Max Conservative

Spending Discipline

2011-08-01T13:06:00.003-05:00

When normal families find themselves overextended. They start to cut expenses. When a business is losing money, they cut expenses in an effort to put the company back on a stable financial footing. When a Government spends more than they have, just give yourself a new credit card.

We the people are now on the hook for $16 trillion. Say it with me. Sixteen Trillion dollars.

An additional Trillion, that would be in addition to the Two Trillion they are getting and spending from taxes, wasn't enough to get the Government through the end of the year according to President Obama. A Thousand Thousand Million wasn't enough to get past December.

That is the little fact that is lost in the discussions with the public. That they are spending MORE than they are bringing in is well known. HOW much they are getting in is never discussed.

So what are our options now? The economy isn't improving despite the claims of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. What more can the Government spend to turn it around? That's the problem. Washington is operating on a what is known as a Keynes theory. This theory dates back to 1936. Think about that for a moment. Name another theory on any subject that has survived since 1936. Naval Warfare, in 1936 Naval Theory was that the Battleship would rule the day forever. That theory was dominant until 1941. Land Warfare. The lessons of World War One dictated that the Defensive was preferred. That reinforced structures would be able to defend indefinitely and only the fool went on the offensive. The fact was that Maneuver was again coming dominant in warfare.

In psychiatry, the Doctors were sill regularly using electro shock therapy. It turns out if you fry a patients brain, they no longer have psychotic episodes. Cigarettes were considered healthy. Minorities were considered inferior. I could go on for quite a while about all the things we believed we knew to be absolutely true based upon theories. Things that have been subsequently demonstrated to absolutely untrue time and time again.

Yet, no one dares to question the wisdom of the Keynes theory because that is absolutely true. Despite the fact that it doesn't seem to be working, and hasn't for some time. Like a cult of idol worshipers though, the economic experts declare we are simply not faithful enough to this god Keynes. Or we simply didn't understand the whole Keynes.

Under Keynes theories Governments are supposed to spend money we don't have, in order to save capitalism. Yet the application of this theory has caused the Government to literally overspend the entire Gross National Product. We now owe more money that the entire nation produced in all goods and services for 2010. That means that even if every single dollar was taxed at 100% by the Federal Government, we could not pay our debts within a single year.

That doesn't include a single dollar for anything else but our debts.

But the theory isn't working. By Keynes theories, after spending trillions of dollars we don't have, unemployment should be essentially zero. It isn't, because Government's that hire all the people are not capitalist, but socialist. Those economies, called top down economies, don't work. We've seen the collapse of how many of them? The Soviet Union is the most famous example.

So the economy is stalling, and people are now expecting it to fail. They are girding themselves for another Great Depression, pulling money out of the market, and putting it into insured savings accounts. Banks are getting nervous about that, and have started charging fees to keep the money. Why would they get nervous? Because they're expected to pay interest, and they can't get any money to pay the interest much less the insurance premiums.

At what point do people start taking the money from the bank, and burying it in the back yard, or stuffing it under the mattress?

Government is blamed because Government sets themselves up as the solution to all problems. That they aren't the solution has been demonstrated time and time again, but we keep turning to them for solutions and they keep coming up with more of the same failed policies. This recession as it slips into Depression should be the death of Keynes theories once and for all. Yet far too many will continue to worship at the alter of Keynes, because it's easier to do that than enforce spending discipline on our elected leaders. We don't want to be prioritized out of whatever Federal Program that we depend on individually. Be it a job, a field, a payment, medicare, or the list goes on and on.

As the economy collapses, and the Government goes bankrupt, some economist somewhere will be shouting at us on the news that we didn't go far enough with the Keynes theories. Or we were not faithful enough to his brilliance. We were simply unfaithful in the eyes of the Keynes god.

Debt Ceiling

2011-07-18T15:47:00.002-05:00

Limits exist everywhere. It's interesting that this month the debate has been over a single limit, and how we as a world, not just a nation, can't afford to let it stop us. CAFE standards give us a bottom limit of how many miles we get from a gallon of gasoline. Yet, that limit is too important to get rid of or make it more user friendly. There are speed limits that police hope you'll go beyond so they can fine you.

The debt limit however, is apparently too limiting. First question, how did we get a debt limit? Answer, we decided we were spending too much money, and needed time to examine the budget, and find things we could eliminate to reduce our expenses. The debt ceiling was passed to give Congress the time needed to adjust our finances to a more sustainable pattern.

That adjustment never happened. Not under Democrats, nor under Republicans. Today the same Democrats who are complaining that it's irresponsible to vote against raising the debt ceiling, voted against the debt ceiling in 2006. The same Republican party that objected to raising the debt ceiling today, voted for it in 2006.

Yet not once have we ever reduced spending. NOT ONCE have we managed to reduce the size and scope of Government.

When President Obama was Senator and Candidate Obama, he objected to the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, and many other things. That is until it became his secret police, then it was all right. He voted against raising the debt ceiling, and now calls those who threaten to do so unpatriotic.

Harry Reid voted against it in 2006, now chastises those who oppose it as irresponsible. Which is what they said when they voted against it in 2006.

The point my dear friends is this. If a Republican is elected next year, then raising the debt ceiling will be a patriotic duty to the Republicans, and a irresponsible action to the Democrats, again.

In this whole debate, the original purpose was lost. To get a handle on the bloated federal budget.

I'm starting to think that we need to change the message on the Statue of Liberty. It should now say. "Abandon all hope ye who enter here."

I wonder if Ignorance is an excuse for the Police

2011-07-04T13:46:00.002-05:00

For the record, I think the basic premise of Ignorance being no excuse for breaking the law, is the second dumbest thing ever. Let's say you are legally allowed to turn right on a red light in your state. You visit another state, and make a right turn on red. The police pull you over, check your license, and you explain you didn't realize it was not allowed. "I'm sorry officer, we're allowed to in Georgia."

"Ignorance is no excuse." The officer says. Actually that is incredibly stupid. It's impossible to follow the rules, if you don't know what they are. A smarter action would be to issue a warning to the driver, and put it into your computer system, showing that he'd gotten a warning for this action.

Then if he does it again, he can't claim ignorance.

I mention this, because of a news story that is being roundly ignored. Dayton Police beat, tasered, pepper sprayed, and then hog tied and put into a police car a Retarded 17 year old boy.

Yes, you read that right. The cops threw a beating on, blasted with the taser, and then pepper sprayed a retarded boy. A copy of the Complaint is here.

Now, the predictable response from the police will almost certainly be that the Officer didn't know the boy was retarded. The officer didn't know that his actions were way over the top.

I say to them, what they love to say to everyone else. Ignorance is no excuse. Another example of fine law enforcement in Ohio last summer. Police dog dies in the back of police car from excessive heat. I think the Police should be charged when they violate the law, don't you?

Independence Day

2011-07-01T09:35:00.002-05:00

Harvard University has released a study that has Republicans laughing, and Liberals scratching their heads. I say they are scratching their heads, because nobody is talking about it on Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, or Huffington Post. Generally speaking, that means they don't know how to spin it yet, and are awaiting their marching orders from the party masters.

The study says that Patriotic Celebrations like the 4th of July turns kids into Republicans.

Conservatives sites are covering the report with glee. Hot Air has stories here, here, and here.

The question none of them answer is why the Democrats don't see a boost from participation, assuming they do, in Patriotic celebrations.

Independence Day, the celebration of the founding of the nation. For most people this means something painfully obvious. The stories of people who risked life and limb, family and fortune to create a new nation from a previously undefeated colonial master. For Liberals, this is when the racist homophobic evil people fought a war to own slaves. Next war, the war of 1812. Same thing, The Americans were stealing from the peaceful loving Native Americans, and slaughtering innocents to get enough materials to continue slave ownership and their racist homophobic hate filled agenda.

Mexican American War. Evil Racist America fought a war to steal land from the innocent peaceful brown people to our south.

Civil War, obvious one here. Racist Homophobic hate filled evil nasty Republicans (I know, Republicans were in the north and Democrats were in the south, but you can't expect Liberals to get these kinds of things right) fought a war to prevent the great Democratic (I know, I know) President Lincoln from freeing Slaves.

Are you noticing a pattern yet? Spanish American War, we stole land and created virtual slaves of the people of the Philippines and Cuba from the Spanish.

World War One. Greedy bankers got rich on the backs of the people creating war materials that the uneducated morons who didn't know any better like the poor ignorant Alvin York murdered his fellow man.

World War II. American Imperialism and strong arm tactics forced the innocent Japanese to take arms to defend themselves.

The pattern is fairly obvious now isn't it folks? Liberals denounce everything that the nation has done, while claiming that doing so is absolutely patriotic. It was patriotic to disagree and debate President Bush. But when it's a Democrat in office. The question is "Who's side are you on?"

So why would Democrats celebrate the 4th of July? If they show up, it's to wave signs or educate the poor ignorant morons on how awful the nation really is.

So wait for it. Soon the Democrats will see this as a chance to start to participate in the celebration. I can see it now. A float in next years local parade on Great Contributions by Gay Patriots. Another float educating the people on Horrible people who founded the nation in the name of freedom while they owned slaves.

Perhaps they can have a float where they burn an effigy of Bush and dance about throwing pies at the stupid Conservatives shouting "Bush Lied, Kids Died."

Probably not, but I wouldn't put it past the nuts to think they just have to explain to the ignorant hicks how stupid the aforementioned hicks are to think the country is great.

Don't let a good boy go bad.

2011-05-07T17:38:00.002-05:00

This lie has been told for years. The idea that the victim is responsible for a crime. Be it your car being burglarized because you didn't lock it, or even stolen because you left the keys in it. In neither event, are you responsible, because good people don't steal, while a crook will take any opportunity to get something that doesn't belong to them.

I mention this because of a wave of protests over a comment by a police officer. The police officer from Toronto said that women were inviting rape by dressing like sluts.

PFUI. Blaming the victim is the answer of the lazy asinine fool. It is used by police who don't want to find criminals, by civic leaders who want to excuse their constituents, by professors and psychologists who want to normalize the deviant behavior. I personally reject that argument with all possible contempt.

I am Conservative. Not Republican nor Democrat. I believe in individual liberty. That includes the liberty to dress as you wish, as long as you are willing to accept the fallout. By fallout I mean if you dress in a sensual or sexy manner at church ladies, you can expect whispers or looks to be thrown that way. However, I do not believe that fallout should include physical attack. I am Conservative, I am death on crime where someone is harmed.

Blaming the victim is hardly the the way to stop Rape, as women in the Middle East are Raped despite being covered in many cases from head to toe. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power, the attacker exuding power over the woman. Yet, this asinine moron who was giving a talk on public safety put the onus on the victim. Men wouldn't rape women if the women didn't dress in a sensual or sexual manner. Like a slut in his words.

Osama dead, is the war over?

2011-05-02T00:41:00.002-05:00

Celebrations are gaining momentum, all because one man, Osama bin Laden is dead. Yet, is the war over? Are we going to declare victory, and remove out troops, some six thousand of which have died, to get one man? I think not. Is this a victory that we can point to as a turning point, like Midway? Not really. Will this affect the enemy, and demoralize them to quit the fight? Again, I doubt it.

That's why I'm not cheering tonight. Osama bin Laden was the bogie man, the shadowy figure that Democrats could use to chide Bush for taking his eye off the "real ball" and chasing Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

There are notable differences between the two however. First, Saddam was the leader of a nation, not a loose organization of radical lunatics. Second, there wasn't anyone strong enough to take over, especially since the Nation had been taken, prior to Saddam being captured, to take charge. Finally, the public wasn't behind the return of the Bath party and their rule.

However, Osama is a leader, but not the only one. He is generally speaking, considered to be the leader of the leadership council, consisting of twenty or thirty leaders. That is twenty or thirty people who can step forward and take his place.

This isn't even like when we killed Admiral Yamamoto. In that, we could claim we had impacted the planning of future operations, seriously degrading the enemies ability to harm us. It wouldn't be as accurate as initially claimed, but we could claim it. Yet now, can anyone actually claim that Osama was actively planning operations? He was a figurehead, and one with a broken record of hits.

I see reason to feel slightly satisfied that the mastermind behind 9-11 is dead. I don't see the reason to cheer, and assemble and celebrate in the streets. We haven't won the war by a long shot. We have increased the danger to American and other coalition forces in the world, all over the world. Now, dozens or perhaps even hundreds of attacks will come at us as other leaders try and show that they are just as strong, or perhaps stronger and smarter than Osama was.

I'm reminded of a story I saw once on Television about Afghanistan. An American forward air controller was telling about an attack. The Afghani warlord/general threw himself over the young enlisted man to protect him when Artillery was raining in. The young soldier asked the General what the hell he was doing. The Enlisted man correctly pointed out that the General outranked the young Sergeant.

"If I die, another will take my place. If you die, there isn't anyone else who knows what you do, and who can direct the aircraft like you do. You are more valuable than I." The General is reported to have said.

Osama was the General, now that he is dead, there will be another, and another after that to take his place. We have to create the atmosphere where this radicalized mentality does not exist. Removing the leader is effective, in the very short term. Another will step up, and take charge. We have seen that time and time again in the Drug Wars. One criminal leader is caught, another appears. Or another two, or three.

The war isn't over, not by a long shot. The celebration is a tad premature gang.

The Royal Wedding

2011-04-26T22:05:00.003-05:00

The Royal Wedding arrives shortly, and I am only moderately interested. Mainly because our own political scene in America is so abominably disgusting. We have politicians selling out constantly, and others fighting and slinging mud to arrive at a higher office, so they can sell out in turn.

Then we have the Windsor clan in England. So it is interesting to watch others and see how they do it. Have the Royal clan of Windsor always been perfect? Not hardly, yet who can we point to here and say that this person was perfect? What Political Party can we point to that way? None. The Democrats have a long history of fostering class warfare and class hatred. The same with racial problems, and generally doing things to stir the pot and promptly point the finger. The Republicans are little better with their constant cries of Unpatriotic towards anyone who objects to greater Federal power for defense or homeland security.

The Libertarian Party is doomed to be fringe on their firmly held belief that drugs should be legal and able to be used without consequence. The consequence is all around us guys, and nobody, even me, wants people stoned out of their gourds on the roads or even walking down the street.

So we have the Royals, and we are told to hate them because they are chosen by the accident of birth to rule. Yet, look at them again. William, the heir to the heir to the throne, and the Groom of this Friday's weeding, is risking life and limb to fly a helicopter and save lives. He didn't go into business consulting on how to do something, or get Grants from the Government, he is serving the people of Great Britain by risking his life. Very few of our Political Masters children ever take the route of the Military. Yet Harry is also in the Military, and has served in Afghanistan.

Perhaps it's the sense of duty, of family duty, and honor that has been shoveled into them since birth that has driven these two boys to become the men they are. You can argue that they've had it easy, and I'll argue that they've had it just as easy as Paris Hilton, and have turned out very differently.

In large part, the role of the Royal Family is more ceremonial than political, and in that, they have shown great wisdom, and even quite a bit of compassion. They all work for charities, and granted most of their visits are photo opportunities, you get the impression that they genuinely care about the issue. Prince Charles is a dedicated Environmentalist, and while I disagree with his conclusions, I admit he raises a great deal of money for the cause.

We don't have royals in America, and perhaps that is something to consider. Our Political leaders are always running around trying to be noticed for the subject, and never want to be reminded of what they said or did just a few short weeks, months, or years ago which always is contrary to what they're saying now.

President Obama for example. He said a President has no right to launch a Military attack without a direct threat, or authorization from Congress. Then when he was President decided that he had every right. I guess his opinion as a Constitutional Scholar and Professor got changed when he got the job. President Obama voted against raising the Debt ceiling when Bush was President, and now claims that the Republicans are jeopardizing the nation by even hinting that they might not vote to raise it. Does anyone see his children joining the Military when they grow up? Anyone?

The Bush twins certainly didn't join, nor did Chelsea, nor did The Reagan kids. GW Bush joined, but Dad was a Congressman at the time, not the President.

By comparison, Gore joined, and was hustled out of Viet-Nam when it looked dangerous for the son of a Senator.

Granted Harry was hustled out of Afghanistan when someone reported he was there, but that makes some sense, after all killing him would be a great Public Relations coup, and that made all his mates targets too.

So why are we supposed to hate the Royals? Because we're American, and we don't have them. But we're also supposed to respect other nations, and their traditions, customs, and laws. England has a Constitutional Monarchy, and we are supposed to respect that. The same liberals who denounced our Nation Building in Iraq, now demand that England become more like us, abandoning the tradition and rule of the Royal Family.

I'll reiterate a thing I quoted before. Douglas Adams (who was British) said this. Anyone who wants high political office, is automatically disqualified from having the power that comes with it.

William may not want it, and may not have asked for it, but he is at least as qualified as anyone we have to wield it. Further, he may be MORE qualified, since he has spent his life preparing for it, instead of chasing it.

The ERA just won't die.

2011-04-08T20:41:00.003-05:00

The ERA, or Equal Rights Amendment. It was passed through Congress in 1972, and was part of both political parties platform in 1976. Yes, even those Republicans were fully in support of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Then came a woman called Phyllis Schlafly came along, and pointed out the truth. That women stood to lose far more than they gained. For example, and it's important to remember that this was all going on while Viet-Nam, and the draft, were still every day news stories.

The truth was that women would have to register, and be selected for the draft, along with men. That meant 18 year old girls, could, and would be drafted into the Army. That meant that 18 year old girls would have to go to war, in the infantry, and fight, be injured, or killed along with the young men. Remember that at this time, the nation was sick of it's young men going off and being wounded, maimed, or killed in the war. The idea that the nations daughters, sisters, and young women would be subjected to this was inconceivable.

Because despite the title, it wouldn't be equal treatment for the women. If they were captured in a war, especially by an enemy like the North Viet-namese, or any of the other bad people we've fought since, you could expect that the women would endure what men would not. Gang rapes would be the rule, rather than the exception. While we may consider the women equal, our enemies would certainly not treat them equally.

Additionally, if you were a housewife, and spent your entire life assisting your Husband, while he worked, and you stayed at home. You would lose his social security benefits if he pre-deceased you. In other words, if Grandpa died, Grandma would be out on the street with nothing. Hardly an equal treatment right?

So why are people still trying to get this amendment passed? Because they focus on the surface, instead of the depth. The image rather than the substance. Ratify ERA Florida is still working to push for passage of an amendment that has long since expired. The entire process would have to start again.

Now, where do I stand personally? I don't care. I don't care if you're male, female, gay, straight, white, black, brown, or bright blue. I don't care what religion you are. I don't care what music you listen to. The only thing I care about is this. If you're an American, then you're entitled to all the rights that any citizen is.

Now, there is a qualification. I really don't want to see women subjected to combat. Does that mean I think they should be banned? No. I think the choice should be left to them. I think they should be sat down, and explained in very gruesome detail the negatives that could happen. Perhaps they should talk to Lara Logan. She was rescued by other women, but only just barely. It is not unheard of for other women to be raped to death by such crowds of young hotheaded men.

