for cutting our budget but I'm running out of time. One of the biggest things we can do is removed the corruption that has been accepted in our political system. There's too much money being handed out. Whether it's a PAC, a Party, a Union, a lobbyist, or just some rich dude who wants to influence markets. There are too many folks in congress that show up being fairly well off and leave office as a wholly wealthy person. And that ain't off a $180k a year salary. My previous post on how to remove the influence of the almighty dollar from the equation would go a long long way to getting our representatives to, well, represent us instead of whoever has the checkbook.

Finally, (for the moment) we need Congress to stop transferring it's powers to the Executive Branch. I mean, we're paying good money (over $93million in salaries per year, not counting benefits or their minions) to have these folks make decisions on our behalf - and they abdicate authority over and over again to the President. Passing stupid laws like "the president has the authority to go attack anyone that looks at us funny" with no sunset clause, no defined purpose or limitation, all because they are busy playing political games and too chickenshit to make the decision. You folks were hired to represent us. You claim to be able to make good decisions on our behalf. Start doing it. Keep your promises. Stop treating the American electorate as if we're petulant children that can be distracted and nuanced. Stop looking over the horizon at the next election and do the right things. If you're doing what your constituants want you to do, the next election is in the bag. If you're not, but have a good reason, then stand up and tell us and deal with the potential blowback. But you've gotta stop abdicating authority, making back room deals and buying into the notion "we have to pass the bill so you can see whats in it" crap.

Campaign Finance Reform: A modest proposal to end the corruption.

2011-02-09T08:10:00.001-08:00

Honestly I'm not sure how modest this is because I think the solution is so common sense and awesome that I'm surprised it came outta my head...and the odds are good that I assimilated the idea in the past and it just popped up, so if you are the originator, my hat is off to you!

Let's keep campaign finance reform simple with a one line piece of legislation.

You are only allowed to raise money from those that you represent.

That's it. Short. Sweet. To the point. No more lobbyists. No more strong arming from the DNC/RNC to vote a certain way. No more sharing funds between politicians. Corruption removed. Responsibility to constituents restored.

Representatives can only raise money from their districts. Senators can raise money from their own state.

I am by no stretch of the imagination a lawyer, but this law shouldn't have the limitation of freedom of speech problem the McCain-Feingold had. Businesses can contribute - but only if they are located in the specific district/state of the donation recipient. This actually levels the playing field regardless of whether the district is a tiny rural one or contains a huge metropolis. Haven't been serving your district well? Perhaps you won't get the funding and that'll be your sign.

In a day and age where bills are not necessarily based on common sense and are 2000+ pages long this would be quite refreshing. Keeping it simple removes the loopholes.

So what do you think?

WOW. has it really been 9 months?

2011-02-09T07:03:00.001-08:00

No - I have not been pregnant as that would've at least made the pages of the National Enquirer or Weekly World News. I haven't been missing. I haven't been on a secret mission. I've been paying more attention to two things are more important than my rants - My Family and My Business. When I start posting here regularly I tend to think about "the next post" far too much. So I stopped.

What has brought me back for a guest appearance on my own blog? The uprising we see in Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan. The article that made me start composing a post in my head (much to my chagrin) is about Jordan and how the tribes are starting to talk trash about the royalty ( Jordan tribes break taboo by targeting queen). This in itself is remarkable, but a specific quote from this article is what started my head spinning.

Arab peoples used to fear their authoritarian regimes. Things have changed and now Arab leaders fear their peoples.

That's a powerful change of mindset and one that should reverberate over here. It's too often that our leaders forget that they work for the citizenry. It's too often they don't "fear their peoples". Not fear in a fear of violence way, but in a fear of other retribution like getting voted out. There seems to be a pattern of doing whatever the lobbyist/national committee tell them to do until it's re-election time.

Perhaps a little of that fear during the in-between years would go a long way towards making better decisions on our behalf.

Unions and Barack's Jack booted Thugs

2009-05-08T06:24:00.000-07:00

If it wasn't already becoming obvious that the Campaigner in Chief was openly beholden to the Unions (card check anyone?) here are three more examples - one of which stomps all over states rights. I guess this is what $100 million in donations to Democrat campaigns last year will buy you.

Exhibit A: White House puts UAW ahead of property rights

This is the case of Chrysler lenders - with secured loans - being screwed over and intimidated by Obama in favor of unsecured lenders, the UAW. It's a mugging pure and simple.

Exhibit B: Obama Tries to Stop Union Disclosure

In a nutshell - unions won't have the disclosure requirements for how they spend their member's dues. There are non-profits that have a use on this planet that have to report more detailed info than these gangster run unions.

Exhibit C: U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts

So California - being this biggest entitlement state in the US - is having a budget crisis. A big one. So part of their efforts at balancing the budget included cutting the wages of some employees. Of course, these are Unionized workers, so Barack "Che" Obama has stepped in and is once again strong arming on behalf of the unions. And completely stampeding states rights in favor of his One Big Global Government ideal.

And finally, for today, in addition to strong arming anyone that gets in the way of his Union buddies (you know the ones, "Rocko", "Sticky Fingers", "Big Nose", "Fat Tony" and the rest) - now he's doubling his army of tax enforcers. Sheriff of Nottinghams if you will.

I'm no Oracle but even I can read these tea leaves (sorry for the mixed metaphor).

The USofA I grew up in is not going to be the same one that my little girls will get to enjoy.

In a developing story....

2009-05-05T07:40:00.001-07:00

And one that brings to light the folly that is more government oversight and intrusion into our lives. The Commonwealth of Virginia's big pharmacy cross-check database has been hacked.

Well, hacked may be technically correct.

What's really happened is that this database of over 8 million residents of Virginia has been stolen and held hostage. Not to mention the 35 million prescription transactions associated with these 8 million residents.

Can you say HIPPA violation?

Can you say lack of oversight by a government that has outsourced it's IT?

Can you say lawsuit?

Why did it take a week before the story broke? What if those extortionists have already started using the information for identity theft? The citizens of Virginia may already be screwed.

What I want to know is how much oversight into the Campaigner-in-Chief's new sweeping electronic health care record initiative will his new Chief Technology Officer (CTO) be involved in? I only ask because he was the guy in charge of Virginia's now hacked and stolen IT systems.

My next question is why does the government need this personal information? You can claim it's to avoid prescription drug abuse, but really? Seriously? How are there 8 million citizens in there? Are they worried about birth control abuse? Are you telling me that there are 8 million people just in virginia using serious narcotics that need to be tracked? As of July 2008 there are only 7.7 million citizens - and I know I'm not on any prescriptions. Hell, most people I know aren't on any heavy mind altering prescriptions.

So why are there so many? And how long does Big Brother and King Kaine plan on keeping this hacker smorgasbord of identity information up and online? Forever?

And what is the Commonwealth going to do when they find out that these thieves are from russia, the ukraine, north korea, or wherever? Will they pay the ransom? Will we all learn who is taking oxycontin, zoloft or AZT?

And what will they do when those Names, Addresses and Social Security numbers hit the net?

My guess is they'll play Alfred E Neuman and say "What? Me worry?"

They don't seem to have worried much about protecting the information, so why start now?

Be very afraid - and very opposed - to the Teleprompter's big plans to be able to hold your healthcare data.

It's big Brother.

It's unnecessary.

It's just a bad idea.

A new legacy for Iraq

2009-05-05T03:31:00.000-07:00

Brought to them straight from the United States.

The withdrawal timeline calls for US troops to be out of the cities by June 30. There is understandable concern that the Iraqi Police and Troops aren't quite ready to take on that job. Commanders on the ground have said as much as recently as last month.

But, in a move straight out of American politics, the Prime Minister is more worried about his political future than that of his nation. From the article linked above:

Asking U.S. forces to stay in the cities, including volatile Mosul in the north, would be embarrassing for Iraq's prime minister, who has staked his political future on claims that the country has turned the corner in the war against Sunni and Shiite extremists.

I hope this isn't the only legacy we've left after so many years.

Orwell, Alinsky, and the Teleprompter

2009-05-04T03:33:00.000-07:00

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"

And so it is with our current President. He denies that this upcoming debt on our children and grandchildren is his doing. He denies that he ever heard Jeremiah Wright speak ill of America. He denies his relationship with Bill Ayers. And the "journalists" report it as fact. It gets documented and not investigated. And it becomes the truth.