So ladies, if you think you're willing to risk that, and you think that is a small price to pay, and you're willing to be the equal of any man on the line, then welcome to combat. Yet I would suggest that you should perhaps consider another line of work. And yes, that is the same advice I give you young men who are considering the military.

I would be in favor of giving women the choice. I would NOT be in favor of requiring the sacrifice of them. Given the truth that sometimes, a national draft is needed. When we are discussing life and death of our nation. Given that the draft will take unwilling recruits into the military, where they may be captured, maimed, tortured, or killed. Should we up the ante on our young ladies and potentially subject them to the most heinous act imaginable? That is why I am not in favor of the ERA, is because it removes choice from our girls.

Libs right for once

2011-03-28T11:12:00.002-05:00

As you know, I like to peruse the Democratic Underground and see what the DUmmies are complaining about. Now and then, I find a situation where as a Conservative, I absolutely agree with the Libs on. I rarely speak out on those that I disagree with. I could do a dozen posts a day on the Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and DU every day. Yet, such effort would be wasted as the DUmmies are too rabidly anti Conservative to ever listen or consider.

Today, I found one I actually agree with. Now, it deals with the TSA, which I've long railed against.

It seems the TSA fired a woman for being Wiccan. Claiming that the woman had cast a spell on her co-worker. It's good to see the Federal Government has admitted it believes in Magic officially. You see, there isn't another force that explains how the Feds manage the budget, or the legislative process, or our national security.

Guys, if anyone deserved to be fired over the incident, it would have been the hysterical lunatic who claimed that the Wiccan cast a spell on her car heater and made it stop working. If anyone should be fired, it would be the manager who actually decided that those claims deserved investigation.

Here it is in 2011, and we're still screaming burn the witch.

Burn the Witch, the new battle cry for the TSA. God help us all.

Corporate Taxes, or Truth about High Taxes

2011-03-27T12:43:00.003-05:00

First, it must be understood that the Tax Code isn't written to collect Taxes, it's written to control the population.

Now, what do I mean about that. There are literally more pages in the Tax Code than the Bible.

Now all those pages are loopholes that someone put in to help a friend, or contributor. Now, when you consider that the Democratic Party has had control of Congress a vast majority of the time, you are left with the obvious problem, that this Tax code was designed by Democrats the same way the Unions were, to keep Democrats in power.

Now, what got me started on this was a post at Democratic Underground, where there is only one approved subject matter, supporting Democrats, regarding Bernie Sanders, Senator, (Socialist).

This post referenced a list that Bernie had put out, on Ten Corporations that had paid no taxes.

Now what is interesting, is that the facts are not even brushed over. Just the blast that Exxon got $19 Billion in Profits, and a Rebate from the IRS for $156 Million.

Now, how did Exxon do this? Unlike you and me and other "Regular" people. Exxon hires a bunch of Attorneys to go over each line of the Tax Code with the singular desire to save the company money. They shift money to qualify for this break, or that loophole. Now, these are the same pages of the law, almost all of it written by Democrats, that the Democratic Supporters are now screaming is unfair. As an example, if you put Solar Panels on your roof, you qualify for a Green Energy tax credit. If you change the insulation, or if you build a headquarters with Green Energy policies, you get another credit. If you use all these silly little do nothing but make you feel good things to combat Global Warming, you get credits.

Wait, there's more. By brewing Ethanol, that is to say, turning our food into gasoline, in accordance with Federal Law on the matter, you are then qualifying for subsidies to make sure that the Average Consumer doesn't know that Ethanol is more expensive to make and less useful than Gasoline.

So by wisely choosing to take advantage of all these tax breaks, and all these credits. Exxon invested in green energy, and approved programs. They instituted a Diversity Awareness program, EEOC, and every other mandated, and encouraged program out there. They put up information about carpool opportunities, and qualify for another tax break.

Now, each and every one of those dollars is taxed. When Exxon makes a profit, they pay that profit to stockholders. The stockholders are people like you, and me, who are trying to invest in our future and set money aside for our retirement. We make dividends on those earnings, and we report them to the Government, and we pay taxes on those dividends. It's called Capital Gains taxes.

So all the histrionics from the Libs is both predictable, and deplorable. First they write the laws to benefit their campaign cronies, and then they denounce those same cronies in an effort to stir up the base to cough up even more dough for the re-election campaign. Then they promise more favorable laws to the cronies, to get more campaign contributions from them.

The cronies know they have to be denounced from time to time to make the dumb voters turn out and vote Democratic. They accept this as a price of doing business. The only ones who are really being played are you Democrat supporters who think that anyone in Washington cares about what you're shouting about. They are the ones who wrote those laws. Most you approved of to help save the planet and green energy this and that. Now, you're angry because rich people are using those same laws that you wanted to save the planet to pay less in taxes.

The laws are on the books, the companies are merely serving you, and me, in finding as many opportunities to save money, as possible. If the Government put as much effort in saving money, then we wouldn't have a trillion dollar a year deficit. Instead, the Government puts that much effort into finding new ways to SPEND money they don't have, instead of saving the money they do have.

I believe the phrase here is, don't hate the player, hate the game.

Smart Power in Washington

2011-03-26T12:59:00.003-05:00

We were told that the election of President Obama that we'd get Smart Power. While we were never exactly told what Smart Power would be, we were assured that it was exactly what it sounded like. The Democrats were just smarter, and Obama was the smartest of them all.

So we started Bombing Libya. Despite that there was no Congressional Authorization, which Candidate and self described Constitutional Expert and former Editor of the Law Review Obama swore was needed. Despite the fact that there was no direct threat to America, or our interests, we're bombing. We were told that President Obama was going to get Al Qaeda.

Get them what? Their own country? We are bombing in Libya, with no clue who we are helping, or what we are doing. At least in Iraq we had ten years of Intelligence assets having collected some information. In Afghanistan, we had a few people we'd been talking to from time to time since we helped them overthrow the Soviets.

Apparently in Libya, we just called people at random on the phone and asked if they needed some bombs to help them defeat the brutal Dictator, Gaddafi. Because it turns out, the Smart Power in the Administration, is bombing to help Al Qaeda and The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which to date we have called the Rebels in Libya. Elsewhere around the region we've identified them as Terrorists, Insurgents, and barbaric murdering criminals.

Now, Gaddafi is no prince, but at least he is not the enemy we've been fighting for the last nine years all over the region. Are we hoping that the radical Islamic loons who to date have spent every waking moment of their life working, and praying that the Great Satan America is destroyed will decide that we aren't so bad, and perhaps we should only have our knees broken?

If this is Smart Power, then we're doomed. If this is the best we can do, ride to the rescue of a people oppressed by a brutal dictator, and give control to an even more brutal group of lunatics who will then have their own military to plan and launch attacks against us, financed by our own oil purchases, we're screwed.

French take lead in Libya

2011-03-19T13:00:00.002-05:00

Yes, you read that right. The French, who's last known Military Victory was sinking the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior, have taken the lead in standing up to Quaddafi and helping the Rebels. France.

Now, America used to lead, and be the first in. Now, we follow, at a distance, a great distance.

In the meantime, France has been the first to fly over Libya, and the first to fire on the Government forces. France. We've been out done by France.

Remember when President Obama was going to improve World Opinion towards the US?

It's said that Nero Fiddled while Rome Burned. President Obama is picking his Final Four while the world burns.

The Oxymoron of Gun Control

2011-03-14T01:16:00.002-05:00

President Obama has taken the liberty of taking time out of his busy schedule to write an Op Ed in the Arizona Daily Star. In it, he explains how he is in favor of the Second Amendment, but says we need to first realize that in Arizona, a man who was disqualified from joining the Army, still managed to buy a gun, and murder 13 people.

Mr. President, how about the man who was able to join the Army, and also murdered 13 people. The warning signs there were so egregious that the Army is going to discipline nine officers for failing to do their duty about him.

OK, let's ignore the economy that is so bad that thirty five percent of our citizens are on welfare. That is far less important as a subject for your Op Ed than a shooting.

Let's ignore the Earthquake, and Tsunami in Japan, where early estimates are for over ten thousand dead, and with the distinct possibility of a Nuclear Meltdown, a disaster of unequaled magnitude could well greet us in the morning news. Far less important.

Instead, you want to rail against a system that allows a man like Jared Lee Laughner to be crazy as a loon, and still buy a gun. Fine, lets talk about that Mr. President. How much do you feel responsible for egging on borderline psychotics with instructions for them to argue and get in the face of those who disagree with them? Or perhaps Mr. Laughner merely heard your advice about bringing a gun to a knife fight?

So somehow we are supposed to prevent crazy people from ever harming another person. Mr. President, as much as I grieve for those who lost their lives on that tragic day in Tucson, and as much as I grieve for anyone who loses a loved one. I think that your time, your efforts, and your leadership should be on issues of more national import. Right now, our nation is teetering on a brink, and you aren't leading on any issue we need you to. You wanted the job, you fought for the job, campaigned tirelessly for the job. The job you have isn't to write Editorials for a paper in Arizona, it's to lead the nation. Our economy is in the worst shape it's been in since the Great Depression. Gas prices are skyrocketing, costs to families struggling to make ends meet are going through the roof. Instead of focusing on those problems, and coming up with solutions, you're wasting time writing about this? When your Army, and it's your Army sir, you are the Commander in Chief, was victimized exactly the same way by a man who COULD and DID join the Army.

Mr. President, we have ten thousand gun related laws on the books, and no law is ever going to make Americans Safe. You simply can't just legislate this away. Lunatics have driven cars into crowds. Psychotics have stabbed people to death, choked them, drown them. Susan Smith drove her kids into a lake, drowning them. Jack the Ripper sliced them up like Sushi. A psychopath will find a way.

Catastrophic

2011-03-12T07:25:00.002-05:00

Catastrophic. The word is one which is bandied about rather freely. A political event is called a catastrophic if a program doesn't get enough funding to satisfy the speaker. If the Roast Beef isn't quite right, it's a catastrophic failure to some.

What has happened, and continues to happen in Japan is what Catastrophic was meant to convey. The island nation has already endured a brutal one two punch combination that would have any nation reeling from the events. First the largest, most powerful earth quake in the recorded history of the nation. It literally shifted the entire island nation eight feet. Some scientists are now of the opinion that the entire world shifted on it's axis a few small inches from the severity of the earthquake. I am not going to bother commenting on that one other than to merely raise an eyebrow in amusement.

That amusement ends at the actual first acts of the catastrophic situation in Japan. The earthquake was first. It was followed by a huge Tsunami of over twenty feet. Video of that has captured the worlds horrified imagination.

Then we come to the third act, and we hope last act. The Nuclear Power problem. Engineers design things with safeguards, and with back ups when it comes to major systems or sites. They engineered the Nuclear Power Plant the same way. If a major earth quake struck, the plant could continue safely by using prepared and provided Diesel Generators. In fact, the plant personnel were reported to be doing that very thing, starting the Diesel Generators after the Earthquake, when the Tsunami hit.

This second punch knocked out the Diesel Generators, and they have been struggling since that time to get something working. Now, the reports are that there has been a bit of meltdown, but they're working to cool the plant using sea water.

This ladies and gentlemen is a situation where catastrophic certainly fits. We should save that word for times like this, for times when widespread disaster strikes a people. If we can't refrain from using it for lesser things, then we need a new word. One we seal in a box and place on a shelf with a sign next to it. Break glass only when Catastrophic fails to describe disaster.

The situation in Japan would certainly qualify.

Our best wishes, and hopes, go out to the Japanese people, and those with families in Japan.

Club Gitmo to stay open.

2011-03-09T03:14:00.003-05:00

On January 22, 2009, as one of his very first official acts as President. President Obama signed an Executive Order which instructed the Government to close the Terrorist Detention Facility at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. As he signed it, he announced that America would live up to its values.

He realized a few months later, it would be impossible. The nations that the detainees came from didn't want them back. The countries in question refused to accept responsibility for the detainees, and the Administration was left to trade them as part of deals.

Then there were the detainees who readily admitted that they would attack us if we released them. That threat coupled with the roughly twenty five percent of those released who were again captured fighting us later gave President Obama more pause.

Now, he has signed a law that keeps Gitmo open. If that wasn't enough, he also signed an order reinstating the Military Tribunals to determine guilt of the detainees. So Bush was a war criminal for doing this, does that make Obama a war criminal too?

Some on the left are starting to think so. They are outraged that President Obama, the Hope and Change himself, would not only embrace the Bush policy, but essentially give Bush a pass on that policy.

The Democrat Party until death group swears that President Obama had no choice. It passed with a Veto Proof majority. Yet, he could still veto it. That would send it back to the Congress, who would have to pass it over his veto. Then he could go down in History as standing up for what he believed in. Instead of trampling his own executive order.

Now, what do I think? I think that people should be willing to put their money where their mouth is. If you think that Club Gitmo is so wrong, then do something about it. If Congress says no to Federal Trials, then smile and instead order the prisoners released to their own countries no strings attached. When the Congress shouts, tell them that the Constitution gives you little other choice. You see, the Constitution demands a speedy trial, and does not allow you to detain someone for extended periods without due process. When one of the people you released does do another act of terrorism, then you can blame Congress for not allowing you to follow the Legal and Constitutional path.

Instead, Obama took the easy way out. What that shows is he never really believed what he said before. He wasn't really willing to close Gitmo, instead signing a worthless order that he had every intention of voiding later more quietly.

At least George W. Believed he was doing what was right, and the courts agreed that Guantanamo Bay was not the United States, and the Constitutional requirements did not apply there. So it seems that W had more integrity regarding his beliefs than Obama did. If the Democratic Congress had passed a law ordering all detainees be transferred from Guantanamo to US Courts, even with a Veto Proof Majority, I bet Bush would have vetoed it anyway.

Deficits matter, no matter who is in charge.

2011-03-07T23:48:00.003-05:00

I have previously posted that the Deficits matter, even when Republicans are in office. I begin with that so the Liberals can't accuse me of being in favor of Republican Deficits, because I am not.

Like you, I spend only what I have. Like you, I don't spend money I don't have. Like you, I have to budget my expenses, based not upon what I'd like, but upon what I can afford. I'd like an Audi parked in my driveway, I have a Kia, a Toyota, and a Ford Pick Up truck parked outside. The Toyota belongs to Mrs. Conservative if you're wondering.

Now, what caused me to again break my posting hiatus? A report on the Deficit for February of this year. The picture is President Obama's Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2012. That's right, it's not a worker at Walmart putting products on a shelf to sell. It's not a delivery of critically needed supplies to a war torn area. It is a pallet load of a budget, which has to be delivered by a powered pallet jack.

According to that article, where you'll find that picture, the budget deficit for February 2011 was $223 Billion. Now, many people, myself included, were upset when George W. Bush posted a budget deficit of $161 Billion for the fiscal year of 2007. Yes, the Liberals were especially enraged that George Bush would dare bankrupt the country by overspending a whopping $161 Billion a year in 2007.

Now, as we browse the various Liberal sites on the web, we find silence on the record breaking deficit. Daily Kos has an article ridiculing Senator Simpson for pointing out that we're spending at unsustainable levels regarding Social Security. Just the usual Cut all funds to Republican District rants on Democratic Underground. None of those in a week by the way.

So when will we admit that this is unsustainable? We are reaching the point where the total money we owe is greater than the total money earned by all every single person in the nation.

So what are our elected leaders discussing in Washington? Cutting a whopping $61 Billion from the budget, and event that is too much for the elected folks to agree on. Cutting less than a quarter of the debt of February, the shortest month, from the entire year's budget.

The entire house is on fire, and the people in charge are discussing which tea cozy they should remove from the house.

Big Government, never a good thing.

2010-12-14T21:02:00.002-05:00

First, the TSA, that billions of dollars boondoggle that claimed to have made air travel more secure, by restricting access to our airports, ports, and other places that the public used to travel. Yes, that TSA has been utterly defeated by a penetration of the Airport Security.

Charlotte International Airport. A sixteen year old boy snuck onto the airfield, of an international airport, and climbed into the wheel well of a Boeing 737. He was discovered in the backyard of a resident in Boston, where his body landed after it fell free of the wheel well as the airplane went in for landing.

Yes, all that security, and those billions of dollars. Those agents with their buck nekkid scanners, and feeling of everyones genitalia, utterly failed to thwart a teenaged boy with extensive experience dodging hall monitors from going anywhere he bloody well wanted on the airport. That's right, a sixteen year old kid just walked around the tarmac of the airport, and nobody noticed. Apparently all the security people were inside the airport lining up to get their chance to feel up the teenaged girls or boys, depending upon their particular fancy, that flew that day.

However, the Department of Homeland Security has not been idle. They have decided that you are their best source of information. So they've come up with an application for your iPhone. You can now get the Patriot snitch on my neighbors app. This makes your patriotic duty of informing on your neighbors who speak ill of President Obama, or the administration's efforts even easier than sending an email to flag@whitehouse.gov was. Big Brother needs you.

US War Casualties

2010-12-04T02:25:00.001-05:00

When it was George Bush's war the war casualties were updated daily. Now that it is President Obama's war no such news makes the cut.

http://www.icasualties.org/oef/

It was a real shock to find out that combat deaths this year, 2010, equaled the total deaths from the years 2001-2008.

You read that correctly my dear friend. This year alone we've lost as many as we did during seven years of war.

Location:US War Casualties

It's not my fault.

2010-12-01T01:41:00.003-05:00

As any Cheating Boyfriend, Husband, Wife, or Girlfriend will tell you. You can't tell anyone you're cheating. Even if you don't, eventually, the truth will get back to the one you're cheating on. Someone will see you, and talk.

"I heard it through the Grapevine, not much longer would you be mine." Is the classic line from a true song.

Gossip is juicy, when someone is doing something wrong. What you are probably asking is what does this have to do with Conservative principals? Easy, we're on to Wikileaks.

Wikileaks is a clearing house of stolen, hacked, and otherwise sensitive documents. If they promised not to publish, if you paid them, then you could claim they were blackmailing you.

Since they just put on the internet, that which comes to them from those who stole it, the question is what crime have they really committed? Did they do the thing that the documents speak of? The cheating on your wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend? No, they weren't involved in that. Did they tell someone else to break the law? No, at most they say. "Sure give me your documents, and we'll look at them and see if they are worth publishing."

So what is going on? Everyone is running around angry at Susan, because she saw you cheating on your wife, and she told your wife and started this firestorm. Why isn't anyone angry at the State Department for abusing the diplomatic process? Why aren't they angry at you for cheating?

So the cheating boyfriend, the United States, is angry that they've been caught, and publicly humiliated by the release of these documents. Yep, the husband is humiliated that Susan caught him doing the beast with two backs on the dining room table with the babysitter.

OK, time for a history lesson. Eisenhower told America that the U2 spy plane flown by Francis Gary Powers was just an atmospheric sampling plane, not a spy plane. It was a calculated lie. He thought he could get away with it. A few weeks later, when the lie blew up in his face, he looked like a damned fool, and while the American Public thought it was pretty clever of the American Government to spy like that, still started to doubt what was being said.

So now, nobody trusts the Government, and nobody should. Anything but the time of day is almost certainly a lie, and the time is probably something you'll want to double check.

So the Americans were caught lying, cheating, and breaking the rules, and they're outraged that Susan, or Julian Assange told the world when he found out.

Something comes to mind here. Something about cleaning your own house first, before chastising the other guy.

Terrorist located, encouraged, and then thwarted in Oregon

2010-11-27T12:07:00.003-05:00

While simultaneously shutting down the internet's music sharing sights, which is a great proof that the FBI doesn't need expanded powers in that fight, so Congress can shelve that legislation don't you think? The FBI also managed to "thwart" a bombing at the Portland Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony. I put thwart in quotations because they had long ago identified the suspect, and procured dummy explosives for him, and helped him build the bomb. It's unclear if the FBI also helped him drive the car, dress, and eat his last meal as a free man. They almost certainly had to help wipe his mouth.

Now, this 19 year old dolt, who apparently had the desire all by himself, but I wonder, was according to the article, which shows just how dumb Mohamed Osman Mohamud really is. First, he was identified by emailing a guy in Pakistan. Then the combined weight of every State, County, Federal law enforcement, including I think a couple Park Rangers were spun up to catch this lone lame lion.

So our extremely dangerous wannabe terrorist was so determined, that the FBI had to send in an undercover operative to hold this guys hand, and help him get the bomb making materials, and then show him how to put the explosives together. I think we've seen this kind of determination before.

Oh well, good job guys. You spent hundreds of thousands of man hours, hundreds of millions of dollars, to catch a dunce. The really good news, is that apparently the recruits our enemies are left to snatch up are even dumber than this dolt.

Birth or Not

2010-11-19T13:22:00.004-05:00

I was reading the links on Drudge Report this afternoon, and found among the links to stories about the TSA groping the population in a way that has every closet case unidentified sexual predator salivating and applying for jobs at the local airports another story worth mention.

The story is this. A couple has learned that they are Pregnant, and are facing the decision to have the child, obviously unplanned, or abort the fetus. So being the modern era, they started a blog, and have put the decision up to the people who read the blog via a vote.

Now, I'm a Conservative, and as a Conservative, feel that life is a gift we should honor and respect. Thus, I am going to shock many of you when I give you this answer. Abort that fetus.

I know, Adoption is a good answer, but if a couple is so flaky that they would even consider putting this decision up to voters on a blog, can you count on them to follow through on a promise to give the child up for adoption?

We are talking about a life, a child. One who is going to be dependent upon them for years. The level of care for a child is extremely high, and if the child in question means so little, you would put it's existence up to a vote online, you should not be a parent.

At the moment, a vast majority of the votes are for giving birth, but I would expect as you do, that most of those votes are for give birth, and give up for adoption. Just from reading the story, and the blog, I would have serious questions if this couple is suited for caring for a child. Perhaps we could substitute something else for a child, like a fish, perhaps a Beta fish. It won't take up much space, and care for it should take less than an hour a week. If they manage to keep the fish alive for a set period of time, say six weeks, we'll let them move up the chain to a more difficult pet, like a Hamster.

Of course, that may well be cruelty to animals, so perhaps we shouldn't do that after all.

Perhaps I should start another vote, all those in favor of taking the child, and giving these parents a goldfish say "Aye".

EDIT: My previous mentions of Abortion are here.

Good to see, keep it up

2010-11-11T14:12:00.002-05:00

The resistance to and disgust with the buck nekkid scanners and the groping of the TSA employees continues to spread, and gather steam.

Concerns about privacy, concerns about health risks, and absolute outrage at having our children groped by the TSA employees under the guise of security is spreading like wildfire.

Several organizations have sprouted up to help organize resistance to this so called security measure. Nudeoscope, Don't scan us, and Stop Digital Strip Searches.

I won't fly as long as these security regulations are in place. I won't fly as long as my individual liberty and safety is so casually tossed aside, and those who object are harassed and threatened so blatantly.

Revolt begins against Airport Security

2010-11-08T13:49:00.003-05:00

Those airport scanners that I have long railed against, which is available here, here, here, and here. Not to mention the most recent post which showed the abusive pat downs which seemed to focus on the sexual areas of the subjects bodies which was a small part of this post.

Well, the revolt has begun. Not only are people like me, and many others like me, refusing to fly primarily due to the invasive searches supposedly for our own security, but now the Airplane Pilots are refusing to participate in the full body scanners. That just means that they'll have to endure the groping hands of the so called security professionals.

This follows the great news a few months ago of the European Airports refusing to allow the privacy invading full body scanners to be used.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I last flew over a year ago, when my Mother was on life support in Intensive Care. I hated every moment of it. The moronic security regulations did not make me feel safer, and in fact, none of the airplane attempts have been foiled by these security regulations. Seriously, the shoe bomber was foiled by passengers, not the multiple layers of security who all asked him diligently if he'd packed his own bags. The security was probably busy patting down preteen girls and boys or little old ladies instead. The panty bomber was similarly foiled by passengers after his explosive mix mis fired and created a crotch fire that made all the jock itch in the world seem minor.

None of the hundreds of thousands of special agents, spies, computer analysts, and security specialists were of any use in these cases. They did prevent Joe Foss, famed World War II combat pilot from taking his Medal of Honor on the airplane for your safety.

If you want to be safer, the very first thing we should do is fire everyone, from top, to bottom, at the Transportation Security Administration. I think the airports can do the job just as poorly, without all the overly intrusive nonsense, using the same airport police who now stand around watching the TSA fools rummage through the attractive women's carry on luggage.

UPDATE: Instead of starting another new post on the abuses of the inaptly named TSA, I decided to include a couple more links here.

First, the TSA swears they're not fondling, or groping, despite the pictures, and reports that show contact that could be described no other way.

Flight Attendants say they are tired of being groped.

And finally we have the story of a passenger who objected to being groped being handcuffed to a chair, and her ticket destroyed in retaliation for her belief her body is hers.

Overbearing Law Enforcement

2010-11-08T09:18:00.002-05:00

Recently, Mrs. Conservative and I were discussing Law Enforcement, and how overbearing and thuggish the police have become. We discussed things we've seen, like just about ever Black man in an expensive car being pulled over. We talked about Airport Security thugs doing things that would get anyone else thrown in jail.

We talked about how the Black Community is regularly treated like criminals, Guilty until Proven Innocent. How their treatment is significantly different than the Whites at the hands of law enforcement. My beloved wife said that this was outrageous, and I agree. After all, it is the 21st Century, and the lame excuses from the Police are wearing thin.

So today I learn that back in August, Florida Police began checking to see if Barbers had their licenses, in Black barber shops. First they swarmed the establishment, placed all the barbers on the ground, in handcuffs, got the customers out of the barbershop, and then demanded that the barbers admit to dealing drugs, and other major offenses. Those who's license's were expired were arrested, and taken to jail. Seriously, I'm not making that up. Arrested for an expired barber's license.

Jobs tour off to great start.

2010-11-08T09:01:00.002-05:00

President Obama's jobs world tour is off to a great start. Just today, Harley Davidson, the American Icon, and darling of the Buy American crowd, announced they'll be building a factory in India to manufacture motorcycles. Sort of like Cash for Clunkers, jobs are being created all right.

The second part of his historic Roman Caesar tour with half a dozen passenger planes, five thousand local police, and coconuts removed for his safety, is that he wants India to have a place as a permanent member of the Security Council. You know, with Great Britain, France, China, Russia, and the US. That way we could have another veto power there to make sure even less gets done. Outstanding plan Mr. President. Can I suggest some other potential permanent members?

Does anyone at the White House actually spend a tenth of a second considering things before they're enacted?

Why I don't feel bad supporting O'Donnell

2010-11-02T19:37:00.002-05:00

My friends, I don't feel bad having sent money to the O'Donnell campaign, because of one simple reason. I have said it before, and I'll say it again. I would rather have a Democrat in the seat than a RINO. The reason is obvious, a RINO we can't do much about, they will betray us, take our plans and destroy them all in the name of moderation. We can't do anything about it, until it's time to beat them in the Primary.

Yet, a Democrat, we can defeat. We can defeat them, make them part of the Minority, if not this election, then in 2012. We can defeat them, and marginalize them, and take their power from them. A RINO we can't do anything about as they constantly betray our principals. Ask Senator Snowe, or any of the others like Lindsey Graham. Republicans who support Cap and Trade, despite it's effect on our economy. Republicans who support Amnesty, and call us Racists for not joining them in their support for something that 70% of the nation opposes.

No, I'll take an honest defeat, over a bad victory any day. Give me forty good solid Conservatives, and I'll be much happier than I would be with fifty Republicans, twelve of whom are RINO's in the Senate.

Whooping Cough

2010-10-28T08:51:00.003-05:00

For years, I've advocated an Ellis Island approach to immigration. I've posted that we should have that kind of processing center that would confirm the criminal history, and most importantly the health of the prospective immigrant to the nation.

Now, we've talked about diseases around the world. Dengue Fever, and many others including polio. Yet we are told that we are xenophobic racist pigs for even suggesting that some of these poor people might be bringing a disease across the border.

Today's story is Whooping Cough, you know, that fatal infection that was essentially eradicated here in the good old USA. We quit immunizing against it because we had wiped it out forty years ago.

Unfortunately, other nations haven't wiped it out, and many of those darned undocumented workers are bringing diseases to our fair land that we haven't had to deal with in a very long time. Dengue fever in Florida this year, no worries, probably had nothing to do with immigration.

When will Politically Correct Liberals stop risking the public health of the citizens of all nations in an effort to fool the Latino Population into voting for Democrats?

Obama determined to make the rich pay.

2010-09-08T01:48:00.002-05:00

Hot Air has the story where President Obama will not extend the Bush Tax Cuts on those making more than $250,000 a year. Those are the people we call the employers. I posted before about how bad an idea punishing the rich really was. To recap that post, if you punish the rich, they don't buy things, and that means we aren't hired to make the things.

Translation, unemployment that has been unexpectedly high for years now, will remain unexpectedly high. Unexpected is the word they whip out every week to describe the continuing bad news. Right now, the only people who can honestly use the word Unexpected to describe the continuing bad news on the economy are people who have serious memory problems and should be institutionalized for their own protection, as in 50 first dates.

So President Obama, continuing to do all he can to make the economy worse, is now going to raise taxes on those people who would otherwise hire people and buy things, that means more people get hired.

That means for you and I, that the trickle down depression will continue trickling like Niagara Falls. More jobs will continue being lost unexpectedly each week, and unemployment which in some states has securely settled in double digits, will continue moving unexpectedly higher.

So the question is, why would President Obama do this? The answer is that he really has no clue how the economy works.

You have the right to the illusion of privacy

2010-08-24T13:51:00.002-05:00

Of course, any thoughts about complaining about the right to privacy, and we'll arrest you before the crime is committed.

Where to start. First, those invasive body scans that are keeping us from going to the airport? Well those scanners are now all over the roads, scanning other vehicles. Seriously.

Now, if that wasn't something that made you feel sorrow for your lost rights. Let's take a look at the decision to deploy new computers that predict when crimes will be committed. Of course, the obvious comparisons to the movie Minority Report are going on.

The computer doesn't say a burglary will happen, it says that this individual is probably a criminal, and gives a percentage calculated to determine how likely the person is to commit another crime. This information can then be used to determine parole, probation, and bond issues. It can help parole officers give additional attention to people who the computer consider to be high risk.

Here's a hint. If you spend all day following a guy around, eventually he's going to get annoyed, and deck you. Then he's committed a crime of assaulting a police officer, and the computer is proven right. The term self fulfilling prophecy comes to mind. Between the two of these stories, one has to wonder if we have any privacy left in this world. Apparently, the only things the Government didn't know, was the thoughts in your own head, and now they have a computer program that attempts to predict that information.

What a world. What a depressing world.

Americans eat too much

2010-08-16T01:30:00.003-05:00

We've heard how Americans are too fat, and apparently, Congress thinks so too. They're cutting food stamps to fund the First Lady's "Let's Move" initiative to help America lose weight. By reducing the amount of food available for people to eat, they hope to significantly reduce the numbers of overweight Americans. Democrats, they'll tell you about food with a program about nutrition, but they won't actually give you any food to eat.

This reminds me of the Dumpster Diving program for the homeless. Instead of feeding the homeless, they spent tens of thousands of dollars creating a video to show at homeless shelters, so people would know what kinds of food found in the dumpsters was safe to eat.

So welcome to the Democrats health program, first our starvation diet, we're going to insure you starve, because we don't want you to have any food.

This from the same party that thinks it's a good idea to turn food into gasoline.

But he's a cop isn't he?

2010-08-15T06:20:00.002-05:00

There is a lot of news lately, and most of it isn't good. I stumbled across this story while browsing the Democratic Underground to see how the Liberals liked being called names by another Democrat. That they weren't happy is a given, but my attention was focused on this story instead.

A Cincinnati Police Officer who was assigned to the Canine unit, left his narcotics detecting dog in the police car while responding to a family emergency. The dog died from being neglected in the car from the heat.

If you or I had done this, and the police found out, we would have been arrested on the spot for Animal Cruelty. No excuse would have prevented the arrest. Our wives could have been on their last hour on earth, and we would still be on our way to jail for Animal Cruelty.

If we had somehow sabotaged the police car so the engine would quit and the dog died from the heat, we would have been charged with murdering a police dog. In some states, the punishment for that is the same as murdering a police officer.

Now, the police officer in question has been placed on administrative leave, while the incident is under investigation. So for not doing his job, seeing to the safety and comfort of his assigned partner, he is paid now not to do his job.

One of my recent blog posts was about Police Officers dying from failing to wear their seatbelts. Now they're killing each other in a manner of speaking. The agreement between human, and animal is one of trust and partnership. We want the acute senses of the animal to assist us. They can detect trace elements of narcotics if properly trained. They can detect explosives, or find an fleeing suspect if so trained. These animals save lives. Find criminals, and detect dangerous items. That is their part of the agreement. Our part is to care for them, and always remember that their trust can't be taken lightly.

This officer had a family emergency. His six year old son needed emergency medical treatment. I understand that desire, the desire to see your family safely through the situation. However, how hard would it have been to leave the car running? After learning the situation with your son, couldn't he have made a phone call and said. "My police car is running outside of St. Francis Hospital, and Juno is inside. Can someone from the office come get her? I'm going to be tied up for a couple days with this."

He had to report that he was en route to the Hospital for the family emergency. He had to report that he was out of service with a family matter. He had to do these things, they're normal and natural for all police to call on the radio and report what's going on. Why didn't he add. "Juno is in the car, and someone needs to come get her and take her to the Boarding facility." I know they have to have one. He takes vacations doesn't he? There has to be a plan in case he's injured or sick and unable to care for the canine. Why didn't that plan go into effect?

The articles I've read don't say it, but I'm given to understand the child will recover. I'm gratified to hear that. Now, the question is this. When will the officer be charged with Animal Cruelty. I'm certain that the Assistant Chief of Police wouldn't be discussing Mr. John Smith's tragic family situation if Fluffy had died in the car outside of a Hospital while Mr. Smith was dealing with a Family Emergency. They would be discussing the arrest of Mr. Smith who was charged with Animal Cruelty. Doesn't Juno deserve some Justice?

Kudos to Rep. Boehner

2010-08-11T05:20:00.003-05:00

Love this one. He's suggesting names for the Stimulus II act that the Democrats are pushing through the house this week.

The Porkulus II hasn't got a name. It's literally a blank line. So Rep. Boehner held a press conference and suggested the following names.

-- Save Our ‘Stimulus’ (SOS) Act
-- ‘Recovery Summer’ Bailout Act (Cash for Flunkers)
-- Delivering Unions a Major Boost (DUMB) Act
-- Helping Election Expenditures, Hurting American Workers (HEEHAW) Act
-- Democracy is Strengthened by Clearly Leveraging and Optimizing Special-Interests’ Effectiveness (DISCLOSE) Act
-- Holding Union Bosses Over Until Card Check Act
-- Rescuing Incumbent Democrats Is Costly (RIDIC) Act
-- Summertime Cash for Union Bosses Instead of Spending Cuts for Taxpayers Act
-- Frivolous Act of Ineffective Largesse (FAIL) Act
-- Naming These Things Hasn’t Gotten Us Anywhere, So Why Bother? Act

Kudos Sir, for suggesting names that are accurate and entertaining.

Timely argument again.

2010-08-07T19:51:00.002-05:00

Last night, I wrote a piece about Hiroshima and Nagasaki where I concluded that dropping the bomb on Japan was the right thing to do. Today, Greg Mitchell writes in the Huffington Post that the use of the bomb was indefensible.

His argument is that without the use of the bomb, Japan would have surrendered in a few weeks anyway. That position is problematic to say the least, when you look at the history.

The Japanese realized that an atomic bomb had been used on them at Hiroshima. Yet, they did not react to the Potsdam declaration, instead asking the Russians to represent them to the other allies, and maintain the four points of Japanese Surrender, which included the preservation of the Emperor as the absolute ruler of Japan. That was unacceptable. That there be no occupation force in Japan, again unacceptable, and no occupation of Japanese occupied land including Formosa, and Korea, again unacceptable that the Japanese would be able to keep these conquered lands. Finally, the Japanese demanded the right to address "war crimes" with internal trials and determinations. In other words, the Japanese Government still demanded to be allowed to remain unpunished for the war, and left alone to prepare for World War III as the Germans did between one and two.

Greg Mitchell further states that the only really contentious part of the Negotiations was the position of Emperor, which we let them keep. There is a big difference between a figurehead, with no authority legally, and a person with dictatorial powers. One that Mitchell apparently misses.

Additionally, the reports of children being issued bamboo spears are all too well know, would our troops merely taken the spears away and spanked the kids? No, they would have shot, and killed those children, the future of Japan, robbing the nation of any hope of rebuilding after the war. The Japanese would not accept the idea of barbarians ruling them, and even at the very end, after two Bombs had shown the destructive power now facing them, General Tojo refused to accept Surrender as a necessity. Moreover, the military attempted a coup to prevent the Surrender from taking place. This hardly sounds like the assertion of Greg Mitchell that the Japanese would have surrendered in a few weeks.

Yet, through this all, there is one thing that you must understand when approaching the end to the conflict in 1945. The Japanese Military was essentially in control of the country, and the Japanese Military believed it was far more honorable to die, than to surrender, which is why they felt justified abusing Prisoners of War, because those men had surrendered rather than die honorably.

The Military planned a defend the main island of Japan with a defend to the last order. So no civilian would have been spared. The Japanese Leaders were as determined as Hitler to see their own nation destroyed before they would admit defeat.

Do I still support the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as horrible, but necessary? Yes. The Emperor finally decided that the shame of defeat was something that could be endured by a nation, but stubborn defense in the face of these new weapons would be the end of the Japanese Culture, and people, forever. His forced decision saved many millions of lives of both the Japanese and Allied people. His decision allowed Japan to rebuild, and arise from the ashes as a technological giant, and a leader in world business and invention.

If we had not dropped the bomb, Japan would be a much weaker, and much less advanced nation than it is today. So let me repeat the germane questions. Was it horrible? Yes. Was it the only answer that saved Japan for the future? Yes.