That quote at the top is straight from Orwell's 1984. A book that talks about the all powerful government. The one that is only looking out for it's citizens. It's only interest is in the well being of the masses and not the individual. And therefor the individual loses freedom in the name of protecting the masses.

"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."

--Saul Alinksy, Rules for Radicals, 1971

Does this sound like anyone you know? Just this weekend our Campaigner in Chief describes how the financial sector will play a less significant role in our future economy. How government will soon be the arbiter of all things money. One day he declares he thinks that Chrysler will be fine and the very next day his administration is strong arming financial and investment companies to prop up Chrysler during bankruptcy.

We are currently embroiled in the "revolution to end capitalism".

The effective nationalization of industry, banking and trade in the US is the result of this "revolution". The effort to effectively bankrupt the country is part of this revolution. The Presidents constant efforts at portraying anyone that is successful as evil (all the while Michelle runs around in $500 tennis shoes) is part of this revolution. Class warfare is without a doubt part of this revolution.

"'The organizer's first job is to create the issues or problems,' and 'organizations must be based on many issues.' The organizer 'must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.

-- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, 1971

And now the Democrat party has purchased it's filibuster proof majority in the Senate by promising to help get a an old power hungry politician elected if he switches parties. All the pieces are in place for a complete leftward movement. The House has no fears that it's radical legislation will be stalled in the Senate so expect to see Speaker Pelosi start up the entitlement engine and rev it up to full power.

It's time, no, it's past time, for the freedom loving, the liberty loving, the constitution loving part of our society to make themselves known. The Tea Parties were a good start - but what's next? We must continue to make our displeasure known. We must continue to let our representatives in government know that this is unacceptable. We must start looking at the Republican leadership and let them know they've lost their way.

And we must be willing to look for another answer.

While the Republicans blew their chance to show that conservatism is about smaller government, more liberty and more freedom the Democrats have swooped in. It is George W. Bush and the Republicans that failed us and opened the door to the future of Marxism/Socialism. Their polarization to the far right and giving so much power to the christian block is what has turned many away.

I urge you to look at the libertarian party as an alternative. A belief in personal liberty and freedom are the foundations of the Libertarian Party. Do me a favor. Read their platform. You won't agree with all of it, but I bet you don't agree with all of the Republican Party platform either. Read it. And see which one strikes you as more conservative. As more true to the founding father's vision.

And tell me I'm wrong.

Wave goodbye to the Republic.

2009-04-28T09:58:00.000-07:00

If I were creative I'd come up with some sort of obituary bemoaning the beginning of the end. But I'm not. So I won't.

Instead - I'll talk about how we dodged a bullet with a the potential for filibuster proof senate. Even though there were some "moderate" Republicans, there are also "moderate" Democrats and there was a chance that the truly crazy wouldn't go through.

That dream is over.

Arlen Spector, one of those "moderate" republicans, has switched sides. Not because he decided that the Dems were the better party but because he knows his own republican constituents think he's an idiot and he won't be re-elected.

He's doing it to keep power. To keep his job. He's 79 friggin years old and has been there 30 years.

And now he has potentially given the Dems the one thing this country can't very well afford. A free pass on nearly any legislative thing they want. The ability to ignore the representatives and senators that speak for millions of Americans.

All because Arlen Spector wants to hold power.

It's over folks. Queen Nancy and Dirty Harry don't really have to worry about a thing.

Get ready for a legislative mugging. Get ready to become a ward of the State. Get ready to become part of the "middle class" by reducing everyone (except politicians of course) to a single class that happens to match what we now call poverty. Get ready for breadlines and state run industry.

Get ready......to say goodbye to the Republic.

UAW to own majority share in Chrysler?

2009-04-28T08:49:00.000-07:00

Um - this article has struck me as funny. Not "ha-ha" funny. More like "hrrmmmm" funny.

It seems strange that a Union representing the workers would buy a majority share of a auto manufacturer and get a couple of seats on the Board. At this point the Union becomes...uh, management.

So, if I were a Union Worker I would wonder who's interest will be at the forefront of the Union's mind. If I were a shareholder, I would wonder the same thing.

And how is this not some sort of anti-trust issue?

The next question is how much of that 55% majority purchase is being held up with the government's "Public-Private Partnership"? That would certainly be a fine payoff for the years and years of Union support given to Democrat candidates. But that's just the suspicious Conspiracy Theorist in me.

But isn't it convenient.

pssst....hey buddy....you haven't mentioned anything about how, uh, "connected" the Unions have been in the past and.......

Stop - I won't mention it at all. I know what's good for me.

Hey! I've got a great idea!

2009-04-27T12:41:00.000-07:00

Let's fly a bunch of jets really low over NYC but not let the general population know about it. It'll be fun!!

Seriously, WTF?

Someone in the Pentagon is gonna get their ass handed to em. Or at least they should. If you really wanted a photo of the President's plane flying over the Statue of Liberty with a fighter escort, I bet you coulda used this little known application called Photoshop.

In fact, I bet if you took all of the money spent on jet fuel alone, you could have paid the most badass photoshop guy on the planet to do it - and made it look like the prez was flying the thing - with (insert star/starlette of your choice) as a steward - being held aloft with flying monkeys - there might've been room to include Obama's ego in the picture as well. (maybe not, that may have cost extra and would cause one HUGE pic with a teeny tiny plane in it)

But that would be too easy. Let's scare the daylights out of 8 million residents of NYC so we have an authentic pic. Let's not even tell the Mayor. They have no need to know.

And the government is the one we want to hand over control of...well...anything.

If this is indicative of their good decisions (and I'm sure it is - regardless of who is at the controls) then we need to start taking away their control and put it back where it belongs.

With "we the People".

It's only for the liberals.....

2009-04-21T04:32:00.000-07:00

Since the Tea Parties last week I've read and heard from many on the left as they attempt to marginalize the significance of those rallies. And it's not just the media types from the New York Times, MSNBC or CNN. Although they have been a good part of gleefully giving these folks a stage.

Everyone from shrill unfunny comedians (and a really bad actress) to Congressmen (and women) to the President's handlers have been working very hard to classify those that attended the rally as just a bunch of ignorant redneck right-wing extremists. (Sounds like they're reading directly from that Homeland Security memo. Coincidence? I don't think so.)

I thought conservatives were the mean ones?

The most amazing thing is when they talk about how uncool it is to protest. How it's only a racist foundation underlying the protests. How it's un-American to protest. How comparing the President to anything other than a hero is somehow mean and uncalled for.

I recall the past 8 years of another President being called every name in the book. Being burned in effigy. Being vilified even on those occasions he may have been right. And I'm pretty sure that was those same folks that are now saying it's racist or un-American. Strange. Maybe not.

What they are missing is the fact that the citizens that were out there are not the professional protestor, overly emotional, whiney, or polarizing lefty. They were the folks that normally just stay home and shake their heads in disbelief at the craziness of the left's antics. Those attention-starved liberals that don't feel fulfilled unless every one of us is tortured with their opinion.

These are people that just work hard and do the things that need to be done.

And now they see this as something that needs to be done.

Make no mistake. We are all angry with the overspending of the Bush Admin. We are all angry with the forecasted debt that the current President is about to foist on us. All in the name of resolving an "emergency". It's got to stop. The Uncle Sam Gravy Train needs to be derailed. The government needs to stop overstepping it's bounds and the mandate given by the founding fathers.

The Governor of Texas made a point about trying to force the Federal Government to abide by the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To all the whiney libs out there - you're not the only one's entitled to your first amendment rights.

To all the big government advocates - look out. You've just activated what was a silent group of citizens that are willing to come together and speak in one voice.

Hrmmm...What team does CNN play for?

2009-04-15T13:05:00.000-07:00

Obviously not that of a free and unbiased press, journalistic ethics or integrity, or the rights of Americans to Peaceably Assemble. Yeah, that one is constitutionally protected.. that would be the first amendment, for those that have forgotten (pertinent section in bold):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

...perhaps CNN correspondents, Congress, and the entire Obama Admin can take "Remedial Liberty and Freedom 101" together.

These are the same folks that gleefully covered such family moments as war protesters burning our previous president in effigy. Breaking windows and setting fires as the anarchists and professional protestors travelled to WTO meeting places.

But a man, holding his child, cannot respond to a direct question because the reporter keeps interrupting to debate him.