By the way Greg, you might want to notice that the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on the 9th of August, even with that, the Emperor did not announce his intention to surrender for another week on the 17th of August. The final document was signed on the 2nd of September, almost a month after the first bomb was dropped.

Should we apologize?

2010-08-07T00:42:00.003-05:00

The news is full of the astounding fact that the United States is officially sending a representative to the Hiroshima memorial. Liberals love to apologize, for anything they didn't do. They apologize for Slavery, when they held no slaves, and freed no slaves. They apologize for anything and everything that they can, when they didn't do it. But they never apologize for usurping our rights like the 2nd Amendment. For some reason, even when they are later overturned by the court, they continue to do so.

So I was thinking about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and wondering what we should apologize for. We warned the Japanese that we would accept only unconditional surrender. We warned them that we would fight for total victory. We did not mention the bomb by it's name, and atomic bomb, but we said we would destroy Japan.

Japan was trying to negotiate, where there would be no post war occupation, no changes to the Japanese Government, and we would just have to trust the Japanese to disarm after the war.

History had shown us that this didn't work. Germany after World War I was allowed to self disarm, and all it did was cause a break in conflict lasting about twenty years. The only way we could see any hope that there wasn't another war in twenty more years was to make sure this victory was complete.

Much discussion has been centered around the estimates that an invasion of the Japanese Islands would have resulted in many millions of Japanese dead, and at least One Million American and other allies dead. Now, the Soviets had already lost a million men and women fighting Germany, and Germany had lost more than twice that number fighting the Russians, Americans, and English.

So were we wrong to drop the bomb? I don't think so. Was it horrible? Yes. Was it barbaric? Yes. Was it necessary? Yes. There is no way the American people would ever forgive Japan if we lost a Million troops taking the nation. Long before we got to that number, the order would have gone out in sheer self defense, for an absolute destruction of the Japanese homeland. In other words, killing every man, woman, and child in Japan.

On the day of Pearl Harbor, Admiral Halsey is quoted as saying that before he was done, Japanese would be spoken only in Hell. If the Japanese hadn't surrendered, that would have been the eventual outcome.

The Bomb destroyed many lives, we'll never know how many, but it finally convinced the Japanese rulers that further resistance was futile, and there was no hope of any sort of negotiated peace. Surrender was the only avenue open if they wished to have a Japanese people after the war.

Japan holds a dubious honor, the only people ever to have nuclear weapons used against them. If we hadn't seen the destruction first hand, if we didn't have those pictures showing the devastation we may well have started a World War III with the Soviets a few years later. However, the shock, and horror that was Hiroshima and Nagasaki were undeniable and both Military and Political leaders were forced to admit that that destruction would be the result of a Nuclear exchange.

Imagine for a moment, that we did not drop the bomb on Hiroshima. We would have paper estimates, and scenarios of destruction, but we wouldn't KNOW first hand what it would look like. Generals like McArthur would have considered the Atomic Bomb to be a useful Tactical, that is to say battlefield weapon. Korea almost saw the use of the Atomic bomb on a much larger scale, there were plans both before, and after McArthur that would have seen between thirty and forty bombs dropped on the battlefield. Thankfully, this didn't happen.

By Vietnam, it wasn't even really considered for Tactical Operations, we had become suitably horrified at the destructive power of the bomb. We did not want to start tossing them around like softballs, instead saving them for emergency Tactical, and most importantly Strategic options.

Yet they are still horrible. We know because of pictures like this. We know because we saw first hand what happens, we couldn't pretend it would be just fine and dandy to drop an atomic bomb. In a way, we humans had to learn the hard way. We had to childlike touch the pot of boiling water, to learn what hot is. We had to drop the bomb on humans, to see what true suffering and destruction was.

Am I sorry we dropped the bomb? No. Am I relieved we never again dropped another on people? You bet your butt I am. Am I prepared to drop another if, and only if it is the only way to guarantee victory, or destruction of a vital industry for an enemy? Yes. Am I prepared to Nuke Iran if, and only if, it is the only way to guarantee this repressive, and unstable nation is prevented from possessing such terrible weapons? Yes.

As horrible as the bomb is, there are things that are worse. The absolute annihilation of the Japanese people and culture would have been worse. The bombing of Iran would be bad, but it would be significantly worse to allow Iran to bomb any number of cities including but not limited to Jerusalem, and or any of our cities. If you want to make it a simple choice between you, and me, I choose you. Will I feel remorse? Probably not. You see, I'm comforted by this simple truth. I probably wouldn't feel any better about the situation if I was the one who was dead. Iran is too foolish to be allowed to have the bomb. They are too immature to be allowed to have it. They're like Truman and McArthur during Korea. They threaten everyone with the bomb. You don't do that anymore, because today, those threats carry a lot more weight. Today, people won't tolerate those threats.

Thankfully, the drop the bomb at the slightest whim crowd didn't win in Korea. Otherwise there would be an untold and inestimable number of cities that suffered the same fate as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Liberals are right, the weapons are horrible. Liberals are wrong, there are worse things than the bomb.

New Taxes to make Green reality

2010-08-06T02:34:00.002-05:00

The UN is calling on a Billion dollars in new taxes to continue to fund the transition away from Carbon Fuels and towards Green technology. In other words, all the money we're pouring into it already, and it's still not commercially viable.

On another site, I explained the history of trans ocean shipping to explain how and why older less efficient systems are no longer in use. Not because they were dirty, or dangerous, but because it was cheaper, and more PROFITABLE to use the newer systems.

First Man used oars, and then a combination of oars and wind to move his boat across the waters. This gave way to tall sailing ships, the square rigged ships of lore and legend. The days of Wooden Ships and Iron Men. Man switched to this system because it was possible to go much farther with a smaller crew than the oarsmen allowed. Wooden ships continued to get larger, more heavily armed, more heavily armored, and faster. However, the limitation they faced was wind. Revolutions appeared from time to time, style of sail, style of rigging, changes in the type of sails. However, the basic truth of their limitations was obvious. When there was no wind, there was no movement. If the wind opposed the ship, they were relegated to tacking into the wind, days were spent trying to go a few miles upwind.

Then coal fired steam engines were adapted to ship designs, and the first powered ships were invented. These had huge advantages in speed, and maneuverability. No longer were they limited by the wind, but by how much coal they could carry, and how fast they could shovel it into the fire. The old sailing ships were still around, but growing fewer and fewer in number as ship owners cast them aside in favor of powered transportation. It was economic, you could complete a distance faster, with fewer delays, with coal than you could with the power of wind alone.

By World War I, Coal fired ships were giving way to the new technology. This was oil fired boilers. These boilers took an hour or so to light, but once lit, were easy to maintain, with fewer workers, and far more powerful and reliable than coal fired ships.

By the time World War II came about, the standard was these oil fired ships, but there was a new energy source on the horizon. Diesel. Submarines and smaller ships used Diesel engines to power them through the water. Diesel Submarines were essentially our only real offensive arm after Pearl Harbor in the Pacific. These Submarines powered by these engines were able to range from Hawaii to Japan, stay on station for a month or so, and then return clear across the Pacific again for more supplies.

After the War, Oil and Diesel were both used, as Diesel wasn't suitable yet for large oceangoing ships, like the Air Craft Carriers. We wanted bigger ships, but the Oil Fired Boilers just weren't capable of handling it. Then, we discovered Nuclear, and the size of our ships was no longer limited by how much oil we could carry. Submarines could sail underwater indefinitely, limited only by the crews and their need for food and eventual maintenance.

Today, most large ships are powered by either Diesel engines, or Jet Turbine type engines, as well as the standard Nuclear Power for military vessels. Today's modern ships use giant Diesel engines, that are more efficient and powerful than anything in our history for commercial shipping. It's amazing when you see how large these engines really are. One of the largest, the Emma Maersk is also one of the most efficient. They channel the exhaust through radiators, transferring the heat to steam turbines, which provide additional electrical power to the ship. They use silicon based paint to decrease drag.

In other words, that ship combines all we currently know about building large ocean crossing ships to operate with maximum efficiency. Notice there are no solar panels, or silly little wind turbines. This is a working ship, meant to move a heck of a lot of cargo as quickly as possible, while keeping costs as low as possible per trip.

Now, you want to replace Diesel, because it's dirty, and creates Carbon Dioxide. Here is your challenge. Make the new system as reliable as Diesel, and make it as efficient as Diesel. Now, make it MORE efficient and cheaper to run than Diesel is for ships, and you've licked the Green power problem.

Yet, the greenies can't manage to get to that part. They come up with complicated electric driven systems, that are quasi reliable, in the short term. They take up more space, and still require Diesel as a generator back up for when the sun isn't shining, or the wind isn't blowing.

So what are our options? Fuel Cells? Perhaps, but they're more expensive and Hydrogen is a little tricky to store, and oh yeah, it's just not available in large quantities that a ship would need at every port it's liable to arrive at. That it's extremely flammable is well known, as everyone knows the story of the Hindenburg. One little spark and the whole ship could well blow up much the same way.

So are the Greenies coming up with technology that is cheaper and more efficient? The answer is no, the systems they're coming up with are more expensive, far more expensive, and far less efficient. Ethanol for example, is actually not helping burn much less gasoline at all. You burn more as you get worse mileage from the Ethanol blend, so you have to buy more gasoline/ethanol. That means that we're burning a tiny bit less gasoline, but we're turning our food into fuel, which is asinine no matter how you try to explain it. I would like to be here in two hundred years when school kids are learning about that folly. I would really like some of these ethanol fanatics to explain to the future why we were starving people all over the world, so we could feel good about our gasoline.

Ethanol has to have subsidies, which means that the Federal Government pays the makers to get the Ethanol. In other words, if they weren't paid money from the Federal Government, your Gasoline would be about six bucks a gallon to include the mandated ethanol. Is it better yet?

Well at least we reduced those nasty greenhouse gases. We have to do this to save the planet the Greenies say. Yes, we reduced those greenhouse gases 1/19th of 1%. Yes, you read that right. We reduced Greenhouse gasses by .19% and it only cost us $7 billion in 2005.

So they can't make a more efficient system, and they can't make a more reliable system, and they can't make a cheaper system. So the answer is to make the current systems more expensive with those new taxes, thus driving the costs up artificially, to make the newer less efficient systems seem competitive. In other words, they have to LIE to make Green a reality with the current technology.

Police Seatbelt Usage

2010-08-05T05:24:00.004-05:00

How many times have we seen it. A police officer not wearing his seatbelt, while he watched for a chance to ticket someone for not wearing theirs. We could start an entire blog on stories of police failing to follow the very laws they enforce upon us, but for this entry, I'll try and stick with the news story I read and wanted to pass along.

Police officers not wearing their seatbelt while driving an automobile. It turns out that the various laws supposedly passed to save our lives, which make seatbelt use compulsory under penalty of fines, aren't being followed by the police with the predictable results. Yes, the number of police officers who have died in the "line of duty" is increasing, even in single car accidents, which means they don't run into, or aren't run into by another car. In 24% of those accidents, the occupant of the car was ejected, read that to mean thrown clear of the car during the crash, thus demonstrating quite definitively that the officer was not wearing his seatbelt.

Now, the snickers about hypocrisy aside, lets discuss this as a cost to the community. Besides the loss of a rather expensive automobile purchased by the taxpayer, we have the cost of training a replacement officer, the lost expense of training the now deceased officer, and the cost of the life insurance.

If the officer is only injured, then we the taxpayer may well be stuck paying for that officer for life in the vein of disability. Is that fair? Line of duty to me means that you are doing what you're supposed to be doing. In other words, you're doing the job the way you're supposed to, in obedience to policy, regulations, and laws pertaining to whatever action you are currently engaged in. If you are responding to an armed robbery, your response should be within clearly defined departmental policies, regulations, and the applicable state and local laws for your actions.

If your death or disability results from your failure to follow policy, procedures, or laws, should the taxpayer be stuck with the expense? I find it hard to believe but the answer from most people would be to excuse the blatant stupidity of the police in this matter. I say blatant stupidity, because that is the way I have long characterized those who don't use seatbelt's. I'm opposed to laws which mandate their usage, under the belief that a fool will find a way to mangle himself without my attention. However, I remember when those laws were being debated, police officers talked about how tired they were of responding to and cleaning up fatal traffic accidents in which a seatbelt could have saved the lives of the occupants of the cars.

Yet, now, some thirty years later, the police are the ones not wearing their seatbelts, because I can only assume they want to be ready to leap from the car in foot pursuit of a bad guy. How long does it take to unfasten a seatbelt? When you're in pursuit of a vehicle, are you really serving the citizenry by being untethered to the car?

It's a shame that we're not allowed to take a photograph of the police officer not wearing his seatbelt, and thus endangering him or herself, on the roads in direct violation of the law, and see that the officer is similarly fined. I think it's the height of irresponsibility for police to operate a vehicle without a seatbelt, and further feel that any accidents or injuries should be excluded from "line of duty" coverage.

Chris Christie, Conservative

2010-08-04T21:04:00.002-05:00

I can think of no higher praise for an elected official. Conservative. I think that sums up all of what is wrong with the rest of the Republican Party, they aren't.

Of course, you can just imagine how the rest of the CCBB types in the Republican Party view Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey. Yep, they don't like him. He's so definite. He's so oddly out of touch, so determined not to be moderated. It's almost like he doesn't care what people think about him.

As near as I can tell, he doesn't. This profile on National Review is a good example. He campaigned on some principals, and when he got to the State Capital, he was told that those principals would have to go by the Democrats. They sauntered up, and handed him legislation to raise taxes on the rich, smirking I'm sure. They were stunned when he actually vetoed the legislation. After promising to be back, they stormed out of the office and went back to huddle.

Then he used the Line Item Veto to freeze salaries, reduce spending, and get this, cut programs nearly to the bone. The Democrats were outraged, and frankly, unsure what to do. They tried the usual, protests. Christie didn't care. They shouted at him, and called him names, and told him how hard they all work for that paycheck. His answer, if you don't like what I'm doing, quit. I don't care.

So what you have is a Politician, who believes in right, and wrong. Who believes in honest, hard work, and smaller less intrusive Government. You have a Governor who has slashed the budget, and insisted that the Teachers chip in a few bucks every month towards their own Health Benefits, and freeze their pay to help make up the shortfalls of the State Budget. He's annoyed and upset everyone. His approval numbers are about where President Obama's are. Yet, there is a big difference.

You see, President Obama and the Democrats are selling this nations future to anyone who can buy bonds at steadily increasing prices, while Governor Christie is placing New Jersey on sound financial footing, and only doing what they can afford to do. The difference is obvious to anyone with a modicum of logic or common sense. In one, the future of the country hangs in the balance of a unsustainable and unsupportable series of additional entitlements that will be nearly impossible for the Washington Elite to reverse because they're afraid of being called meanies. On the other hand, in New Jersey, the future is looking brighter, because the State Government is moving towards a sustainable and sound financial future. No more running out of cash, no more juggling the books to make the state look better.

The difference is obvious, lies versus truth. The lie is that we can afford Obamacare, and all the other federal boondoggle plans. The truth is we should be slashing the budget, like New Jersey.

In ten years, New Jersey will be in a much better position as a Government, and a state, than the nation will be. Not because Governor Christie is a Republican, but because he doesn't care if you like him, love him, hate him, or loath him. Because he's going to do the right thing, for the people, for the state, and for the future. If you must hate him, hate him for doing what should have been done years ago, getting a runaway budget under control.

But they promised

2010-08-04T13:34:00.002-05:00

The Federal Government when they rushed to put the clothing penetrating X-rays in every nook and cranny they could, swore up and down that they weren't going to keep those images. They promised the American People that the images wouldn't be kept. We already knew that they were making off color comments about the images, we knew that because one of them got angry about it.

Now, it's come out that the Government IS keeping those buck nekkid pictures that they swore they wouldn't keep. What what were the odds of that happening?

Well most of us knew that it would happen, we read the procurement specs, which clearly stated that there must be a mechanism for storage of the images, and for high speed transfer of the images on the network.

But why aren't we surprised that they were lying again? Now, will anyone be fired for this? No. Will anyone be forced to resign in disgrace? No. Will they be promoted? Probably. Just to remind you of what kind of pictures we heard they will not be keeping, these totally innocuous pictures look something like this.

Start of the Appeals process

2010-08-04T01:08:00.003-05:00

The Federal Judge who is ruling on a motion from the Homosexual Community has announced that his decision will be handed down between 1pm and 3pm California time tomorrow.

The question, is if California's electoral decision by the population which passed Proposition Eight is unconstitutional. The motion claims that it violates the equal protection and due process clause of the Constitution.

The obvious answer is it doesn't really matter how the Judge decides this afternoon. If he rules against the motion, it will be moved to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals, which has the dubious honor of being the most overturned Court of Appeals in the land. If he rules in favor, the appeal of those who support the Prop 8 principal will be equally guaranteed. Whoever loses will appeal to the next step, which is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, as I'm not a betting man, I'll not be accepting wagers that the 9th will find a hidden Constitutional Right for Homosexuals to marry. We can also assume that is a given, since historically, the 9th has always found the Liberal side of the argument to be the Constitutional one in their opinion, which is probably why they're the most overturned court in the land.

At that time, it will go to the Supreme Court. How will the Supreme's find? I can bet that four of the Justices will almost certainly find in favor of the idea of Equal Protection extending to the right to marry anyone you want regardless of gender.

I can also see four Justices finding the opposite to be true, that Equal Protection does NOT extend to marriage.

How will it come down? Good question, and I don't know. Yet I can see this topic burning up the blogosphere and the news talk shows for the next several years while the various appeals work their way up to the Supreme Decision.

Interesting Primary night.

2010-08-04T00:41:00.003-05:00

A night of Primaries is winding down, and to summarize them, I'll say they're interesting.

First, Voters in Missouri have voted overwhelmingly to reject Obamacare. Granted that in all honesty, this is a merely symbolic vote, however, despite that, the people voted more than two to one in favor of blocking Obamacare in Missouri.

I guess the people didn't like what they found in there eh Nancy?

Another Incumbent has bitten the dust in the Primary. Representative Caroline Kilpatrick, mother of former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, and a dedicated Democrat, was defeated in the Primary election. Her problems mostly involve her equally dedicated defense of her son, who is serving a year and a half in prison for crimes committed while he was Mayor. He's also facing Federal Charges as more crimes are alleged from his tenure as Mayor.

What's in Obamacare?

2010-08-03T11:50:00.004-05:00

For a while, when the nation was debating Obamacare, horror stories of the Socialized Medicine follies flew around the Blogosphere and the general consensus was this. We didn't want anything to do with it.

So it's been a bit since we passed it, so do we know whats in it yet?

The topic of the 1099 forms has been addressed quite well by everyone except those who inflicted this abomination upon us. The Democrats to make sure that they didn't have to repeal it, brought it to the floor under a little known, and almost never used trick that required a 2/3 majority to pass the legislation. If only all legislation required such a majority, we could probably eliminate most of the damned foolish nonsense coming out of Washington. The trick failed to pass, because the Republicans wouldn't vote for this bill as it would raise taxes elsewhere to pay for the estimated $19 Billion that the dreamers in Washington claim will be collected with the 1099 requirement.

So we've had time to get into the 2,400 pages of the Obamacare law, and what's in there besides the 1099 requirement that will put an unknown and un-estimated number of businesses out of business?

Well, according to the people who have been looking into it, Obamacare only looks worse the more you look into it. Now, the Democrats consider this to be an exceptionally good piece of legislation. Something to take home and present to the voters for re-election. How bad can it be? Well, this chart shows you the interlocking, intertwined, Byzantine regulatory and oversight monstrosity that has been created in those 2,400 pages of legislation. I would post a snapshot of the chart here, but it's so complex, that the small picture can't possibly do it justice. Follow the link, and then try and figure out how many levels of No you'll have to go through to get some needed procedure done.

The really great news for you Seniors, you'll no longer have to worry about those pesky problems associated with getting old. Thanks to Obamacare cutting over $529 Billion from Medicare, your age related problems will probably go from annoying and difficult, to deadly in the next year or so. Interestingly, your deaths will come from lack of care, right about when the Estate Tax is slammed back into full effect, so the Government won't miss out on any of your life's earnings, even as you miss out on your life.

Well the good news is that there isn't a Death Panel right? Actually, there are two. The law creates two new bureaucracies with powers to impose future rationing: the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Independent Payments Advisory Board.

Well what kind of care can we expect from the socialized medicine that the rest of the world is looking to eliminate? Here's a couple more horror stories for you from such enlightened countries that already have versions of Obamacare. In the first, a man sews his own leg up after being ignored in the treatment room for over an hour. He's looking at a possible criminal complaint for misuse of Hospital Property. It turns out the needle and thread they left in the room for that hour weren't actually supposed to be used to sew up the gash on his leg.

In our second story, a woman miscarries her baby in the waiting room of the hospital emergency room. Where she was sitting bleeding, and crying, for over three hours. Finally she left and went to another Hospital where she was informed that she'd miscarried her baby. No word yet if she misappropriated Hospital Property by using the chair to miscarry her baby.

What I don't understand is why the Republicans aren't running on this simple platform issue. "If elected, and we have the majority, the very first piece of legislation we will send to the Senate from the House is the complete repeal of Obamacare. We will attach it as a rider to every single piece of legislation we send to the President, and we will keep the pressure up to repeal this legislation no matter how long it takes."

But that's probably too definite for the Republicans. They're happy running on the time proven platform. "Any Body But Obama." It worked so well for John F. Kerry, who served in Viet-Nam, in 2004.

Arianna Huffington tries to get Palin

2010-08-02T21:43:00.000-05:00

I've said it before about Sarah Palin, and I'll say it again. Nobody sends the left wing off into a frothing tizzy fit faster than Sarah Palin. It's amazing. I used to think they were rabidly hate filled about Rush Limbaugh, but he's rapidly turning into your Father's Buick. Ann Coulter used to get this kind of reaction, especially when she would say kind things about Senator Joe McCarthy.

But these days, Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and many more are out of the spotlight of hatred the left shines on their favorite.

Today's example is from Arianna Huffington, the Gulfstream Eco nut and Limousine Liberal of fame and legend.

Arianna has started to wonder if perhaps Sarah Palin is the PR Genius that the left has said she isn't. Of course, she is quick to point out that Sarah Palin has no policy positions, and is merely a shallow individual who couldn't ever be a serious candidate. However, she worries that you and I, the people, would be so disgusted and distrustful of the wise career politicians that we might actually vote for someone who has such great PR skills despite the absolute lack of policy or positions that would doom any other candidate.

Now Arianna, I have to wonder. What about Sarah's policies don't you understand. Sarah is against Big Government growing bigger, and more powerful, and more controlling. So it seems according to the polls are about 70% of the people. Do you need specifics about what parts of the Federal Government are too big? How about a thousand contractors, organizations, and departments involved in Homeland Security? How about a dozen levels of redundancy for the School Lunch program?

We've seen Sarah Govern. She rejected the status of the privileged few that most Politicians would embrace. She dumped the jet from Alaska, and she put legislation and contracts that the State was considering out where the people, you know, you, me, commonly called the people, could read it easily. We've seen that she resigned a powerful position rather than perform an unethical action as directed by those she owed her position to.

We've seen her take a pay cut as Mayor, when the previous Mayor fought to make sure he got a Pay Increase.

We've seen her stand up and blast the destined to pass ObamaCare, and hang a brilliant and accurate label on the inevitable committee that will have to exist to allocate diminished supplies to increasing demand.

We've seen all of that, and you have to ask what her policies are? Perhaps you're not quite as bright as you pretend. Perhaps you can read a white paper, but can't read the newspaper. We know she's in favor of securing the borders, since she says that President Obama doesn't have the guts (polite version of the word she used) to tackle immigration.

Arianna, do you know what the big problem with the Left is regarding people like Sarah Palin? It's that they act, instead of talk. Liberals talk about what someone else should do about a problem. They talk about what we (which never means them) have to do to address the problem. Liberals like you Arianna, park your Yachts where they won't be taxed. Liberals like you take private jets while complaining about the little people using too much gasoline in their SUV's and destroying the planet. People like Sarah, act on their beliefs, and since you Liberals only ever pretend to act on a belief, you think she's merely a Brilliant PR machine, cranking out phrases that resonate with the gullible public.

The more you Liberals try to understand her, the more you clearly show how shallow and you all are.

Nobel Prize winning Economist concerned about economy

2010-08-02T17:08:00.002-05:00

Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winning economist, seriously, I wish I was making that up, is concerned suddenly about the lack of job growth. He doesn't understand why Congress and the President don't act. He doesn't understand how the Washington Elite don't address this when record high unemployment is becoming the new normal.

This noted LIBERAL economist hasn't ever met a tax he didn't like, and feels that Government Regulation is the answer to all the worlds ills. Yet, he doesn't understand why the economic job growth hasn't happened.

Sir, let me take a moment and see if I can explain. Let's say you are the head of a business instead of a paid blowhard at the NY Times. Now, Washington is gunning for you, passing huge regulations on you twice already, first in the form of the Obamacare which everyone now admits will result in skyrocketing costs for medical, that one day, perhaps in the far distant future, will level off. That means your cost to provide Medical to your employees is going to double, and perhaps even triple in the not too distant future. Would you add more expense to that situation by hiring people you don't really need right now? The answer is obviously NO.

Then there is the Wall Street Reform Law. This one on top of regulating the industry to the point where the banks will be little more than puppets of the Federal Government, also creates two dozen enforcement offices for the EEOC, so would you hire a bright young account executive if you have no idea how the EEOC regulations are going to be applied? Wouldn't you wait until you had an exact understanding of the hiring quota's placed upon your business before you hired anyone? I mean, you might get lucky and find a disabled black woman who happens to be a Veteran to work for you as a manager, but you might not. So you would reasonably wait, especially if you DIDN'T NEED ANYONE RIGHT NOW.

Perhaps you run a factory, but you aren't certain how the pending cap and trade, which is liable to be passed right after the November Elections via a Lame Duck Congress, will affect your business. Wouldn't you wait to see what happens before you invest the time, and substantial money to hire someone until you KNEW what the future regulations from a regulation happy Government will be?

So what happened to your trillion dollar Stimulus? I'll tell you. It was a boon to Government, hiring clearly showed that seventy percent of the jobs created were Government jobs. They paid teachers and hired more teachers, despite the fact of lower school enrollments nationwide. They paid Unions for doing what they usually do, little or nothing. They funded every pet project of every special interest and in the end, they got exactly what we predicted when they passed the Porkulus. They got a slight bump in the economy, which didn't really stimulate anything.

Now, in a few short months, taxes are going up across the board. The poorest among us will see their taxes increase by 50%. Earlier I posted the HISTORICAL proof that Higher taxes always equal lower collections by the IRS. Yet, you as a Nobel Winning Economist don't understand that simple factual truth.

Mr. Krugman, apparently you don't know economics very well after all, and thanks to you, I now have even more reason to treat the highly lauded term "Nobel Prize winning" with even greater derision.

History Proves Conservatives Right on Taxes.

2010-08-02T04:08:00.002-05:00

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article, one that goes into far more detail than my own reading on the subject. I know of course, and have quoted many times the historical fact of President Kennedy's tax cut results. I know and have quoted many times how President Reagan's tax cuts led to a doubling of collected taxes during a ten year period. You read that right, in 1980, the IRS collected roughly $500 Billion. In 1990, the same IRS collected roughly $1 Trillion.

I know the historical anecdotal evidence against high taxes. I know that the Luxury Taxes of the 1990's caused entire segments of our population to lose their jobs. Senator Kennedy claimed that the rich would be paying their fair share finally.

However, the Rich took their money, and bought their yachts elsewhere. The boat building industry in Senator Kennedy's state suffered an 88% decline in sales and service. Even these days, those high taxes are avoided like the plague, like with Senator Kerry who was just outed for parking his Yacht in Rhode Island where there are no taxes.

I learned from this article that this historical example trends much farther back into history than I thought. It goes all the way back to the Great Depression. President Hoover thought it would be a good idea to tax the nation into prosperity. It didn't work obviously. History clearly demonstrates that high taxes are never a good thing for the economy, and never raise the funds that the Politicians claim they will. Instead, we see whole industries wiped out in an effort to get the Rich to "Pay their fair share."

The article points out that under our current taxes, the riches 1% of wage earners are paying about 3.3% of the Gross Domestic Product in taxes. Yes, that's right. I had to read it twice myself before I grasped it. In other words, 3.3% of what every single person, business, corporation, earns in this nation, is paid in taxes by the richest 1%.

So as Nancy Pelosi and President Obama tell us that the Rich aren't paying their fair share, think about this. How much less will they be paying when like Senator Kerry they take their funds or assets to another location where they're not going to be taxed so highly.

The nation of St. Kitts and Nevis has very liberal citizenship opportunities for those with the money, you have to wonder how many of our nations wealthy will be relocating to a nation like that instead of being blamed for their success here.

Obama's grades falling

2010-08-01T12:47:00.002-05:00

In December 2009, just a few short months ago, President Obama gave himself a grade of B+ in an interview with Oprah. Now, during an interview, remember, just a few short months later, President Obama states that his grade is "incomplete" at present.

Of course, a few short months ago, the Press tended to repeat the party line that the Recession was over, and that all was going swimmingly here in the great old US of A. People still hadn't started to believe that the Obamacare would try and kill them, that belief came later.

So why would the President fall from a B+ to an incomplete? Normally Incomplete is a term used when either you've failed to attend class, or you've failed to participate in class. For President Obama, it may be a little of both.

As for failing to attend class, Perhaps it's that he's cutting class to go play golf? He's played more rounds of Golf than President Bush did in eight years in office. Perhaps it's that he's on vacation a lot. Even the liberal Fact Check sight admits that he has been on vacation more than nearly every other President, and that was just during his first year. Remember GW Bush's first year was pretty easy, until 9-11. The economy was doing OK, there weren't any wars yet, and his victory was too narrow for Washington to admit he had a mandate, so legislative work was difficult to say the least.

So perhaps this bit of honesty from President Obama, that he feels he's earned the grade of Incomplete is accurate. Of course, the real reason that people are graded Incomplete, is so they don't get an F. In a way, it's sort of like saying that he hasn't even done enough to earn an F on his report card.

America's Math Wars

2010-08-01T04:34:00.002-05:00

Townhall has an article that kind of struck home today. It involves something that I have learned to respect a great deal, and that is Math. I have previously posted about how my own shaky foundation and understanding of math was a problem that I had to overcome despite my teenaged certainty that I wouldn't ever use it. I learned the truth, and have made an effort to tell todays kids that everything is math. Math is the foundation of logical thought, and math is involved in every job you may get in the future. I almost wrote nearly every job, but I can't think of a single job, or a single thing in life where Math won't play some part.

The article outlines the current high goals of California's educational system regarding Math. It calls on the sincere attempt to have every student in Algebra by the time they reach the 8th grade. I should point out, I was taking Algebra in the 11th Grade, and nearly flunked it.

California is thinking about adapting the Federal Standard pushed by President Obama, which would set lower goals for the students, but infuse some $700 million into the school systems. Now, obviously, you want the money to pay teachers etc. However, don't you also want your students to have as much of a foundation as possible to prepare them for the future?

One line in the article sums up the reality of the current educational mess.

So it was no surprise when Stanford University math professor James Milgram found that the number of California State University students who needed remedial math had more than doubled, from 23 percent in 1989 to 54 percent in 1997.

Half of the students at the University needed remedial Math classes. They didn't have the bare minimum math skills needed to attend the University. So with this abomination in our recent history, why would anyone even consider lowering the standards further, instead of pushing math harder?

Because, math is one of those things that is like Colonel Colt's pistol, is a great equalizer. So when a Politician explains that the Legislation will work, you just have to understand high number math, the people in the crowd do understand, and know it's a lie.

I won't write that stupid statement, that I wished I had studied Math harder when I was in school. Because I doubt that I would have, as at that time I was a Teenaged Rebel without a clue. However, I'm glad that someone around me knew math, and could teach me as I moved into the real world, and I'm certainly glad that I was lucky enough to have people who would teach me what I should have already known.

Social Security, probably not for you.

2010-08-01T01:43:00.002-05:00

Social Security, the Ponzi Scheme of American Politics, is highlighted in todays NY Times. The so called Newspaper of Record, which usually spends its time explaining how Conservatives are really all racist, sexist, homophobic, hate filled, horrible people, is today explaining how you individually should prepare for the day when Social Security isn't going to be there.

You know, that day that would never come according to the Liberals? Remember Paul Krugman telling us that there was no crisis in Social Security? Well, there is a problem, one that anyone could see a mile off. And that problem is getting closer every day, and as usual, Politicians have no desire to fix the problem until it's too late.

So the NY Times today is advising you to start thinking about your retirement without Social Security. You know, that thought pattern that they claimed was merely scare tactics when President Bush proposed changes to avoid the crisis all together.

It is a crisis. A crisis of our own making. A crisis of our own inaction, and our own determination to refuse to see the truth, that nobody gets something for nothing. So instead of learning from our Ponzi Scheme that is destined to fail, we add more and more social programs to the Ponzi Scheme under the assumption that money grows on trees, and we'll pay for it later.

Our National Debt is greater than the Gross National Product. That means that if the Government collected every single dollar made, earned, or saved, that they still wouldn't be able to pay the debt. So we spend more, and more, and more, because for some reason, our elected and appointed leaders haven't figured out that there are two parts to the science of book keeping. There is income, and outgo. In other words, that which you earn, and that which you spend. Being politicians, they're really good at spending, but not so good at budgeting.

So now the NY Times thinks you should consider a future without Social Security. I have to wonder, can we manage a future without the NY Times? Their concern for this issue is a little later than it could have been. It's like the Math is only now becoming real for them, when THEY might be losing THEIR Social Security.

Suggestion for Arizona and other states

2010-07-31T12:35:00.003-05:00

When Microsoft was being fined, sued, and bullied by the Governments around the world, I wondered then and still wonder, why they didn't fight back.

Now, with the Arizona Immigration case, I have to wonder why Arizona doesn't fight back as well? Ok, picture this, a bank is robbed. It's federally insured, and thus under Federal Law, a Federal Crime. Get the picture? So the local police show up, secure the scene, and avoid taking any information on the criminal. Once the FBI arrives, the local cops leave. They just leave and return to local policing duties. It's a Federal Crime, and the Local Police wouldn't want to interfere with the Federal Government's legal authority would they?

Or a Federal Marshal shows up and says. "We think we've found a wanted fugitive. We'll be needing a SWAT team for the capture though."

"Sorry, they're all tied up right now, but good luck catching the guy."

"We want to book a prisoner we captured into your jail."

"Sorry Mr. Federal Agent, but we don't really have the space right now. Come on back tomorrow and we'll see what we can do."

Your argument is obvious, and simple. It's the Federal Government's responsibility to do all those things. Not the State, or the local government's responsibility.

Put call forwarding on the telephone and fax line for background checks as mandated under the Brady Law and send the calls to the local office of the FBI. It's a Federal Law that those checks must be made, let the Federal Government do it.

When the Federal Government complains, all you have to do is say. "I'm sorry, but we're really busy chasing criminals who are interestingly enough illegal aliens for crimes unrelated to their immigration status. Right now, we're searching for a Rapist, and a Murderer both of whom appear to be Illegal Aliens." Just highlight the most recent crimes that the Illegal Immigrant community is accused of.

"The Local Police refused to set up a cordon around the bank that had a hostage situation in it."

"First, kidnapping and taking hostages is a Federal Crime, and we are not empowered to enforce Federal Laws. The Judge who struck down SB 1070 said so plainly, we don't have the authority, nor the responsibility to enforce Federal Law. Bank Robbery is a Federal Crime, and federal law trumps State or local laws. The Supreme Court has ruled on that many times. We had every available officer searching for Mr. Jong Quan, the leader of the Chinese Triad in Phoenix. This man is apparently also wanted by Immigration and Naturalization for staying in the country on an expired visa. We want him in connection to five murders. We understand that the DEA hasn't ever investigated him despite the fact that he appears to be the head of a large drug dealing organization."

"You have a responsibility to assist Federal Law Enforcement." The FBI spokesman will shout.

"Right, well we would, but we're a little busy. We're also hot on the trail of Mr. Juan Gonzales, who in addition to being an Illegal Immigrant, appears to have raped three women in Phoenix. He's also wanted in connection to a Hit and Run accident which left two people dead, and three others in critical condition at Mercy General Hospital."

Shoot, the Legislature in Arizona could pass a law dictating that any co-operation with Federal Authorities must not interfere with normal policing operational requirements. Requests for assistance from Local Law Enforcement must be made in writing at least fourteen days prior to the time and date that the assistance is requested.

GM doubles down on Volt

2010-07-31T08:10:00.002-05:00

After listening to the comments, usually followed by laughter, the Chevy Volt, which was unveiled earlier this week, and costs $41,000 before you get paid to take it, and a market of people who don't want it, or need it, GM is increasing production on the car. Seriously, it's a car that costs as much as a luxury car, sports car, or a really big family car, and it's worse than all of those.

So what could you get instead of a Chevy Volt? How about an Audi A-5? Or how about a BMW 3 series?

How about Domestic cars? You know, cars built in the United States. How about a Kia Sorento built in Georgia with a starting price of $22k?

In other words, there are a lot of cars out there that are far better, for far less money, even after a tax credit for buying the stupid thing.

But Max, you don't understand. You'll save tons of Gasoline with the Chevy Volt.

OK, let's talk about Gasoline. The Kia Sorento gets about 20 miles per gallon. That means with the money I don't spend on the Chevy Volt, I could drive about 120,000 miles with gasoline that cost about $3 per gallon. If Gasoline goes to $4 a gallon, I could still drive about 90,000 miles on the money I didn't spend on the Volt. Are you seeing a pattern here yet?

The Ford Fiesta for example, starts at $13,000 and gets 29 miles to the gallon in the city, with 40 miles to the gallon on the highway. Stop and think, the Volt can go forty miles before the engine turns on, but that costs you $41,000 while a $13,000 car can give you that same 40 miles for about $4 in gas, if your in the city.