I guess that really isn't family viewing worthy.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seymour/2009/04/15/cnn-correspondent-claims-tea-parties-anti-government-anti-cnn

The National Tea Party

2009-04-15T06:12:00.000-07:00

Today is the day when all Americans are supposed to have sent in their tax filings which makes this the symbolically perfect day to protest what this Administration and Congress are doing to us.

I think it's pretty exciting to see the not-so-vocal side of our population start to make some noise. I'm sure the left will discount it as some sort of flash in the pan, but they should remember one thing.

The people that are showing up today in support of the Tea Parties are not you standard protester. They're not the "joiners" that the environmentalist, anarchist, "insert-your-cause-here-and-we'll-protest-ists".

These are the middle class workers that are the backbone of America. These are the people that quietly go about getting things done and not complaining about things while doing nothing. These are the people that join the military, that are our police, fireman, and paramedics. These are your plumbers, carpenters, and workmen. These are the small business owners that provide the majority of jobs in the country.

These are Americans. True Blue. Red Blooded. Just get it done, Americans.

And we're tired of our government taking from us. Taking and taking and taking. Under the threat of imprisonment we are forced to fund every government folly and Congress does nothing.

And this isn't just an Obama thing. In my opinion it doesn't matter whether your a Bush, a Clinton or an Obama. You have all spent too much. Asked too much. And taken too much.

And now we're on the verge of taking on an additional debt that will be the yoke on our future generations shoulders. Several generations. Take a look at the quote to the right under Jefferson's picture.

So I implore you. I beseech you. I beg you.

Don't stop after today. One day won't make a wit of difference. A couple of hours hanging out at a bitch-a-thon and then resuming normal life is not the way to make a change. And this is, for once, a change I can believe in. This is a change we need our employees on Capital Hill and in the White House to understand it's importance. It's significance.

So stay in touch with those you meet today. Keep the fire in your belly burning. Stay in touch via websites and twitter and whatever other method you can. This cannot be a one day event.

Today MUST be a launching point.

And if you ever thought that your government was afraid of you this should be the confirmation.

Exhibit F (see April 13 post for Exhibits A-E)

The Department of Homeland Security has effectively put a target on anyone's back as a potential radical if you: Don't like taxes, don't like abortion, believe in states rights, believe in gun rights, and are white.

This government has just put in place the perfect excuse to detain and arrest it's own citizens that express views that it doesn't like. Declare it a safety issue and start rounding us up. Start with the Republicans and then move on to the Libertarians.

It's happening folks. One piece at a time. It's happening.

A perfect storm sits on the horizon.

2009-04-13T16:07:00.000-07:00

Is this the perfect storm of span and control that will lead us to overarching government control?

"Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told the New York Times right after the election

Exhibit A
As the Obama admin forces many banks to take bailout money they dont need, then changes the rules under which the govt will now control them, and then refuse to take the money back when offered so they can maintain control.

Exhibit B
The Dem controlled congress has already been beating the drum to nationalize energy.

Exhibit C
Newspapers are tanking. The free press, as it were, has moved to the internet. Government considering a bailout - I wonder what kind of Freedom of the Press to expect after that happens? The administration doesn't like the Op-Ed? Fire the Editor.

Exhibit D

The Dem controlled congress wants to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine to reduce the amount of critical commentary on the radio.

Exhibit E
The Obama admin with the help of congress is pushing for a cybersecurity bill that would give the president authority to shut down the internet in case of "emergency". Public & private. Does anyone remember where the free press went?

Next will be some sort of nationalization of farms and other food production in the name of national security or public safety. The government already props up much of the food production in US. What would happen if that got cut back in the name of saving a few bucks on the $3.7 Trillion budget? A new emergency perhaps? That would be a good time to "bailout" the farms.

And the takeover will be complete.

All of these steps - taken in response to an "emergency" - leading down a path that will ultimately mean incredible government control of our everyday lives. Each item taken individually looks relatively harmless. Taken as a whole is a recipe for dictatorial rule.

Why is everything closed today....

2009-04-12T12:37:00.000-07:00

when the Campaigner-in-Chief says we're not a christian nation?

All I wanted to do was replace some worn out shoes. Shouldn't be a big deal. I drive by many stores - national chains - publicly traded - not mom and pop shops - and they're all closed.

On Easter Sunday.

Odd.

I could understand opening late so make sure those employees with a particular religious leaning get to make it to church.

But to not open at all.

it must be something bigger.

Cuz we're just a nation of citizens....

right?

Even more confusing....

Virginia's Government offices are closed tomorrow. For an Easter holiday.

They don't close for Yom Kippur, Kwanzaa, or Ramadan.....

But they close for Easter.

Someone must love that Bunny......

Or perhaps......The Teleprompter is wrong.....

Why Does Obama Hate America?

2009-04-08T10:09:00.000-07:00

It should now be obvious to anyone that is not under the Obamabot zombie curse that our Campaigner-in-Chief really does hate America and what it stands for - Freedom, Liberty, and Justice.

As the Presidential Teleprompter displayed for all the world to see, he does not believe in the America that won World War II, has committed billions of dollars in aid to nations in need, stared down communism and won. He has no class when it comes to office of the President. Leno? Cheesy Trinkets for visiting dignitaries? Kow-towing to other world leaders? Seriously. WTF?

WHAT KIND OF MEGALOMANIAC GIVES THE FRICKIN QUEEN OF ENGLAND AN IPOD WITH HIS OWN SPEECHES ON IT?

It reminds of a joke we used to have about a certain co-worker long ago.

Q: "Whats the difference between Roy and God?"

A: "God doesn't think he's Roy."

This disdain for the office is in the image of Jimmy Carter, our worst President ever who has yet to get out of his own personal malaise.   This is in the image of Pelosi and Reid - both whacko extremists of their ever fragmented party.   But that should be no surprise t anyone.   He was tagged as more liberal than either of them during his 15 minutes in the Senate before he started running for President.

After two weeks of denigrating his own country across the entirety of Europe, then going to Turkey and doing the same, we find out he didn't even do it with a plan.   Didn't get anything in return.   No troop commitments to Afghanistan.   No money to help with the global economic issues.   Nothing.

Which leads me to believe that, he just plain old hates a free America. That he wants to remake the entire country in his own distorted image. That the constitution needs a "do-over" since it's been 283 years since those losers gave away all that power to the people. What the hell did they know....they wore wigs for chrissakes.

But he can fix that.   Let's start by nationalizing everyone and everything that moves. We're one simple majority vote (remember reconciliation?) away from saying that anyone that takes any government money will be under the thumb of government.   How long before your tax refund gets included in this equation? Scarily, with the liberal mindset that all of the money you earn is theirs and they're nice enough to let you keep some, you may already be party to this control.

In a perfect example of American fortitude put up against the Campaigner-in-Chief's inability to do anything without polling data:

An American flagged container ship was hijacked by Somali pirates. The White House, after crafting the perfect press release said they were studying the problem. The American crew took back their ship against armed pirates. When last seen, the White House was crafting a perfect response charging that the American's aggression was uncalled for and they will be brought to justice.

They're waiting on polling data before releasing the announcement. Gotta make sure Soros and Company like the wording.

The White House then apologized for our arrogance in thinking we had a right to our ship in international waters. Nancy Pelosi announced a new bill nationalizing commercial shipping and transferring control to everyone's new friend Fidel. Also, pending is a bill to transfer Navy resources to Fidel so those arrogant military types don't get any ideas like those unruly crewmembers from the freighter.

The Presidential Teleprompter then praised the administration and it's friends in Congress for swift and decisive action that the world will see as a softening of American Imperialism.

Cricket sounds were soon heard across the European continent.

Obama Government Subsidizes Terrorists

2009-03-27T06:09:00.000-07:00

Here it is! I sarcastically mentioned this possibility a few weeks ago thinking that no one in their right mind would do this. Boy was I wrong.

So, we really are going to drop them off on main street USA and we will pay them to live here.

If this bunch of naive socialists think this is going to be ok, what the hell are they going to do to our economy. Obama has already shown that he is a failure with diplomatic relations. He obviously believes his own press about how much the world loves him - but when he reaches out he gets smacked down.

And now we will have terrorists living on our streets and paid for by Barack Obama. I wonder if they'll get discount coupons for C4 and automatic weapons, too.

I guess that is a change. Not so sure about the believing in it though.

The rest of the story....

2009-03-26T05:15:00.000-07:00

With a tip of the hat to Paul Harvey who passed away at the end of February I bring you the rest of this story as told by someone inside AIG. Someone who has been vilified by Government and the Public alike, and then abandoned by someone I had felt a lot of respect for.