Now, do I need to do the math on how far you can go in your Ford Fiesta before you break even on the base cost of the Volt? Remember, you still have to pay for Electricity, which will be going up by leaps and bounds when Cap and Trade is finally passed. Then if you do run the engine, you have to run Premium Gasoline, the most expensive kind, in your Chevy Volt.

If you're worried that the Ford Fiesta isn't up to the driving you do, perhaps this review from Top Gear, the Award Winning British Car Show should put your fears to rest.

How do we blame this on Bush?

2010-07-31T01:33:00.003-05:00

When Iraq was not going well, the news organs opened each days broadcast with tallies of troops killed in Iraq. This was done in the hopes of stirring up anti-war feelings in the population. This was essentially Propaganda, which is a fair way to describe it. Propaganda is often believed to be false information. The most effective propaganda is true information that is presented in a spectacular, or consistant manner.

World War I saw a great deal of Propaganda from both sides, the English had the most effective, describing the brutalities of the German Army on civilian populations in Belgium and France.

So the daily update of casualties in Iraq while Bush was President can be honestly and accurately described as Propaganda, especially after you realize that those numbers aren't broadcast daily now, with President Obama in office. It's sort of like the absence of homeless stories when a Democrat is President, while the flood of such stories when a Republican is in office makes you believe that the homeless problem only crops up when Republicans are in charge.

So now we see that US Casualties in Afghanistan are on the rise, and the obvious question is, how do we blame this on Bush?

The Economy that has been badly mismanaged by the Democrats in Congress and the White House is Bush's fault. The War in Iraq that is going well, is not his fault, but a credit to the excellent leadership of President Obama. That is the trend of not only this administration, but all administrations. They don't want the blame, but want any credit they can get their hands on.

Now, I've discussed the situation in Afghanistan before, when looking at RNC Chairman Michael Steel's statement that Afghanistan is President Obama's war, and he owns it lock, stock, and barrel.

My conclusion was that victory was impossible, given the time requirement of sixty to eighty years, with one hundred years a distinct possibility. As I believe that there is no way for our nation to sustain an eighty year commitment, or even the sixty year commitment that would in my opinion be the shortest possible time frame needed to bring about the bare minimum of social change in the Afghani population.

I've previously suggested that soldiers do not enlist, and I stand by that statement. Especially when they are assigned impossible tasks, and asked to make the ultimate sacrifice, for a war that can't be won.

I'm not opposed to a last stand, nor am I opposed to going down fighting. However, when you're asking our troops to go and fight a war, one that can't be won for three or four generations, when you know that there is no way we'll be fighting sixty years from now, then that is using those troops to make sure you look like a strong leader. Using those troops as props to make sure you look tough is not like fighting a last stand, but is unforgivable.

So the obvious question is this. What makes Afghanistan a guaranteed loss, while Iraq appears to be a win? The difference is in social/economic/technological advancement. Iraq was for all intents and purposes a westernized nation, with Television, Radio, Newspapers, and a reasonable level of literacy among the population. That means that it's far easier to communicate with the population, and that population has been exposed to Western Ideals of Democracy and individual rights. It means that it would take the investment of less than a generation, in other words, less than twenty years to bring the population to a sustainable national democratic ideal.

Afghanistan on the other hand, has a much lower literacy among the population, and those that can read, have for the most part, never been exposed to anything but the Koran, which means that the foundation of education for the population is simply absent. It would take at least a generation to get the educational foundation started, forget about having it cemented into place.

Simply put, we can't win in Afghanistan, because we won't invest the sixty or eighty years of dedication to the advancement of the Afghani people. We're going to leave, and the Taliban or whatever organization of Muslim Extremists know it. They'll just wait until we are pulling out, and then they'll return and once again Afghanistan will be the home of Extremism in the Middle East. Our troops will have died in vain, and that is bad enough. However, from the surge on, those who die won't be dying for any reason except to show that the Politicians are willing to sacrifice others to look tough. For that reason, I must renew my advice. Do not enlist, do not re-enlist.

DUmmies feel betrayed by Obama

2010-07-30T12:01:00.000-05:00

I've often mentioned the apparent disconnect from President Obama, and his Socialist/Liberal/Communist core supporters that make up the dedicated foundation of the Democratic Party much as the Conservatives make up the core of the Republican Party.

These extreme left wing activists want an end to the Corporate America where business actually turns profits. What they want, to put it bluntly, is to eat the rich. They aren't getting anything that they do want, and they're getting tired of being told that we have to take what we can get.

These are the people who campaigned tirelessly for President Obama, and anyone else with a D after their name in 2008. They donated money, they donated hours of their time. They wanted the promised reforms, and they wanted to show the world what a successful Socialist President could do with huge Democratic Majorities in both houses of Congress.

This post from a user at the Democratic Underground (referred to by me as a DUmmie) is interesting, because in a way, it makes a point similar to one I have believed, and even argued.

It is the simple fact that we are now under assault by this administration, just as we were under Bush.

Do you get it now?

This user correctly points out the same truth that Mel Gibson did in the movie The Patriot. The people are talking about Revolting because their rights are being trampled by a King who is 3,000 miles away. Mel's line from the movie is something like this. A man can find his rights abused just as easily by 3,000 legislators a mile away, as he can find them abused by a King 3,000 miles away.

That point is absolutely correct. It's not who the Dictator is, it's that the Dictator is. As I pointed out here, the result regarding your life, and your rights is the same, no matter if it is a Fascist (inaccurately named right wing extremist) dictatorship, or a Socialist dictatorship.

I have complained often and bitterly about the Patriot Act. I didn't like it when it was Republicans administering it's abuses of my rights, and my liberties. Why would I now approve of it because the person administering this abuse is a Democrat?

MadHound of the Democratic Underground is absolutely correct. It's not who is violating basic freedoms and liberties. It's that someone is violating our basic rights and liberties.

Fascist versus Socialist.

2010-07-30T00:01:00.004-05:00

I had an interesting discussion with a friend recently, and they asked me why Hitler who was a dictator was considered extreme right wing, while Stalin who was a Dictator, was considered extreme left wing. The answer is a little complicated, but I'll try and post what we talked about.

Most people consider political beliefs to be a line, with extremes on both ends of the line, and the idea of "moderates" being right in the middle, and thus the perfect balance between extremist views from the Socialists and the Libertarians. However, the truth is that the spectrum of political beliefs is actually better represented by a circle, with Fascism and Socialism touching on that circle.

The difference is actually pretty simple, and almost insignificant in it's mechanism to achieve nearly identical results.

Under Socialism, as practiced in the Soviet Union, all jobs are government jobs. The factory is a Government owned factory, and you are given a quota to produce. The Government pays the employees, and the managers are appointed by the Government.

Under Fascism, the factory in question is owned by a private individual or group. The management and workers are selected, hired, and or appointed by that private individual who is responsible for paying the employees. However, what that factory produces, and the quotas and price of the product is determined by the Government.

A famous example of the Fascist system is included in the story of Schindler's List. Schindler started out taking a factory that was captured in Poland through thinly veiled legal tricks, and started to produce enamel covered metal items, in other words dishes, pots, and cups of a type normally used by armies in the field.

After Poland was obviously going to be taken by the Russians, he moved all his employees, which were almost all Jews saved from the concentration camps, to another factory. Here, the Fascist Government ordered Schindler to make munitions, artillery shells, hand grenades, and other war fighting materials, which he and his employees were singularly unqualified to manufacture. That they had no intention of producing munitions did not help them produce anything of value to the Nazi Government.

There are several examples of the Socialist failures in history. The idea that the State (read national Government) knows how to operate a company and produce a good or serve is a popular one in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez's Government. Yet, the evidence is that each company "seized" by the State enters new levels of ineptitude and poor performance. As an example, when the Electric Company was run as a private concern, there were few if any disruptions of electrical production. Now, it is far more common for Venezuela to experience brownouts, and blackouts, as the Government is as unqualified to run an electrical company, as Schindler was to manufacture munitions.

So what are we sliding towards in the United States? When Bush was President, the claim from the left when the Government would spy on citizens, or assume greater control and power over our lives and liberties, was that Bush was taking us towards Fascism.

Now under President Obama, those same policies remain in effect, and even more Government control over our lives, liberties, as well as the Business world. The Government owns a large stake in GM (General Motors), which is suitably, and with reasonable accuracy referred to as Government Motors, or Obama Motors. While at the same time, while the Government in essence owns that particular corporation, they are passing sweeping overhauls called reforms for other businesses in many other parts of our economy and lives.

The first is Socialist. The owning of a corporation by the Government. The second is Fascist, telling a company how they will operate, what they will produce, and how they will produce it.

In other words, we're moving towards both. As the Eastern European countries found out in 1940 when the Germans attacked the Soviet Union, there wasn't really any difference in your life if you were oppressed by a Socialist Dictatorship as Stalin commanded, or a Fascist Dictatorship as Hitler had. This impression was confirmed when the Soviets retook this territory later, and resumed their earlier brutal policies towards the same victims of their earlier brutalities. These people were Victims twice. Once when the Germans liberated them from the Soviets, and again when the Soviets re-claimed and re-liberated them from the Nazi abuses.

In other words, it didn't matter one whit if the Government sent you to a Concentration camp in Poland, or a Gulag in Siberia. By that same token, it doesn't matter if the person abusing your rights and liberties is a Republican, or a Democrat. Your rights and liberties are the important part of the discussion.

Primary Challenge for President Obama? Of course

2010-07-27T18:30:00.003-05:00

Just under two years ago, about an hour after President Obama was elected, long before he was sworn in, I pointed out that there was no way for him to appease all the groups that had come together to get him elected. I made predictions, which are coming true about the infighting among the Democrats.

This was done with the memory of the Kos Kids taking Lieberman out of the Primary for his re-election campaign to the Senate. Which is why today Senator Lieberman is an Independent who caucus's with the Democrats, instead of a Democrat. They were infuriated with Senator Lieberman not only voting for, and supporting the war against Terrorism in Iraq, but his vociferous defense of President Bush and the ongoing war on Terror. They turned on him, funded his opponent in the Primary, and although Lieberman won as an Independent, they nuked him for heresy to the Liberal cause.

Of course, Conservatives have done much the same thing to several RINO class CCBB Republicans. That is the whole point of the election cycles. If your representative doesn't represent your ideals, values, or beliefs, you can remove them from office through the democratic expression of the vote.

Now, Allahpundit noted defender of all things Moderate and RINO at Hot Air claims that this idea is insane when it comes to the Democrats. Really? The argument comes from Ed Rendell, former Clinton camp follower, who says that the Liberals may launch a strong anti Afghanistan War challenge to President Obama. AP rejects this as absolutely out of the question. Yet, aren't the Liberal Socialist core of the Democratic Party outraged that we're fighting anywhere, much less in Afghanistan and Iraq? These people are the ones who donated money, time, effort, and wore out shoes talking to people about then Candidate Obama and all the great things he would do. Yet, he hasn't done any of them. Health Care Reform was weaker than they wanted and lacked any sort of "public option" read universal coverage. Wall Street reform still lets the rich get richer while the poor are even poorer now. Unemployment is up, so the Unions aren't happy about factories closing and jobs being lost. Club Gitmo remains open, despite an Executive Order signed a couple days after President Obama was sworn in that ordered it closed.

The Liberal Socialist core of the Democrats have nothing to be happy about. Republicans are making gains, by carrying the Conservative Message to the people. Democrats haven't been this weak going into an election cycle since 1994, when they lost the House, and the clear majority they held in the Senate. Now, I readily admit a big difference, there is no unity on the Republican side, because too many of the old school CCBB Republicans refuse to embrace the Conservative message, instead insisting that moderation and becoming more like the opponents is the way to victory. I've said PFUI before, and I'll say it again to that notion.

So will there be a Primary Challenge for President Obama? I think there may well be. I still say that had Hillary Clinton won the Nomination, I probably would have voted for her over McCain, although Sarah Palin was a big multiplier for that ticket. But if Hillary had chosen one of a half dozen good Conservative Democrats that were out there as her ticket mate, I probably would have voted for her over McCain/Palin.

As I said before, all we have to do, is sit back and watch the Democrats self destruct. They have a shaky alliance of disparate groups with little or nothing in common. We Conservatives need to continue uniting for the ideals we believe in.

UPDATE: I decided to post a link, just one, of the hundreds of possibilities out there, of how disgusted the left wing is with President Obama for all that he hasn't done for them.

Ready for all those new taxes?

2010-07-22T05:13:00.002-05:00

Come January 1, 2011, the tax man will own you. Not only will you have to cough up a 1099 for any purchases you make over $600 per year, yes per year. No reading yet if that includes grocery shopping and other related incidental expenses, but if I was a betting man, I'd say yes it will.

Those new taxes are coming into effect to help support the Obamacare bloated bureaucracy aren't the only dollars that you won't be seeing anymore. The Bush Tax cuts will increase the bottom rate from 10% to 15%. That's right, a fifty percent increase in the taxing of the poor. It's about time that those darned poor paid their fair share right Libs?

The Death Tax is coming back, so not only are you paying taxes while you are alive, but soon when you die, you'll be paying taxes again.

Every type of tax will increase, and every kind of deduction will decrease. From education to the marriage penalty, you'll be paying more taxes than every before starting the first of the new year. I have to wonder, is this the change you hoped for?

Georgia Primary Day

2010-07-20T21:45:00.002-05:00

In 2008, I voted in the Primary here in Georgia, so I could vote against Maverick McCain. This year, I voted for Karen Handel. Was it because she was the favorite? No, John Oxendine was the favorite. However, I haven't ever liked what I've seen of John Oxendine. It may not be accurate, but it's my impression.

On the Democratic Side, which I considered voting in, was Roy Barnes, former Governor of the State, and voted out by an angry public after his debacle of an administration. He was the huge favorite, and even now, has secured the nomination.

So why did I vote? I voted because I was intrigued by Karen Handel. I voted because of the outrage of the Press and Mainstream CCBB (Country Club Blue Blood) Republican machine that hates Sarah Palin and objected loudly and often when Palin endorsed Handel. I read her website, and then I decided to go ahead and vote today.

At this moment, it appears as though a runoff election is going to be needed in the Republican primary. OK, I can manage to find time to vote again. Do I think Handel can win? Yes. Do I think she'll do a fair or even good job as Governor? Sure, I'll give her the same benefit of the doubt that I give everyone. But why did I vote for her?

Partly to vote against Oxendine. Partly to vote against Barnes. Partly to thumb my nose at the morons who run the Republican Party who insist that the way to win is to go more moderate despite the literal tons of evidence that clearly shows that moderate means you're an acceptable loser on election day. Acceptable to the Press. The Democrats who are winning in states outside of California and the NorthEast, are winning as Conservatives. They are such a minority outside of the powerhouse districts, that they make up less than a third of the Democrat Elected officials. Yet, they win big, and the Republicans always sigh afterwards and say we should be more moderate.

So Karen Handel is more conservative than the others I researched, not all of them, there were just too many. She was certainly more conservative than Roy Barnes. That is my general rule of thumb, vote for the MOST CONSERVATIVE candidate. Which is why I have in the past voted for John Barrow (Before I moved out of his district, or his district moved away from me, whichever it was.) Democrat. He was MORE conservative than the Republican.

Four letter word that means tells untruths.

2010-07-18T13:34:00.002-05:00

Just to recap the story thus far. President Obama spent a great deal of time telling everyone that the penalty for not purchasing Health Insurance under Obamacare was not a tax. He said he would not violate his promise not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250k.

Well, that was then, and this is now. Now the administration has to defend Obamacare in the courts, and that means that they have to justify it by law. Their answer, that the States have no right to object to the Obamacare mandates or fees, as the Federal Government is empowered to lay and collect taxes.

So I'm working on a crossword puzzle, and does anyone have a four letter word for someone who tells untruths?

WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”
And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.
Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

Professor George Lakoff, Still Swinging Away

2010-07-17T12:37:00.003-05:00

Professor George Lakoff of the famed Cal State Berkley is still out there, still trying to frame the discussion, still trying to be relevant outside of his safe little academic bastion. I've previously posted about this so called esteemed Professor twice. You can read about those missives here, and here.

Professor Lakoff's entire claim to fame is that he had decoded Conservatives, and shows how they frame an argument to suit them. The Progressives and Liberals and Socialists have had less success in framing the argument to suit them. By framing the argument, he means our choice of words, and phrases, to communicate our ideals and principals. You know, those darned things like freedom, independence, individual liberty, and less Government intrusion.

So Professor Lakoff is now trying to emulate Sarah Palin, who of course, caused such a stir with her "Death Panel" characterization of the Obamacare bill.

He wants the Gulf Oil Spill to be known as the Gulf Death Gusher. Now, here is the difference Professor. The Obamacare bill did, and does, have panels that decide what kind of care will be covered, and included. One of those panels functions is to allocate care to those who need it, in other words, when there is more demand, than supply, to ration the care. Those panels will determine who lives, and who dies, by receiving the care they need. So Death Panel was a very accurate, and emotionally effective means of discussing their purpose.

It's interesting isn't it? First, there were hundreds of articles claiming that there were no such thing as Death Panels. Then after the firestorm of outrage of her term Death Panels, there was more consideration. Then there was the admission that such panels would probably be in the future of the Obamacare system, since there is no other way to allocate insufficient supply to greater demand.

So Death Panels are in our future, as Obamacare passed, and there is in reality no way to otherwise allocate finite supply to increasing demand. Sarah Palin was right, and her term was accurate, and in the near future, we'll see the stories start, small at first, of people who were denied medical care and sentenced to death by a panel of Government Officials. You know, stories like those coming from countries and states with similar laws to Obamacare.

So Professor, the question comes up, why hasn't your carefully crafted term of Gulf Death Gusher caught on? It's inaccurate, and it doesn't describe the situation truthfully. Choices of words mean things, granted. However, the truth behind those words matter even more. If the words don't convey truth, then the words are meaningless. Which is why the Liberal attempts to do things like you are trying again to do, always fail.

Pro Choice, why is it that that term only applies to Abortion? Why can't we be pro choice on smoking, cars, food, guns, or anything else that is regulated by the Government? Why can't we eliminate the prohibitions to allowing Insurance Companies to operate across state lines, thus ending the near monopolies that they have in states and regions? Why can't we be pro choice on Insurance?

The great thing about Conservative Truth Professor is this. It is simple, and easily understood by those who hear it explained to them. Classic Truth carries far in our world, and that should be the message of the Conservatives.

Good Luck Professor, now that BP has managed to cap the "Gulf Death Gusher" I'm sure you'll be coming up with another obviously inaccurate term soon. One day, you might get lucky, but I doubt it. However, you might get lucky, and one day be half as relevant to our discussion of issues as Sarah Palin.

Time to shut down NASA

2010-07-05T10:12:00.002-05:00

NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It was the American version of Star Trek. They were the people who researched, they were the people who explored our world, and the universe. Now, they're merely a public relations group that wants to make Muslims feel good about their history in math and science. Seriously.

Michael Boldon the administrator of NASA in an interview said.