Ed Liddy, new CEO of AIG, brought in to clean up the sins of the past. Convinced a lot of people to work very hard for little to no pay with the promise of a brighter day.

And he dropped them all like a hot potato at the first sign of push back.

The first sign from the hypocrites on Capital Hill, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the Attorneys General for Connecticut and New York. The same hypocrites that know for a fact that these bonuses weren't for the same folks that caused the downfall. That these bonuses were for the employees that stayed behind to clean up the mess instead of jumping ship like the rats the others were.

The politicians knew this and played it out to the public as outrage. They created the situation and then lit the fire of public outrage. Death threats against the employees, their families, their children. If anyone gets hurt the blame should lay squarely on Barack Obama and his cronies for setting this in motion.

Ed Liddy became what we already expect out of the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Rahmbo, and the rest.

And it's horribly disappointing.

An unfunny joke, overheard...

2009-03-23T13:53:00.001-07:00

I'm standing in my local coffee shop this weekend and overhear two fellas talking about how they're just gonna stop paying their mortgage and let the government cover it. <chuckle chuckle>

I'm sure they were just being sarcastic and pointing out how ridiculous the Teleprompter's plans are, but it struck as really unfunny and a sign that the Dems may be winning this war of attrition.

It started with President Bush and the Dem Congress shocking the daylights out of us with how many billions were being given away. Now we toss around sums like $788 Billion as if we're talking chump change. The Teleprompter is talking another Trillion dollars and has pretty much set up a budget that will hose future generations farther than the eye can see.

But don't worry. Those evil rich people will pay.

Did I mention I saw those two joking fellows each get into very high priced vehicles and head towards the local McMansion subdivision in the tony west end? Yeah. Those evil rich people are already getting tired of it.

A Socialist Mobocracy?

2009-03-22T04:27:00.000-07:00

Well - Obama and his Democrat cronies on the Hill have show that they are good at one thing. Pushing the right buttons of their rabid followers who will then begin to form "enforcement groups".

Why in the world should the recipients of the bonuses at AIG (or anywhere else) need to be afraid? They are employees at a company that is living up to contractual obligations and nothing more.

They are not evil.

They are not greedy.

They are not the problem.

The problem, of course, lies back in Washington. The problem is that All of the President's Henchmen, in this giant effort to remake America, knew that the bonuses were protected in the legislation. Lil Timmy Geithner knew. Obama knew. Dodd knew. Frank knew. The whole damn thing was inserted and protected at the last minute.

Conspiracy Theorists should be having a hay-day with this.

I think the original insertion of the contract honoring provisions was there simply to make sure that AIG (and others) get to try and keep the best and brightest employees. I think that was probably the right decision, although I think the head of AIG (and others) should look hard at what bonuses are being paid to whom. But I think the heads of those companies need the leeway to run the companies as they see fit.

But that original proposition is over, as I'm sure Rahm and Axelrod have spun up Obama (and the Obamabots) to help rewrite history (1984 anyone?) and foment this anger to further get government's grip on business.

It's a short leap from telling bailout companies how to run their business and then applying it to all businesses.

And don't get me started on the punitive legislation that those thugs in the House have passed. Pelosi and her posse have just shown how they are willing to punish small groups of people that do something they don't like. Well, that should be, "don't like anymore", since they voted to allow it in the first place.

This disengenious at best, foolhardy and naive at worst, attempt to rewrite their own history and claim ignorance is just one more reason that Pelosi, Reid and Obama are a bad fit for America.

Congress and the AG meet LUC

2009-03-20T04:13:00.001-07:00

Not at the same time and not together - but they are each making gargantuanly stupid decisions

Let's start with AIG. As I was listening to a talk radio guy (Doc Thompson, 1140AM, WRVA in Richmond, Va - 3pm-6pm) that I have a whole lot of philosophical commonalities with, he said something that struck me. He said that we should stop thinking of AIG as a recipient of government largesse and realize that we (American citizens) have basically bought a majority shareholder stake in a commercial enterprise. So you, I and every other American now owns 1/300,000,000th of 80% of AIG. AIG wasn't just given money, they sold us a stake. Unlike GM, they weren't loaned money. They sold us something - the hugely majority share of the company.

So that got me thinking. Of course, the scary part of that thought is how much our elected representatives will want to fiddle around with the company. But let's skip that fear for the moment. If you look at AIG you will see a highly profitable company that has been bitten in the ass by basically one division/department/business unit. They are a huge company with many successful lines of business. They have already replaced the CEO and what I would assume is the executive staff that were responsible for the downfall. So with that in mind we have to consider the big bonus dust up and the fiddling.

The President, the Congress, and pretty much everyone else needs to stop micro-managing these bailout companies. If they are to recover and stand on their own again they need top quality people. Should we be rewarding the folks that got those companies into this mess? Probably not. But let's not paint entire companies, or their employees, with the same brush. As an investor in many other companies, I don't pretend to know how to run them. We should not
pretend to know how to run AIG.

Taking Congress's newly announced taxes on not just these bonuses but the severely limited compensation potential for any company that has taken bailout money, they have effectively reduced the quality of the workforce they can hire. And by extension they are single handedly causing these companies to take even longer to recover, potentially causing them to need more bailout money, and putting our children even deeper in debt.

By pandering and fomenting this class warfare mentality the Obama Administration and politicians on Capital Hill are laying the groundwork for further economic meltdown. Which may just be the point.

On to the AG

In case you missed it, the Attorney General of the US is in the process of following the marching order to close down Gitmo. That has the big complication of what to do with all of the detainees that are current residents. Now keep in mind, these aren't folks that were caught in some white collar drag net, they weren't just sitting around in their home having dinner, they were on the field of battle and were captured. I wont' get into the discussion on whether they should classified as POWs, Enemy Combatants, or even detainees. Honestly,
that is not my concern at the moment.

My concern is that these folks have been captured in action against our troops and have been held in detention for a long time. Let's even take the far left view that all fo these fellas are "victims" and being wrongfully held against their will by the US government. So I imagine they don't like us very much whether they are rightfully or wrongfully being held. I know I wouldn't be a big fan of the US.

But the AG is actually considering releasing these fine folks into the US if they can't find another country that will take them.

Seriously.

How in the world can this be allowed to happen? We might as well offer up some government subsistence for terrorist cells. Let's get the CIA to start rounding up terrorists and holding networking sessions so they can meet their new compatriots. Since the Teleprompter President loves websites so much, maybe we can setup terrorist-linkedin.gov or maybe some job training so they don't blow themselves up before they reach their target.

We've already found that a large number of former Gitmo residents end up back in al-Qeada or the Taliban. What makes these lilly livered liberals think that would be any different if we dump them into American society?

And dont' get me started on how much money we surely will throw at them to "get their start" here in the US.

Straight from the horse's (teleprompter's) mouth

2009-03-19T07:47:00.001-07:00

Now this is some funny stuff. Sadly, it is a satirical statement on what is very much true....the sad part being the "true" and not the satirical.

Check out http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/

Righteous Indignation for the Righteously Indignant

2009-03-19T05:37:00.001-07:00

Dodd Blames Obama Administration for Change to Bonus Amendment

So, the folks that are so ticked about the bonuses were the one's that put in the loophole to allow them.

One of the scariest paragraphs:

Other Democrats who voted for the stimulus bill have ramped up criticism of AIG’s bonuses, including Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who told reporters, “I think the time has come to exercise our ownership rights."

These people are not to be trusted.

Making the sausage

2009-03-19T03:37:00.001-07:00

As the saying goes, Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.

It would seem that the "Change you can believe in" is ready to play the same old games. There's a completely retarded provision in the rules of the Senate and House that basically allows the majority party to ramrod through whatever legislation they want. It removes any chances of debate on a law and reduces the number of votes that are required to pass it. It's been used several times by both partys to pass things they knew wouldn't enjoy any bipartisan support.

And it's a corruption of the process.

This rule allows for the majority to completely disregard the elected representatives of a large chunk of the American populace. The Democratic controlled congress used it in the 1980's and early 1990s. The Republicans used it from the time they became the majority until they lost it again. Now it's rearing it's ugly head once again. No matter who is using it, it's wrong. It breaks the process that ensures dissenting voices are heard. It goes against everything our entire system of government is founded on. The premise that representatives from the many states will make the laws. This turns that on it's head by saying the representatives from some of the states will make the laws. You can learn more about this bastardization of the american system at wikipedia.

But now on to my main point

The man whose tele-prompter told him that he would be a bipartisan president and go to Washington and change the business as usual mentality, is playing more business as usual.

The president and his democrat cronies know that their plans for cap-and-trade and universal healthcare (except for Veterans) will never stand the blinding light that would be shed on it if this were allowed to be debated. So they want to invoke "reconciliation". Which is, like most things that Congress names, is a misnomer. (Good article at Bloomberg.com)

Cap-and-trade is nothing more than a method to levy more taxes in the name of the environment. If you think these companies that get nailed by cap-and-trade aren't going to pass along those costs, you are a fool. The first thing you should remember is that businesses don't pay taxes. They collect taxes. Every business takes their cost of producing what they sell, add on some profit, and then add on whatever overhead the government decides it needs as a tithe. Then they use that as the price. You pay the taxes. They just collect them and send them to our governmental overlords.

Cap-and-trade is just an excuse wrapped in a cloak of environmentalism. Creating a new tax on the american public while sending out disinformation that it's just a tax on those evil businesses that produce the products you buy and the energy you use.

But the tax is on the American public. It effects everyone - even those poor and middle class folks that the tele-prompter claims he wants to help. Last time I checked, those folks need energy too. It's going to cost upwards of $2 TRILLION dollars to do this.

But this is just stage one in a grander plan. Cap-and-trade the daylights out of business. Business raises it's prices. In the name of "Fairness" congress sets price limits (thereby further screwing over the open market). Business can't operate on those fixed prices. Government must nationalize the business to ensure the continued production. And the May Day parades begin.

We, as citizens, must express our displeasure with the president's efforts at ramrodding these deficit laden, ill conceived and badly timed ponzi schemes. Don't let them fool you - this is nothing more than an attempt to reach into your pocket and to gain more control over the free market and your life.

Don't let them do this. Not this way.

Need I say more...

2009-03-18T07:10:00.001-07:00

All hail the tele-prompter. The tele-prompter rules all. Especially
the facade that is Barack Obama.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Barack-Obama-Thanks-Himself-In-Teleprompt-Blunder-During-Address-With-Irish-PM-On-St-Patricks-Day/Article/200903315243932?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15243932_Barack_Obama_Thanks_Himself_In_Teleprompt_Blunder_During_Address_With_Irish_PM_On_St_Patricks_Day

In the future I'll be posting more short items that catch my interest.

After a long hiatus

2009-03-18T05:09:00.001-07:00

I have pretty much remained silent since August of last year. The election was in full swing, Hillary was gone, and it was Obama and McCain in a cage match. And I went silent.

There are a lot of reasons for this, most of which have to do with not wanting to be just another voice in the wind talking about how both of these guys are pandering idiots, how the Presidential elections in the US have been absconded by the two parties that are in power, how the voice of reason has been usurped by the voice of far radical party wonks on both sides and how the American people, in the end, are given no real choices. Most importantly though, the more I rant the more I want to rant and the more I think about new rants - and that was just
taking too much of my mental process. Too much away from my family. Too much away from those things I should be spending more time thinking about - like family, work and family.

So why am I back?

Well, let's just say that current events are leading me to need a place to vent. To shout out at the top of my lungs that this new President is a shallow figure that is overly dependent on his tele-prompter, his advisors, and his naive view of the world. His disdain for those that have made something of themselves and those that have given of themselves to the protection of this country. His apparent need to have government run everything. His inability to manage
anything. His ever failing list of nominees that keep turning out to be failures and the one's that make it through the process turn out to be bumbling idiots.

Change you can believe in

Only if you think the same chuckleheads that were running the Clinton Administration can be called change. More like "Flashback you can believe in". It's the same tired story of wanting to redistribute wealth. Penalize those that work hard for what they have and give it those that don't. Free healthcare for everyone - except Veterans. Let's not let this crisis go by without making the most of it. Let's make sure that those that already pay 90% of the taxes can get jacked up to 95% of the taxes while we give rebates to those that don't pay any taxes. Let's take a time of serious economic uncertainly and what has to be reduced tax revenues and increase the size and cost of government exponentially. Let's tax businesses more. Let's remove
the incentive to be philanthropic and reduce the deduction on money you can give to charity. Let's create a government so large, so heavy, and so burdensome that the Kremlin would be proud. There's your change. I hope those of you that voted for this empty suit are
happy.

Give credit where credit is due

I must admit I do like - no love - how he has been able to marginalize Hillary Clinton. Put her in a Secretary of State, then assign his cronies to basically do her job in all of the hot spots so she doesn't really get any credit, and then wait for her to open he mouth so he can fire her. Either way, Hillary loses. She either has nothing to do with efforts on critical issues or she gets canned for insubordination. I'm sure it was Axelrod or Rahm's idea.

Fin

So I told myself that if I start doing this again I would just spend 20 minutes on any rant and when that was done, it's done. I'm there. If there are typos and grammatical issues - I apologize - but this is all I have time for and editing just takes away from rant time.

Talk to you soon.

whiney whiney whiney......

2008-08-27T03:31:00.000-07:00

One of the most irritating things I find with today's Democrats is the constant victim mentality that brings about incessant whineyness. The constant refrain that even though they lost that they "deserve" something or that the loss was due to some big conspiracy. Now, that this has been embedded in liberal DNA it's coming back to bite them.

This is evident in the way that the Democrat Party is divided by those who won the primary and those who did not - but just can't let it go. The articles titled "Clinton die-hards voice anger in convention protest" and "Many Clinton Supporters Say Speech Didn't Heal Divisions" say it all. It talks about not being able to "Forgive" Obama. Forgive? What in the world has he done that deserves "forgiveness" other than win a political contest? They demand that 18 million votes should count for something. Um - they did. But you still lost. And now the victims are coming out of the woodwork to claim the DNC set it up and made their candidate lose - so it's a conspiracy and they have been wronged!

I just don't get it. But I'm glad to see they're starting to eat their own. This is the same whiney bullshit that has come out of the last two elections. Obviously if you lose, it's not because the other guys was better, it's because the other guy cheated. It's this mentality that forces the DNC and RNC to send lawyers to polling places in advance. To pre-build the case that the other side cheated and is trying to disenfranchise the voter. This just shows how fragmented the Democratic party is and it's a serious point of weakness. This also shows whats wrong with our two partys. Extreme Left and Extreme Right - both foregoing common sense, principles, and the constitution in order to consolidate power and win an election.

It's also interesting that in many polls Sen Obama is losing ground instead of getting the historical bump in the polls from his VP announcement and the convention. This only further fuels the fires that Hillary stoked by saying he can't beat McCain.

Of course, former President Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton hasn't been helping much with his back handed and under his breath comments about Obama. One thing I've got to give the Billary Team some credit for is that they've always been good at triangulation and strategery so you know that these comments, as well as the insistance that her name be entered into nomination thereby keeping her supports foaming at the mouth, are all part of a grander plan.

The only grander plan I can think of is that they really want Obama to lose so they can give out a triple dose of "i told ya so" and not have to wait 8 years to give it another shot. Hillary is 60 and waiting 4 years isn't a big deal. Eight years however....that may be a bit too much since they're making such a big deal about McCain's age. I truly believe the Clintons are power hungry and would prefer another Democrat loss over having to wait even longer for another shot.

I've watched about 10 total minute of the convention this week. It wasn't 10 minutes in a row - I just can't take much of reporters/hournalists fawning over the Dem effette. It's disgusting to watch but i'll be interested to see if the same reporters and news network play as nice at the RNC . I did catch one small segment that interested me - and showed the bias of this particular broadcast.

They were posting comments up on a big screen that were coming from John Q Citizen - and all of them were showing support for raising taxes. Every one of them. Some were well written and slammed Bush's MBA with statements about not knowing that raising revenue is what is needed when businesses need more money. Not one of them mentioned reducing costs or gave an opposing view. I wonder what the political inclination of the folks picking the posts could be? Reducing costs is usually the first step in business when money gets tight. No one likes to tell their customers that the price is going up because some customers won't accept it.....except the government, and they think it's their money anyway. My point is, this is a strong indicator of what to expect if there is an Obama administration.

Raising taxes to distribute wealth based on a socialist ideal of equality and not based on effort or talent.

I'm gonna stop now before I spin off into 30 more paragraphs about taxes, government and impending socialism.

Even LUC says WTF!