When I became the NASA Administrator — before I became the NASA Administrator — [Obama] charged me with three things: One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.

Since NASA no longer has a SPACE mission, and isn't charged with RESEARCH, there is only one conclusion. Shut it down. Close the doors, fire the employees, shut it down. Sell the buildings to whoever wants them, wish the corporations that will apparently manage the space exploration and research angle to whoever wants it. Hand the working stuff over to the European Space Agency, since they still explore space. Give the ISS to the Russians, and wish them well.

We don't need another public relations group funded by taxpayer dollars. How exactly does a group that does nothing going to inspire kids to study math and science? "Come on Junior, if you study real hard, you can join us in going to classrooms and telling kids it's important to study math." Expanding our international relationships? We're becoming the bum relative. "Hey Bob, I need a ride man, are you headed towards the ISS?" "Could you drop this off with Mike? He's on the ISS, and if you could take that by his house man, I'd appreciate it."

Shut down NASA. Not next year, not next decade. Tomorrow. Just close the doors, turn the lights out, and shut it down.

Basic Logic defied, so what else is new?

2010-07-04T23:42:00.002-05:00

Last week, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, made the asinine comment that Unemployment checks were the best way to stimulate new business.

This weekend, Media Matters, the far left wing watchdog group, defends that claim.

The basic problem with that claim is that it is obviously and practically wrong. First, we have to recognize that Unemployment is only a percentage of your regular pay when you were employed. Generally speaking, it was about half your salary. So with half your salary, you're supposed to be able to help start new businesses with the flood of money you're getting?

First, you're going to pay housing and food with your money, everyone does. Then you're probably out of money. Most people are. Health Insurance? Out of your ability to pay probably, at least with only unemployment coming in. So where do these great business opportunities to serve the unemployed come from?

Walmart and Sam's club already have discount groceries covered, better than you'd be able to anyway. So perhaps you'll go into business creating affordable housing? But there are already houses empty because the owners couldn't or wouldn't make payments on them. So who exactly would get this affordable housing? Or who would fund it, provide you a loan in other words?

Media Matters claims that this has been demonstrated by the Congressional Budget Office as true. Is that the same Congressional Budget office that regularly mis-estimates the cost of anything and everything? Basic common sense says that the statement is untrue, yet we have experts running around explaining how it really is true. Yes, up is down, black is white, and half pay is better than your old paycheck.

Perhaps if we can arrange for Nancy to live on Unemployment for a while, with no other source of income, she might be able to demonstrate how it is going to be funemployment to us.

But is he right?

2010-07-02T22:49:00.002-05:00

GOP Chairman Michael Steel is back in the spotlight, and again drawing fire this weekend for stating that he was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and it was a war of President Obama's choosing.

But is he right? That's the question. I've never known of any subject so horrible, so dangerous, that it couldn't be discussed. Even during World War I, the Great War, Politicians would occasionally float trial balloons, and suggest that someone should talk about ending the war. President Wilson tried to bring peace without victory for years before finally taking the nation to war. For the most part, those Politicians were not severely chastised for saying that years of war, and millions of lives lost might have been enough of a price to pay. Some were certainly, but for the most part, they were chastised by the population, and forgiven.

So let's consider, could Chairman Steel be right? The Taliban has said essentially the same thing. They refused to negotiate post war conditions with us since we're leaving anyway. In other words, they're waiting until we abandon the field, and then they'll move in and declare victory over the infidel, and once again reinstate their barbaric and abusive rule over the people.

Which by the way, is the exact thing that happened in Somalia, when we pulled out of Somalia and the War Lords returned to what they were doing when we showed up. They out waited us. A couple months ago, I had a post almost ready and then I deleted it. I believe it, and I think it's the truth, but I deleted it because I didn't want to say it.

Now, I will. It will take sixty to eighty years to bring true peace to Afghanistan. That is an investment that America and the world is unwilling to make, so we should leave now, and avoid the loss of life on a hopeless cause.

Here is why I am saying that. The sixty to eighty years is the time for social change to drip through the population. The first generation, the children of today, will be taught and accept some of the truths that we believe in. But they won't believe all of them, and they won't adapt all of them. Their children, will accept more, but that puts us some forty years into the future already, and the principals of a true democratic representative society require that each individual, male or female, have rights, and votes. The third generation would be the first we could honestly hope would accept the ideals of individual liberty, and freedoms that make Representative Democracies actually work. That's sixty years, three generations, or fifty more years from today. Are we as a people willing to invest that kind of time, that kind of treasure, and that kind of dedication to the task of reforming Afghanistan, a nation where electricity is a luxury known only to the city dwellers and not all the time? The honest answer is NO. Eventually America will get sick of it, and declare victory and leave, ignoring the truth, that all they're leaving is a nation where the Taliban or some other such incarnation of the brutal old ways, the ways that the adults are all too familiar and comfortable with, return.

So we have to admit that there is no way to win in Afghanistan, that is to create a stable democracy for future generations, where individual rights and freedoms are the rule of law for the land. Then what shorter term goal can we set? No Taliban, and no Terrorism? That can only be guaranteed as long as we are there, but that is a commitment without end, which the nation is ill prepared to accept. Look at the response of the people when John McCain said we could be in Iraq for a hundred years.

If we aren't willing to commit to a sixty or eighty or even hundred year plan for success, and for true victory, then all we can do is treat the symptoms. In other words, wait until a bunch of hostiles show up in a certain area, and then kill them with bombs launched from miles away. In other words, the way we treated Iraq after Desert Storm. The way we dealt with Libya in the 1980's. We keep a close eye on them, and every once in a while drop a few bombs to keep them from getting too froggy.

Do we need combat troops on the ground for that? Do we need to keep our sons, daughters, husbands and wives to that kind of life to drop bombs on training camps from time to time? I don't think so. It puts the troops at too much risk, and nets us little gain from our investment, and the costs of operation, in lives as well as dollars.

So eventually, I think that the nation will decide that it costs us too much, in lives, and dollars, to maintain a presence in Afghanistan, and the people will finally admit that the nation is too backwards, too ill suited for a rapid change to representative democracy. So then we have a bad choice right? Choosing the best warlord who will not side with the Taliban. But the Taliban will be supported by Iran and other fundamentalist nations, and with volunteers to hope to rid the region of infidel influences, our chosen Afghani Warlord is doomed before he begins.

And even if our selected Afghani Warlord we leave in charge does manage to be successful in the short term, the Afghan people won't be any better off under that dictatorship than they will be under the brutality of the Taliban.

In the end, I think any honest assessment of the situation, the history of the region, and the potential gains will conclude that withdrawal from Afghanistan is going to be the result American reaches eventually, the only question is how many lives will be shattered, both Afghani and American, before we admit it.

General McChrystal Out

2010-06-23T13:42:00.003-05:00

Regarding the news that General McChrystal has been relieved of his command, due to comments made about the Political Leadership, I've had a couple thoughts.

First, I am well aware of the historic precedence of this action. General McArthur is one well known example of history. There is another consideration though. In history there are a number of examples of the error of not getting all the information available. In other words, subordinates would not report information to superiors in order to protect them from information that they had made a mistake.

Obedience to orders is important. I chewed out a young soldier once who said he wasn't going to follow the orders of Don't Ask Don't Tell. I told him that President Clinton was the President, and we were sworn to obey him. Not just the orders we liked, but the orders we were given.

Now, that said, I wonder about a number of things. First, was General McChrystal able to give information to the President, through the chain of command, or out of it, about how things are on the battle front? The obvious answer is we don't know. We know that General McChrystal has met sparingly with Obama, but we don't know how many, if any, teleconferences or other communications have been exchanged. We know that the messages from the different departments, State and Defense, were mixed. We know that there is a poor working relationship between the Army and the Ambassador in Afghanistan.

So the question is, was President Obama getting the unfiltered information that General McChrystal was trying to provide? The movie Pentagon Wars, based upon a true story, shows that going outside the chain of command, is sometimes needed. We call those people whistle blowers, and even move to protect them.

Yet, our esteem for the whistle blower who shows us situational or institutional abuses within departments ends at the Department of Defense. There, people are supposed to be closed mouthed and absolutely obedient.

Would I have fired McChrystal? Probably. Do I think that I would have allowed a situation to develop where McChrystal and the Army felt forsaken by my leadership? Probably not. Like the Godfather, I demand bad news be delivered immediately. I want opinions, ideas, and observations, even if they go against my own ideas or opinions. If I've started on a course, that appears to be solid and wise, if indications are that it isn't, I want to hear them immediately. A mistake is understandable, and unavoidable. What we can't do is pretend we didn't make a mistake, or ignore indications that we have tried something that didn't work. Staying a course, that is a mistake, just because the boss ordered that course, is unforgivable in my opinion.

Now, I wonder what the Left will do with General Patraeus who was called General Betray-us.

Sweet milestone

2010-06-07T01:19:00.002-05:00

If America were to apply to join the European Union, we wouldn't qualify. Under the EU charter, We would not be allowed to run a perpetual debt in excess of a certain percentage of our GDP. This by the way, is what has caused Greece such problems within the EU.

This year, for the first time, our national debt will exceed the total Domestic Gross National Product. Yes, you read that right, our debt of $13 Trillion will exceed the amount of money that every company, man, woman, and child will earn in the year. That means, our debt is more than 100% of our earnings. Far greater than would be permitted if we were in the European Union. Far greater than should be even considered by Washington's Elected Elites.

For those of us in the real world, we live by budgets. We decide what we must spend, and then what we'd like to spend. We have to make tough choices, choices that for some reason are foreign to our elected representatives. The idea of simply not spending more money than you have is laughed at by our elected representatives.

If we mention that they're spending more money than we'll ever be able to pay back, they decide that we can pay more in taxes. Ladies and Gentlemen, have you ever considered just walking into the office of your employer, your boss, and telling him that you simply need him or her, to pay you more money? You would get laughed out of the office, if you weren't fired for being a lunatic. Yet, our employees, our Elected Representatives, and those whom we pay with out taxes, demand that every single year. They need more money from us, the employers, and they'll punish us if we don't pay it.

So we're passing this sweet milestone, the next step is a debt super cycle, in which rampant inflation is the answer to the extreme debt. Yes, the next step in the plan the Government is inflicting on us is rampant inflation. Buckle up friends, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Newsweek, determined to be marginal

2010-05-31T21:42:00.002-05:00

Newsweek is back with a continuing greatest miss article, and you have to honestly wonder, do they bother to even think for a minute about what they write before they publish it?

That aside, this next missive makes you wonder who is researching the stories that they write? The story goes like this. A flotilla, which is defined as a collection of ships operating together, attempted to run the declared blockade into Gaza. This flotilla consisted of six ships. The Israeli Army sent in troops armed with (Get this) paint ball guns to search the ships to insure that no weapons or dangerous items were included with the flotilla.

The search of five ships went off without a hitch, and they were permitted to continue their journey. Ship number six however, found the "humanitarian aide workers" armed with baseball bats, iron pipes, iron clubs, slingshots, and other improvised weapons. These workers attacked the troops literally before they could board the ship. Remember, that these were peaceful people, which is why the Israeli Army armed their people with Paintball guns, which sting, but don't injure anyone. They did give the troops sidearms, pistols, to be used only if their lives were under threat.

Hot Air has information here, and here. Including links to news articles, and including videos of the attempted boarding and the "Peaceful" humanitarians that were just minding their own business according to Newsweek. (Shouldn't we start calling it Newsweak in the interest of accuracy?)

As you can see, the peaceful humanitarians are quite busy attacking the essentially unarmed soldiers. Finally, after the troops start to realize that these are not really peaceful humanitarians, which takes a couple being tossed over the side of the top deck, to land on the steel decking some twenty or more feet below, and another couple being stabbed, the troops draw weapons and fire on the threats to their lives and safety. I should note that according to reports, and it seems reasonable as in the video you can clearly see the peaceful humanitarians stripping equipment off the troops as they're being thrown below, the peaceful humanitarians were firing captured pistols at the soldiers.

This wasn't a massacre, nor was it a demonstration of Israeli trigger happy troops. It demonstrated that if anything, you can never assume that so called peaceful protesters are going to remain peaceful. If anything, it shows the wisdom of arming boarding teams with live fire weapons. Paintballs may sting, but they aren't going to intimidate anyone into compliance.

What is even more amazing, is that during a holiday weekend, the UN quickly summoned the Security Council, and started to debate what action should be taken against Israel. Yet, it's been more than a month since North Korea sunk a South Korean naval vessel via torpedo attack, and the Security Council has yet to even hear that this event has taken place, much less meet to discuss what actions the UN should take.

Since I've seen the videos, I have to say that not only were the soldiers justified in using lethal force, but I question their commanders for sending them in with Paintball guns in the first place.

I'm going to leave you with this final video, in the end, the woman says that the voyage will end with their joyous arrival in one of two places. Gaza, or Martyrdom.

Who decides who is a Feminist

2010-05-30T17:21:00.002-05:00

One of my major problems with Religious beliefs is that each place of worship, regardless of faith, defines itself by who isn't going to be graced by God. In other words, if you go to a Catholic Church, only the Catholics will be saved when Judgement comes. You could plug in any religion, and get the same result, I won't, mainly because the post would be fifty pages long on the practices of religion.

There is a curious trend about society these days. The denunciation of people who don't live up to the ideals as the speaker sees them, of a term. I readily admit that I partake in this practice. I denounced John McCain many times for his phony Conservatism. However, that was based upon his own statements, and his own actions, and his self styled Maverick label.

Conservative to me is closer to Libertarian, in other words, more freedom, more liberty, less government. Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms should be a convince store, not a Government agency in my mind.

Now, to Feminism. Wikipedia and the Dictionary agree generally, that the term Feminism refers to the pursuit of social, economic, and cultural equality of women. This certainly equates with the start of Feminism, however it has been corrupted, much as Conservative was corrupted to equal racist.

The purpose of this missive is obvious. A liberal is outraged beyond description by Sarah Palin describing herself as a Feminist.

The reason this Liberal is outraged, is that Sarah Palin is against Abortion. You see, to the Liberals, Feminism equals Abortions, more abortions means more Feminist equality.

Feminism could be better described as Freedom. Freedom to make up your own mind. If you women wish to be Pilots, Astronauts, Scientists, Doctors, Lawyers, Businesswomen, or whatever other job under the sun, you should be granted equal access to the opportunity. That is freedom, freedom to achieve all that is possible based upon your skills and talents.

Freedom to enter politics, be elected if the electorate decides you are the best qualified candidate. All regardless of your gender.

As an aside, I was in the Army when Bill Clinton was elected President. One of the discussions that people had constantly in the Army was what we were going to do if they put women in the unit I was in, Male only Combat arms, or allowed Homosexuals to serve.

My answer was a little different than most of my peers. I said that I didn't give a damn if someone was gay, and further if a Woman could do what I did. March twelve miles under three hours with a full pack, carry a picket pounder and drive pickets into the ground. Carry heavy weights, and do the other physical activities that were absolutely required for a Combat Engineer, then that woman didn't deserve a shot, she'd earned it. I say that because in my experience, roughly ten percent of the men could do all that I'm talking about.

The definition in my mind of elite, means the cream of the crop, the best of the best. If a woman can qualify for that, then she should be accepted into that unit. If the individual, male or female can't do those things, then they have no business being in that unit.

So why does Sarah Palin so upset the Liberals? Because she is a woman, who achieved on her own, great things. She's inspirational to many other conservative women, who want to accomplish great things. They want to do so without the blessings of the National Organization for Women, or without genuflecting at the alter of Lesbianism and Abortion.

That Feminism is returning to it's roots, where equality and opportunity were the purpose of it, is obviously very troubling to Radicals who hope to continue to corrupt the movement to the forwarding of Lesbian and Transgender issues. If you have any doubt, then merely look at the National Organization for Women's action pages. Roughly half of the articles are on topics that would be questionable for Women's equality issues. As an example, just how the Arizona law that instructs police to enforce applicable Federal Law, as authorized in that Federal Law, will affect Women's equality is questionable.

Why the same NOW gang doesn't seem the least bit concerned about situations in and out of this nation that truly subjugates women is very interesting isn't it?

Republicans will rue the rule of law. Again.

2010-05-23T22:22:00.003-05:00

OK, it's time for another Newsweek (For sale because apparently nobody buys the magazine) doom for the Republicans story. In one of the inexplicable trends that seems to emanate from the Mainstream Press there are never any stories about why the Democrats need to be big tent people, and consider opposing views. Yet, every single story about Conservative/Republicans is always how they are alienating the rest of the world with their radical ideals.

In the article, it's explained that the Republicans are going to lose big, perhaps not in November, but soon after that, because of the blatantly racist law in Arizona. As opposed to the Blatantly Racist Pennsylvania 12 win by the Democrats. (As an aside, why did the Republicans want to win that one? I mean, according to Jack Murtha his district was racist right?) I'm sure that Newsweek had the story written that the Racist Republicans had won in the Racist district. I mean, PA 12 was the only district in the country to vote for the Democrats in the House and State races, and the Republicans in the Presidential, which is why Murtha said that the region was Racist in the first place.

Now, back to the idea that Republicans will rue the day that Arizona passed the twenty page law that nobody in Washington DC has read. Understandable I guess, when you consider that they don't read the laws they pass, that they wouldn't read the laws that someone else passes. Of course, this hasn't stopped those folks including the President from denouncing the law, either stating outright, or alluding to it being Racist.

Despite the fact, undeniable to anyone who's read it, that it merely instructs the police to enforce the law, including a Federal Law that permits local police to do just what Arizona just told them to do, check for legal documentation stating the identity of an individual when they are stopped and questioned regarding the investigation of another crime. Yes, it's a Federal Law that you have to have identification on you at all times folks.

Now, this continues despite the polling numbers that show 70% of the people approve of the law. Yes, you read that right. Seventy percent approve of Arizona instructing their police to actually enforce the law.

Yet, you never hear the reverse. How the open boarders crowd will suffer in both public opinion, and in the polls when repeat offenders of our already lax immigration laws commit heinous crimes upon our citizens. This story, the son of a gun had been deported nine times. 9 bloody times he'd been deported before he was arrested in the act of raping a woman in a trash dumpster.

So Newsweek, will stories like that hurt the immigration reform folks? Will they suffer at the polls for wanting these kinds of people in our communities?

For the record, what do I want on the boarder? Simple, a big wall, people with machine guns, shoot on sight orders. A virtual free fire zone that has the simple rules, no questions asked if someone gets shot. AT THE SAME TIME. I want immigration points, where people can come legally to our nation. They can come to those points, and go through an Ellis Island like process where we confirm their criminal history, and reject those criminals before they join us. Where we can insure that the people who wish to join us are healthy, and carrying no communicable diseases, and where we can explain to the future citizens of this nation the general rules that they're expected to follow.

How fast they can be processed, depends on the co-operation of their home nations, and how quickly we can get the lab results back on normal blood screening tests. This has been my opinion for a very long time.

Once these processing stations are set up, then there is no reason to come here illegally unless you are intending to commit more crimes, in which case, it's open season, with no bag limit as far as I am concerned.