2008-08-12T07:00:00.000-07:00

I had no intention of posting today. I didn't wake up cranky. Didn't have the itch to rant. Then I read an article that said Most companies don't pay income taxes. Those damn corporations and their shady ways. Screwing the little guy once again. Bastards!

Go ahead. Read it. I'll wait here.

Now that you're back did you notice some important things? Let's start with who requested the report. That would be two Democrat Senators looking to rally the wretched poor against the evil empires.

"It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.

Shameful I say. Just friggin shameful. Of course, no where in that report did it say that those companies actually made big profits. (Where is my "Jump to Conclusions Mat"?)

With the attention span most Americans have these days they'll probably stop there and sharpen their chad punchers so they can go vote for the Goliath killers. What they'll have missed is important.

The next two paragraphs tell the story though. The guy from the CATO Institute explains that Limited Liability Corps and "S" Corps pay taxes through the individual owners personal income taxes....and then he says fully half of todays corporations fall into these categories.

Are you ready for some math....I hope so.

If 2/3s of corporations didn't pay income taxes - yet half of all corporations fall into the LLC/S Corp realm, what does that leave us? ok - for the public school educated - 2/3 = 66% so 66% - 50% would leave us with 16% of companies in the US that didnt' pay income taxes.

So 16% of businesses didn't pay taxes. Why could that be? I dunno - if a business has a loss for the year, they have no tax obligation. If a business gets tax credits that are large enough to offset their tax burden - no tax obligation. If a business re-invests in itself for growth - that could reduce or eliminate a tax obligation.

So who doesn't believe that 16% of businesses in any given year would have a loss and therefore no tax burden?

This is just another case of Democrats trying to instigate further class-warfare in our society. I've said it before - here it is again - Karl Marx would be proud. The funny thing is, for every rediculously paid CEO there are thousands and thousands of small businesses that aren't necessarily making their owners rich. They are giving people jobs. Paying taxes. Paying taxes for the people that they gave jobs to. Building the economy one small sale at a time.

Something else these Democrat class warfare proponents won't tell you - for every employee that a company pays, they also pay a percentage above and beyond the salary. For many this is another 20% tithe to uncle sam for basically doing squat.

Don't let em rip our society apart with this foolishness. America is about being the land of opportunity and not the land of guaranteed results. If you want to succeed it should be on your own merits and not because the government pulled someone down to meet you halfway (which is never halfway).

End the class warfare.

Government control...

2008-08-01T06:51:00.000-07:00

It's been a month since I last blathered on here - even though I've had plenty to say I just haven't had the time. However, there are two unrelated items that bring me to my keyboard and away from enjoying the hazy, lazy days of summer.

This is about control. Every time a government organization comes up with a way to "save" us - regardless of whether it's federal, state or local - it is about control. Control over what you can think, hear, see, read, smoke, drink, eat or do. Make no mistake - it is about control. Taking it slowly, with small steps, chipping away at your personal liberties in the name of helping. It's the slow trickle of water that forms the Grand Canyon and it's been happening since the late 1800s.

Our first item takes to Washington, DC where the elite and effete of liberty thieves take up residence. One of the many targets is something called the "Fairness Doctrine". (side note: these folks may not know their ass from a hole in the ground, but they can surely name their legislation in ways that would make PT Barnum proud). The Fairness Doctrine is a relic of the past that forced broadcasters to give equal time to opposing points of view. On the surface it sounds like a well intentioned effort. (Paging LUC!) In it's day it was meant to enhance the discussion. Today, however, it's intention is to combat the successes of conservative talk radio. The liberals couldn't do it in the marketplace since it seems that every effort by them to establish a talk radio presence ends up in a financial failure. Radio Stations, when faced with the choice of putting up money losing content for an equal amount of money making content, will choose the path of least resistance and just find something else to run in the time slots. This will have a chilling effect on the public discourse that occurs on these shows. If radio stations thought they could have successful shows based on liberal ideas and hosts - then they would carry them. It's about ad dollars and not political persuasion for the owners of radio stations.

The scary part of this is the potential for the "Fairness Doctrine" to potentially be extended elsewhere. Imagine the cry that wold come from Hollywood when our government decides that movies and TV shows need to be rolled into the doctrine. What about magazines, newspapers, and blogs? The Fairness Doctrine is an assault on the rights afforded by the first amendment. All because the left can't figure out how to succeed on the radio.

One congressman has put forward a bill to abolish the Fairness Doctrine forever. That bill will never make it to the floor for a vote as long as Democrats control the congress. Write your congressman and senator (you can do it online - Senators - Congressmen)

Next on the hit parade is another, smaller, government entity that feels the need to think for the people they represent. Los Angeles City Council has decide that poor people don't deserve the same choices as the rest of us. Or perhaps they've concluded that poor people are too dumb to make the right choices. Either way - this is just wrong.

The LA City Council has decided to ban fast food franchises in one of the poorest parts of the city because poor people are getting too fat. Once again, government feels the need to think for the people. They wrap it up in a package that seems like they are doing this to help (and I'm sure the council is well intentioned) but regardless of their intentions it's an assault on liberty. First is taking away the choices of the citizen, the option and ability to make their own decisions. Second is taking away the potential positive economic impact of new business in an area that needs an infusion of jobs to help the poor raise themselves out of poverty. The feds just increased the minimum wage and now the local government has just limited the number of jobs that would potentially be created in that area. Jobs that would be directly impacted by the increase in minimum wage. All in the name of babysitting the citizenry.

I'd like to point out the craziness that is America's poor people being too fat. The left likes to always compare the US to the rest of the world so lets do that a bit. America's poor are too fat - the world's poor go hungry and starve. America's poor have televisions, dvd players, cell phones and cars. The world's poor live in mud huts (if they're lucky) and don't have running water or electricity. America's poor have every advantage to pull themselves out of their condition if they choose to work for it. Free education, plenty of jobs, and the freedom of movement in search of success. The world's poor rarely can move beyond their local boundries (unless they become refugees due to war, genocide, etc). Get no education. Have no job prospects regardless of their desire to change their situation. America's poor in the current age are living more comfortably, with more amenities, than our parents and grandparents had while working for a living. America's poor would be the rich folks in most of the world's villages.

Government control. It's all about control of the citizenry. It's about making the people of this country more and more dependent on Uncle Sam. It's about power in the hands of the few. Our government has forgotten that they work for the people and not the other way around. It's the audacity that our government takes 30% of our hard earned income in order for it to pay for itself. It's the forced redistribution of wealth. The vilification of those that succeed as not paying enough. Needing to "Pay Back" which would imply that their success has been given and not earned. It's the top 1% paying more than 40% of the bill - the top 5% pay 90%....and then still being called greedy. It's about initiating class warfare to keep the populace off balance and distracted. It's about shredding the bill of rights in the name of "fairness" and the bastardization of that word.

It's about getting and keeping control.

Transformation

2008-06-25T03:58:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-19T05:02:00.000-07:00

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....

2008-06-19T03:07:00.000-07:00

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)

2008-06-03T03:20:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-06-03T02:56:00.000-07:00

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.

Endorsements

2008-05-15T04:36:00.000-07:00

When are politicians going to actually grow some spine?

I've been watching the spectacle that is the presidential primary marathon (why the hell did they start so early?) and once the Republican nominee was done it was time to turn our attention to the dueling victims Barack and Hillary. Why "victims", because at one point or another each of these campaigns has either stated, or hinted, that there were racist/sexist intentions in the voters hearts as a way of explaining their poor results in various state races. Oh woe is me. And the scary part is that one of these two victim mongers will probably be leading the US for the next four years. Of course, the choice on the other side of the aisle isn't any better. Perhaps Bob Barr has a chance.....

But now that it looks like Senator Obama will get the nomination his endorsers are coming out of the closet. Which is the point of todays rant.

The spineless Super Delegates and other political figures that have held back their choice until someone looks like a clear winner carry some of the blame for this primary season being so up in the air. If these "undecided" folks had any common sense, moral compass, intestinal fortitude or whatever you want to call it...they would have thrown their support behind the candidate that they felt was best for their party and their country.

Instead, they wait to place their bets moments before the race is finished. It's a purely selfish move intended to make sure they don't publicly back a losing candidate. It has nothing to do with making the right choice - but the politically correct choice. It's also about selling their "vote" or endorsement to the highest bidder. Whether it's backing for major initiatives/pet projects or the ambassadorship to a cozy but stable island nation. These super delegates are SELLING their vote and with the race as tight as it's been, it's a bull market for Super Delegate Votes.

The same goes for those politicians that aren't one of the chosen Supers. John Edwards finally endorsed Obama - and there's talk of VP-ness in his future. His endorsement was bought and paid for by that possibility. We have to wonder if the Obama/Clinton roles were reversed would Edwards be talking about how Hillary understands the two americas?

Don't misunderstand. If the Republican race were turning out like the Dem race, those Republicans would be doing the same thing. There isn't much difference in the acts/actions of todays politician.

I must say, and this isn't easy for me to type, but Ted Kennedy is about the only politico that came out early with his endorsement and has stuck by it. Mr Chappaquiddick earned a little bit of my respect for showing some spine and casting his lot early. Of course, at his age/stature he really doesn't have much to lose if he ends up backing the wrong horse. I'm sure there have been others - and they too should be commended.

To the rest of them - grow a pair.

I would've written this...

2008-04-23T11:34:00.000-07:00

if I had any real writing skills. This is an amazing article (speech?) by Michael Crichton that solidly hits the nail on the head about the negative influence that politics and public policy are having on science.

It's a long read but well worth it....... Aliens Cause Global Warming

Fiddle, Fiddle, Fiddle

2008-04-23T02:07:00.000-07:00

How are US politicians like Nero?? They love to fiddle. It's no surprise that they're considering fiddling with something that will undoubtedly bring the wrath of LUC*.

In an article from thehill.com today, the House Republican leadership is taking jabs at the Democrat majority and calling them out on a promise they made in the 2006 mid-term elections. This promise was that the Dems had a plan to bring down the price of gas. (fiddle fiddle fiddle)

Back in 2006 during the run up to the elections Nancy Pelosi said "Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.” (fiddle fiddle fiddle)

Generally I enjoy watching politicians from each party take jabs at eachother. Some of these folks can be pretty funny with their one-liners, sound bites and ridiculous overstatements. It usually means they're too busy playing this game to go about figuring out how to insert more government into our lives. But poking the bear this time may be bad for us all.

Reading Speaker Pelosi's comments sends a chill down my spine. I'm no economist, but I'll attempt to use common sense to break down the segments of their plan.

- Price Gouging: Ok, gouging is bad. But how will they define gouging? Is it simply the gas station owner that doubles the price of gas in a disaster area? How does this apply when the cost of the barrel of oil is going up and gas prices rise accordingly? They couldn't be just trying to appeal to a base instinct that we're all possibly getting screwed by the evil oil companies, could they? fiddle fiddle fiddle

- Tax Breaks/Subsidies/Royalty Relief for Oil Companies: Once again, I'm no economist, but if you take away these things from the oil companies, won't that increase their cost of doing business and then be reflected in the price at the pump? I believe that all of those incentives, given by our very same government years ago, was to help keep the cost of gas unnaturally low. So a long time ago our government fiddled with economic factors and now think that by taking away those they'll be helping? While I wholeheartedly agree that those things should never have been put in place to begin with, to think that taking them away will save me money when I buy gasoline is worse than naive. Do the Dems really think that the oil companies will just dip into profits to make up the difference? fiddle fiddle fiddle

- Alternative Fuels - well, we see whats happening with that grand plan. Now we're running up the price of food. As I wrote in my "Just Chill" post a few days ago, the rush to alternatives fuels has had an effect on the availability and price of food on a global scale. Should we be looking at alternatives to fossil fuels, absolutely, but in the rush to score political points - LUC* wins. fiddle fiddle fiddle

I'd like to make one additional point about those big ol' evil oil companies and their profits. What many don't consider is that gone are the days where these companies were owned by a single person or family who reap the rewards of huge profits. These companies are owned by stockholders and a large chunk of their stock sits in funds managed by pensions, 401(k), and other retirement plans. Basically, these companies are owned by a large number of Americans. It's these people who reap the rewards, whose investment or retirement portfolios grow, and who will be able to retire just a little more comfortably or send their kids to college because they've had big evil oil in their holdings. Damn those evil oil companies for making money in a capitalist society.

It's also these evil corporations that are doing the most research into replacing their cash cow of fossil fuels. If you pay attention to commercials produced by BP, Exxon, et al you'll see they are starting to refer to themselves as energy companies. This is a signal that they see the fossil fuels business as one that will transform into an alternative energy business, whether it's hydrogen, ethanol, or whatever else those really smart folks in the lab can come up with. It's in their best interest to be the ones that come up with the solution.

I recently had a conversation with someone that held the belief that big oil was keeping secret an alternative. Besides being a little too conspiracy bound, it defies some of the basic tenets of capitalism. These companies want to be the first on the block to deliver a better, cheaper product. My belief is, that much like biofuels, it's just not been cost effective yet. When the breakthrough happens where prices/costs are in line with consumer expectations - then you'll see the new energy sources come to the forefront. Are they keeping something secret. Absolutely. But it's not a part of a conspiracy, it's called keeping a trade secret. Should they announce and publish work that is promising so that everyone can do it? No. Not just no. Hell No. They are in business to make money and giving away trade secrets would be bad for their business.

But none of these breakthroughs will come from the folks inside the beltway and no matter how much they practice the violin, it will always just be fiddle fiddle fiddle.

* LUC: Law of Unintended Consequences

Happy Earth Day

2008-04-22T01:59:00.000-07:00

Seriously. Happy Earth Day. It used to be called Arbor Day and you'd go out and plant a tree and get all naturey. Earth Day came into vogue in 1970 and has become a day to recognize that governments and evil industrial tycoons are trying to rape the earth for their own gains. All right, that may be a bit of an overstatement.

Interestingly enough though, I came across this interview with Al Gore in the The Sun. Strangely the interview was conducted by the Consumer Affairs Correspondent, which seems to be either an insult to Mr Gore, a sign that his star power is fading, or Consumer Affairs doesn't mean the same thing in the UK as it does here. Based on the fluffiness of the interview though I don't think option 3 is the one. But that's not why the interview was interesting.

First is his acknowledgment that the regular everyday population have much bigger things to worry about. Sure they're concerned about the environment, but they have other concerns that take higher priority like food, shelter, safety, et al. Apparently Uncle Al has run nose first into the wall marked Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Of course, he throws out more scare tactics (the polar ice caps will be gone in 5 years - then where will you get ice for your scotch???) and blames the US for not taking the lead in destroying economies to potentially save the earth...uh, if we're right.

Next he shucks and jives at questions about his Hollywood jet-setting friends being really bad at the whole carbon footprint thing. Which of course he wouldn't go out on the limb and say they should cut that crap out - they are, after all rich and can he really likes being a Hollywood guy.

In contrast, he sluffs off the only real hard question in the interview. That question is related to the fact that with the credit crises and economic woes that the average person is more interested in saving their own financial butt. To which he says that we should still spend extra money being green because it's a long term investment that will pay off over time.

So it's ok for his hollywood friends to take private jets all over the world, live in big mansions with huge energy needs and a giant carbon footprint - but we peons should sacrifice to save the planet?

He then moves on to the Blame America First mantra with this line:

" The US has failed to live up to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon emissions."

So I went out to Wikipedia and checked out what they had on the Kyoto Protocol. It's interesting. I will paraphrase.......

In July 1997, before it was finalized, the US Senate voted NOT to be a signatory without additional stipulations such as including provisions for developing and already industrialized nations. (In fact, China is not obligated to reduce or maintain any kind of Co2 levels, they just have to report on what they're tossing into the sky. And being such an open society I can't imagine they'd fudge the numbers a bit. China is about to pass the US as the largest carbon emitter in the world.)

So, the US Senate said not to sign it. And Al Gore (then VP) signed it anyway. Mr Gore at the time said the US should not ratify it until such time as those conditions set forth by the Senate were included. From what I've read, those provisions still haven't been met.

The Clinton Administration (of which Al was second in command) never submitted the protocol to the Senate to be ratified. His own administration did nothing with it.

The Bush Administration is of the same opinion as the Clinton Admin and has not (will not) submit to the protocol.

But Big Al has no problem blaming Mr Bush.

In fact, Mr Gore believes that bigger and more government is what is needed to force society to go green. Yes, thats what we need. Because Government has a long history of solving problems successfully.

I'm just happy he didn't win in 2000.

So, Happy Earth Day/Arbor Day. Enjoy the bounty that is Mother Earth and don't let the politicians ruin your fun.

Just chill - a diatribe on Global Warming

2008-04-18T02:55:00.000-07:00

Global warming is obviously in the news quite a bit and once again, the Law of Unintended Consequences is responding in force.

It's terribly unfortunate that such an important topic has been ripped out of the hands of scientists and been usurped by politicians. As soon as that happened debate was squashed, common sense went out the window, and even bigger - possibly global - government is being discussed. The UN wants to start taxing the world for CO2 emissions.

Former VP Gore has made it his mission to try and be the leading advocate of the end of world predictions and has only succeeded in further raising the white noise with his doom and gloom slideshow. But that slideshow, and his movie, has been show to be full of errors and assumptions that no scientist would have the stones to claim as pure fact. He is, as a politician, trying to sway the world to his point of view and will discount anything that offers a counterpoint. This is what politicians do. I applaud him for his passion and fervor - but an issue that has such global effects - whether it's the warming itself or the unsustainable costs associated with his solution - really deserve further study by the scientific community without any political interference or sway. Otherwise it's not science and we get shortchanged and coerced into a solutions that may not be right.

I'm not implying that Mr Gore (or any of the Global Warming advocates) is evil - I do believe that he is all worked up because he truly believes in his quest. I do believe that his personal investment in this cause, and his background in politics and how to get things done in that realm, is what drives his overstatements and efforts. And he's been successful in furthering his position.

My position on this is that we should be much better stewards of the earth. Reducing pollution, properly overseeing the reasonable use of our natural resources, and finding alternatives to our use of fossil fuels should be the tasks laid before us. We shouldn't be destroying economies in the chase to solve an issue that is badly misrepresented by the politicians and has no guarantee of success. The fact that reports are now coming out that the global temperature has stabilized since 1997 shows that we just don't know enough. My personal opinion is that 10 years is not enough to prove or disprove anything - and neither is 30 years - nor 100 years. Thirty years ago these same "Climate Change" folks were talking about an upcoming Ice Age - 15 years later it turned to Warming. How can we possibly think we know enough to make such potentially devastating solutions as spelled out by the Mr Gore or the UN IPCC.

In his books and lectures, Bjorn Lomborg talks extensively about man-made global warming but also discusses a less fanatical and rhetorical response. Common sense solutions to solving problems and the expectation that innovation will be the answer is a foundation of his arguments. He's not a global warming denier - he does disagree with the solutions proposed by the politicians. The doom and gloomers always seem to account for increases in population and pollution but leave out other factors such as reduced emissions and other technological innovations that change the equation dramatically. He gave a talk at Google as part of their Authors at Google series. It's worth a viewing.

So how does any/all of this apply to my first law of politics? Well, if you've been paying attention to the news lately you'll see that food prices are increasing and it's being tied to the increased use of food for fuel. The Law of Unintended Consequences knows no mercy……..suddenly, now that ethanol is becoming popular the price of corn goes up, thereby making the production of ethanol no longer cost effective. The old “if gas goes to $3 it’ll make sense” axiom is no longer valid since it assumed corn prices would stay stable……and who wants to base their energy policy on something that is completely out of their control…..a couple of years of drought/floods/etc, which we have NO control over, would cause much greater problems than oil “shortages”…which are really refining shortages. Not to mention, if we’re going to do ethanol we should be doing it with sugar cane. The fermentation process that produces ethanol is all about the natural sugars and, well, sugar cane by its very nature should produce more ethanol per acre than corn would. But once again, relying on the mercy of mother nature to not screw with crop production (and by extension our energy sources) is a really bad idea.

And now the cost of FOOD is going up because the demand for a base product (corn) is rising. The ripple effect (increases in prices for meat and other corn based products) will cause a demand that our government do something about it as the poor can no longer afford to eat the basics. More food stamps. More taxpayer funded subsidies to corn producers/distributors to attempt to drive the price down (a bad idea to set this precedent but a quick fix that’ll score politicians points). They’ll fiddle with the commodities/futures market which will only delay a real solution and make the problem nearly unfixable in the future. Once again, treating a symptom instead of finding a cure. What the government needs to do is review the farm subsidies they already hand out for NOT growing crops and eliminate them. Because of US Agricultural production being greater than the global need for that product, the US Government has been paying farmers to not farm as much as they can…this was their first (and continuing) effort at fiddling with the market so the price of a bushel of something doesn’t get so low that no one can afford to be a farmer. Now we don’t have enough production (because those subsidies are still there) and to properly fix this it’ll take a couple of growing seasons…..but no one wants to wait for that. If I’m a farmer and have the choice of getting guaranteed money to not farm all of my land or I can farm it and hope that nothing bad will happen (drought, insects, etc) and that the price will be right come harvest time…..I’d take the guaranteed money…..thus keeping prices up and we all take it in the shorts at the gas pumps and the grocery stores.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080403/corn_at_6.html?.v=6

It didn’t take long for the UN to start blaming the US……of course, 6 months ago the US was being vilified for not doing enough environmentally………

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/14/ccview114.xml

(Of course, I could get into an entirely new rant on the UN, it's corruption, it's impotence, and it's obvious distaste for the US - but I'll save that for another day and attempt to stay focused.)

I recently heard a statistic (although I don't recall the source so this may be wrong) that the US has somewhere around 1000 years of oil within it's reach. But we can't get to it because of the success the environmentalists are having in the political world. It seems to me that reducing our dependence on foreign oil sources and having the economic boost that the oil industry would bring to OUR SHORES in the form of jobs, oil exports, and reducing the price at the pump would be worth a few thousand acres of land to get to it. Not to mention, using Mr Lomborgs line of thinking, we would be ever improving technology in the meantime to reduce our demand for fossil fuels. I sometimes wonder that if the environmental groups would spend more money on funding research into alternatives fuels, instead of launching yet another lobbying effort, would get us to the new solutions quicker.

So we all just need to chill out a bit - not get hysterical and jump at solutions offered by whomever shouts the loudest, and shouts down those that disagree. There is still much discussion, research, and innovation to be had.

Thanks for reading and have a great day....

This is new for me...

2008-04-16T04:23:00.000-07:00

This is my first blog and I make no guarantees or promises about the amount or frequencies of new posts. This is more of place for me to vent and if anyone reads it, then fine, if not...that too is ok.

Most of my topics will be on the subject of our government, politics, politicians, and how all of those need to chill out and reduce their footprint in our lives. The way I see it, the majority of our problems in this country are a result of well intended politicians trying to ease a symptom while never working towards a cure. And the Law of Unintended Consequences eventually catches up to us. If Doctors worked the same way as politicians then they'd prescribe aspirin to relieve the pain of a brain tumor and hope the tumor just goes away since there's no pain.

I believe the governments that preside over our lives - Federal, State, and Local - have been consolidating power over the past 100 years and have grown beyond their ability to manage it. And they shouldn't even be doing that....they've created generations of people that expect the government to bail them out of every bump in the road regardless of who created that bump.

The perfect example is this effort to fiddle with mortgages and bailout folks that made bad decisions in the past few years and now must pay the price. I'm one of those people. I refinanced with a variable rate a few years ago and now am paying the price for having a few years of lower payments. Do I want the government to save me?? No. I'm working on a solution whether it's selling or refinancing to a fixed rate. Is it tough on my finances until that happens....yup. Should our government set a precedent that you can risk everything because there's really no risk...we'll save you? Hell No.

Will it be tough on some families - yes. absolutely. And they have my sympathies. But they also signed a contract to generally buy a house they couldn't afford. And the chickens have come home to roost. Figure out your options. Work with your lender. And do what you need to do. You took a risk and it didn't work out. Don't take money out of my pocket to bail yourself out. You might as well come steal my property to make your next payment.

Once again though, the President and candidates are all calling for government to fiddle with symptoms and not the cause. Lets bail out everyone - throw a bunch of money around that doesn't belong to them - and maybe gain votes for us/our party.

At the same time, the government (which really isn't the government - it's a private institution called the Federal Reserve - more on this in future posts) is printing and releasing cash like there's no tomorrow - further reducing the dollar's buying power and driving up the cost of pretty much everything. For those that may not have considered this - the reason a barrel of oil is continuing to reach new highs is because the dollar is worth less. It has nothing to do with production or availability or refining capacity or demand or anything else. Our dollar is weaker therefore it takes more of them to buy stuff. It's as simple as that.

Once again - the politicians are treating a symptom and not the disease.

I guess I'll stop here for now .....but there's plenty more to come.....