The ignoble end of Arlin Specter

2010-05-18T21:18:00.003-05:00

As the results come in for the Pennsylvania nominations, Arlin Specter, formerly of the Republican Party, who switched to the Democrats to try and extend his political life, appears to have been defeated according to the initial vote counts.

It seems that the Democrats preferred a Democrat over a Johnnie come lately, or is it Arlin come lately.

Switching sides as political changes sweep the landscape is one thing. Arlin did it for purely selfish reasons, to get what he could when he faced a conservative opponent and never could get in the lead over him.

Arlin, all I can say is good riddance. To the voters in Pennsylvania, I say, excellent choice.

The Ponzi Scheme of Socialism

2010-05-16T01:17:00.001-05:00

Former President Bill Clinton said that all we need to close the Deficit is more immigrants and a Value Added Tax.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/97927-bill-clinton-more-immigrants-and-value-added-tax-will-reduce-deficit

This is almost true, as far as it goes towards identifying the problem we face. We are stuck in a Ponzi Scheme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

If you consider the situation, you are forced to admit that it is a Ponzi Scheme. The Government convinces you that several people will pay, and you personally will benefit. It is that exact system that defines a Pyramid or Ponzi Scheme.

So President Clinton is telling the truth. The Pyramid is ready to topple due to an absence of new paying people to the system. The system requires many new people paying to keep the increasing numbers of payees paid.

If you can't substantially increase the numbers of people paying, you have to increase what they pay.

The inevitable result is this. The Pyramid will fall, and all those currently being paid, who have come to depend on that payment, will suffer the most.

I apologise for the naked links, but I posted this mobile and wasn't able to clothe them inside the link references.

Arctic Global Warming demonstration ends badly.

2010-04-24T00:47:00.003-05:00

Another foolish believer in the Global Warming psudo-science has been rescued from the Arctic. Apparently, he hadn't gotten the word that despite the hysteria of the Extremist Global Warming alarmists, the Arctic is still freaking cold.

This by the way makes four years in a row that Extremists have been rescued from the North Pole.

So the Global Warming extremist now has Frostbite. Perhaps he hadn't heard that the ice sheet has been growing, and in fact is now equally large as it was when we first started to track it. Or perhaps on his Global Warming Mailing list, the dolt hadn't heard that temperatures were actually dropping on both the Arctic and Antarctic. The whole record cold winters the world has been enduring hasn't yet managed to convince the global warming extremists that the hype hasn't delivered yet.

I hope you didn't have any plans for those fingers friend, because you lost them with your stunt. Perhaps we can send more Global Warming Extremists next year, so we can all sit back and shake our heads at the future Darwin Award Winners.

Perhaps our intrepid Global Warming Activist will next demonstrate rising sea levels by cementing his feet to the bottom of the ocean.

Paging Mr. Orwell, please check your email.

2010-04-15T09:58:00.004-05:00

George Orwell's works including nineteen eighty-four, are often invoked whenever civil liberties, or personal freedom, or truth appear to be victims of the Government for supposed collective security. I readily admit it leaped into my mind when I read this news story.

The short story is this. The Government is now claiming that by using an Internet email service like Yahoo, or Google, or any service that stores your messages outside of your possession, in other words, in the Internet instead of on your personal computer, means you have no expectation of privacy. In other words, you are entitled to be secure in your person, and papers. Sure you are. However, anything that is outside your immediate physical reach, not so much.

Google has joined with Yahoo, and others to continue the fight to explain to our sworn defenders of the Constitution the importance of the Fourth Amendment. The interesting thing here is that while President Bush was in office, the screeches from many, myself included, about the violations of Civil Rights and the Constitution by the PATRIOT ACT were loud and often. Yet, now that President Obama is the man in the oval office, you don't hear quite so much from the left anymore about the Unconstitutional aspects of this kind of action.

Yet you do hear a few people outraged about this. You see, the Constitution matters. Who is elected to "protect and defend" doesn't matter. The Constitution is what is supposed to matter. If someone you don't like violates the Constitution, it's easy to scream he is doing something wrong. If someone you do like performs the same action, you remain silent, then the Constitution doesn't matter to you.

With this news on Drudge today, you would expect someone to be talking about it on the left. Nope, not so much. I breezed through the Democratic Underground or DUmmies. The Daily Kos, or the Kos Kids. I went through Arianna Huffington's (I only take a private jet if it's going there anyway) Huffington Post. Not one blog post, not one missive. Instead there were dozens of posts where the DUmmies were announcing their intent to infiltrate the Tea Party protestors. Yeah, because people who think that 50% taxes is too much, and out of control Government spending is wrong, are more dangerous than anything else going on.

Perhaps the DUmmies and the Kos Kids, and the Huffsters will be told tomorrow that this email fight is good for the nation, because then we can round up all those who don't think like we do. I think it's a bad thing, no matter who is in power.

Early victims of Obamacare.

2010-04-13T18:01:00.005-05:00

I saw the headline yesterday, but was unable to get the news article up, as their servers were wiped out by people who were hoping to read the article. Seriously, the news site was unavailable for a full day because of demand for this article.

(CNSNews.com) – The new health care overhaul law, which promised increased access and efficiency in health care, will prevent doctor-owned hospitals from adding more rooms and more beds, says a group that advocates physician involvement in every aspect of health care delivery.

Now, I know what you're thinking. It's all hype right? Cybercast News isn't a mainstream media outlet you insist. The story must be more hype, than right.

Hot Air pointed me towards a NY Times Article where it appears that Congress has just eliminated themselves from the Federal Employee Health Insurance Program.

WASHINGTON — It is often said that the new health care law will affect almost every American in some way. And, perhaps fittingly if unintentionally, no one may be more affected than members of Congress themselves.

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.

For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.

The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?

The article goes on to state that the real problem is that due to the imprecise language used in the bill, the restriction on Members of Congress from participating in the Federal Insurance program, may actually be in effect right now.

Anxiously waiting for the Tea Party or ACLU Lawsuit to force the Federal Government to drop the Congressional Representatives. After all, the law seems clear, Congress isn't supposed to be in the Federal Health Benefits Program and their continued participation is apparently a violation of law.

Anyone up for a Class Action Lawsuit to force Congress out of the Federal Health program?

Government cancels Cancer Patients Medicare

2010-04-13T00:46:00.003-05:00

When the Obamacare debate began, people like me pointed out all the horror stories that Government run health care spawned. We were just nitpicking, or we were hyping the story, or we were just trying to scare people was the inevitable response from the left wing. We would hear how the US was the only Industrialized Nation without Universal Health Care.

We would point out how people were dying in the other system, and how they were mis-treated, or left to have babies in the halls due to shortages and rationing.

Pish Posh we were told. We have to do this to keep the Insurance Companies from Canceling people who got sick.

Yet, imagine my surprise when I got an email telling me to check out the Limbaugh show, and I find that a woman had her Medicare canceled right before she was to get a bone marrow transplant surgery performed that would save her life. Wait, Medicare? The Federally Funded program that we are pushing more people into? Medicare?

Oh, the same Medicare that had to be cut to be able to afford the Obamacare program. That Medicare.

So we can assume that the cancellation of this woman's procedure was part of President Obama's plan to cut waste, fraud, and abuse right? That was where he said we would save the money in the Medicare Cuts. Yet it seems to me, that they are cutting out services and treatments.

Obviously this isn't the rationing that we warned about. That will come next. This is the Federal Government canceling coverage for a woman who got sick. This is the very thing that President Obama told us would happen if we didn't pass his overhaul. It's a shame that Medicare doesn't fall under the State Insurance Commissioners right? If they did, then the Insurance Commissioner could examine the cancellation and see if it was in violation of State Law.

Now, this woman got her story on the news, and people around her community and the nation chipped in money to help her get her treatment. It's a shame that she couldn't count on the Federal Government, but got lucky instead and got on the news, otherwise she would be dead because the Feds answer to no one.

Stock Market observations

2010-04-11T15:38:00.003-05:00

One of the many things I've learned is that the more education someone has, the less common sense they seem to have. The Professors have no grasp on reality, no idea how their books apply to the real world, or even if they do.

One example of this is the famous scene in Back to School with Rodney Dangerfield. The Economics Professor outlines the cost of building a new factory with rail and shipping docks. Rodney playing a real world businessman, promptly explains how wrong his assumptions are, and then lays out all the expenses that the Professor forgot. The difference was obvious. One was an academic who had the book answers. One was a real world businessman who had the real world experience.

For the last several years, I've been listening to the experts talk about the economy. During the Bush years, it was the worst economy for fifty years. Despite low unemployment and a high stock market. Yet, in 2002 I told the wife that the housing market couldn't keep rising like that. We had many discussions, where I insisted that the housing market was rising faster than it could possibly be expected to. It couldn't last I insisted.

It didn't. Yet it was a huge surprise to all the experts. Despite the common sense observation that the more the houses went up, the fewer people could afford them, thus the fewer people would be available to buy the houses. That would change from a Sellers Market, to a buyers market as the pendulum swung and prices would have to drop to help generate demand.

Now, for the last year, we've been hearing how we're in a jobless recovery, and how the economy is doing just fine thanks. Yes the Stock Market has been going up. Inexplicably to my way of thinking. How can people want to shove money in the market when they know the Democrats are going to increase taxes on them? When the unemployment is double digits, the place for money is not buying stocks, it's in safer long term investments. Gold is going up, so I can see that many people are taking this conventional wisdom to heart. With all the debt the Government is creating, people are not buying Treasury Bonds, which means that they think they can make more money elsewhere, or they think the US Government is going to Default on the loans.

Yet, the Market keeps going up. What I couldn't figure out was why. I assumed that Democratic Supporters like George Soros and others were buying slowly to keep the market moving up. The Banks would not take their TARP money and put it into the market, they needed it to shore up the bottom line to keep their banks from being seized under the new rules. So why is the market going up?

Today, I found a news article that explains some of it. The market is moving up, but very few trades are going on. So a vast majority of investors are not buying, or selling, they're waiting. Most people it seems may have more common sense than I gave credit to the experts for having. So the value is going up for the stocks, yet, no one is buying them, and no one is selling. Now, as for my common sense prediction on this.

The market is going to fall again. People are getting worried that they're going to have another round of losses. With continuing double digit unemployment, there is no one to buy the products that companies are making. GM has Hummer joining Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and Saturn as lines that are being shut down. That will lead to more unemployment, not just at the factories, but at the dealerships, and all points in between. Truckers won't be hired to move the cars, or the parts to make the cars. So the unemployment stands to increase, again.

That unemployment coupled with the stupidity of the eco minded managers at GM will cause the company that is too big to fail, to fail. GM is putting it's future on the Chevrolet Volt. A car that can go 40 miles on just electricity before the Hybrid portion kicks in. Yet, the car costs an estimated $40,000. In order for that car to be economical for the average user, gasoline prices will have to jump to over $10 a gallon. Riots will result before it reaches $7 a gallon, so that shouldn't happen if we expect society to remain in it's current form.

Now, obviously $40,000 can get you a very nice car. However, if you're just buying transportation, something economical, you can buy a dozen different cars and have money left over. An example, the Ford Fiesta which goes on sale this year is going to be getting 30+ miles per gallon, at a cost of about $15,000. You can buy a lot of gasoline for $25,000 can't you? Or the Volkswagen BlueMotion series that gets up to sixty miles per gallon for about $25,000.

So GM is set to fail, betting on a car that nobody in their right mind would buy. Especially when you consider that 10% unemployment means that more and more people are going to be worried about food and shelter than which cool car they drive.

The shills are in the Stock Market, but don't listen to them, listen to your common sense. Nobody has ever heard of a Jobless Recovery. Recovery means that JOBS are available for the population to WORK and PRODUCE at. Government doesn't produce, it confiscates. Government jobs are NOT good jobs for the economy.

Get ready for the second big drop friends. My instincts tell me it's coming, and I honestly hope I'm wrong.

What is a Mandate?

2010-04-08T16:17:00.003-05:00

Representative Wasserman Schultz of Florida claimed during a Town Hall meeting that there was no requirement, nor any mandate that you the individual must buy Health Insurance.

Yet, the the law itself says that coverage is Required. Otherwise you are charged an additional tax to offset the cost to the others that you cause them to pay by not having insurance.

From the Law text itself as quoted by the News Article linked above.

REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month

Now, I don't know about you. But when a law is passed and is enforced with a fine, including forfeiture of all your tax refund, over the simple fact that you may not have an approved insurance policy for your health care, then I have to wonder what Required really means.

Obviously Representative Wasserman Schultz of Florida has a different definition of Mandate, or Required. A definition that is strangely out of step with the rest of us as well as the text of the law she voted to pass.

One must wonder what Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz uses Required for if not the way that the Dictionary defines it. This is obviously a play on words, an attempt to tell people that up is down, left is right, and black is not black, but actually white. In other words, it's a lie.

When Required is used in the bill you voted for, how can you possibly claim that the thing the law says is Required, isn't actually mandated, or commanded. The law says it is. The law you voted for.

One can only hope that the voters in her district decide that re-elect actually means fire outright this November.

More new taxes planned

2010-04-07T04:42:00.002-05:00

History has clearly shown, the way to stimulate an economy is to lower taxes, and keep them as low as humanly possible. To accomplish this, Government must be kept small, and un-intrusive, because large and intrusive is more expensive.

With the passage of the Obamacare law, and the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, and increases in State, City, and County taxes there is progressively less money in the economy. Now, the idea is to pass additional taxes, to help make up for the record deficits that the Democrat Controlled Government is running up every day.

The next plan is a VAT or Value Added Tax. Strictly speaking, it's like a sales tax that is collected for the Federal Government.

Already, with the Obamacare taxes, people in 39 states stand to pay in excess of 50% of their income in taxes. That doesn't include the telephone tax originally begun to pay for the Spanish American War. Nor does it cover sales tax, Federal Fuel Taxes, or any other of the literally hundreds of taxes that the average citizen pays every single day.

Still more than half the income is being seized, and the argument is that it's only hitting the rich. Pfui. That's nonsense. We'll all be paying it. We'll all see our taxes go up, and our earnings go down. We'll see more hidden taxes, and with the VAT tax hitting literally everything you buy, expect the costs of things to go up by triple whatever the percentage is. An example if I may. If they announce that they are enacting a 10% VAT tax. That means that everything has that Value Added Tax put on it.

Now, the plant where it is manufactured has to pay 10% tax on all materials that they're using. For something relatively simple like a shirt, that is the material and the thread, and any expendable items like needles and other parts of the machines. Then that is moved to a packing unit, where the plastic and cardboard to ship it is also taxed at 10%. Then it's transported by truck, with the fuel costs also getting taxed by the same VAT in addition to the Federal Fuel Taxes already in place. The truck will eventually be replaced when it is worn out, and it, with the trailer, will also have similar taxes on all materials going into it's construction, and then it's final sale.

So that simple little 10% tax will in reality be a 30% increase in the cost of everything. Now your paychecks that are already looking a little thin, will look a lot thinner when it no longer can manage to afford food and housing, much less anything else, because you can't figure out how to stretch it 30% further to satisfy the hunger of the Federal Government.

We always hear how the Rich are just getting richer, how companies like Exxon are greedy for making profit producing petroleum products for us to use. Yet, the sad truth is that Exxon makes about 5 cents on a gallon of gas in profit. However, the Federal Taxes collected is 18.4 cents per gallon. More than three times the amount that Exxon gets in profit for actually drilling the hole in the ground, pumping the oil out, and then refining it into gasoline for us to use.

Why are we never asking the obvious question. If Exxon is so greedy making 5 cents per gallon, why isn't the Government three times as greedy for demanding 18.4 cents on something they had no hand in producing?

Find me a tax that the Government ever stops once it is started. The famous Telephone Tax is a good example. Every time it runs out, they find another excuse to put it back on since the Congress first decided it was a good idea during the Spanish American War. At the time, only the rich had the luxury item of a telephone, so only the rich would pay the tax. Now, we all pay it, and we wonder why our phone service is so expensive.

The conservative answer is obvious, historical, and simple. No new taxes by any name. Do in DC what the rest of us have to do all the time. Put off buying things we can't afford. Don't spend more than you have, and don't promise to spend more than you make regarding credit.

The rest of the households in the nation have to balance their budgets, and if families are sitting around the kitchen table trying to figure out what can be paid on the bills, and how they can afford to buy what they need, much less what they want. Washington can figure out how to do with less too. They got us into the mess, and it's time for them to make some hard choices on how to get out of it. We shouldn't be alone in our suffering and worries.

Ow, my head hurts

2010-03-31T22:26:00.003-05:00

I read this on Hot Air, and I didn't believe it. I had to watch the video, and even then I didn't want to believe it.

Congressman Hank Johnson of the Georgia 4th District is famous around the world for finally ridding the Government of Cynthia McKinney. Congresswoman McKinney as you might remember was a radical and a huge embarrassment for those of us who live in Georgia. However, Congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia may have just eclipsed even Cynthia McKinney with his recent comment/question in a congressional hearing.

He asked Admiral Willard if Guam is in danger of tipping over due to overpopulation. Apparently Congressman Johnson hasn't yet had it explained to him that there is big difference between islands, and boats. Just because the island appears to be floating serenely on the water, doesn't mean it's actually floating.

Now, I admire Admiral Willard who I have never heard of until this, because he managed to keep a straight and serious face while a moron asked him if an island will tip over. I couldn't have done it. I would have laughed out loud and then fallen out of the chair holding my head as my brain locked up in sheer amazement at the incredible stupidity on display. I would have been unable to resist turning to one of my aides and then saying just loud enough to be picked up by the microphone. "Did that imbecile just ask me if Guam was going to tip over?"

But they did it too... And other Childish remarks

2010-03-18T23:23:00.003-05:00

We've all seen it. Someone gets caught doing something wrong, and the first words out of their mouths is that someone else did it too.

It's childish, and it's a stupid response. I mention it today because of the Deem and Pass that the Democrats are planning on using to pass the Senate Version of Obamacare without passing Obamacare. So when people mention it is wrong to do that, the Democrats all scream that the Republicans did it too.

It was just as wrong when they did it. It was their abuses in 2006 that led to the Democrats winning back the house if you remember. People didn't like the procedural games and attitude that Congress had, and they voted the Republicans out.

It was part of the reason that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi promised us the most open, responsive, transparent, and ethical congress ever. She didn't mean it, obviously, but she said it partially over abuses like Deem and Pass.

Yet now the Democrats are abusing the system just like the Republicans did, and then they actually expect to be re-elected to another term in office? This is another example of why I am firmly in the there is no difference between the parties camp. The Republicans should never have done it, the Democrats should never use this Demon Pass technique, no one should.

If it's wrong for one, it's wrong for all. It is one of the reasons that the people voted the Republicans out of office for. It's one of the reasons the Democrats will lose seats in the next election. They haven't lived up to one tenth of the promise they made. They haven't been open, transparent, or ethical. The people who abandoned the Republicans in 2006 will be abandoning the Democrats in 2010, and I wonder how it will be spun by those who are even now screaming that the Republicans did it too.

Truth from a Democrat

2010-03-18T21:25:00.003-05:00

A video linked by Drudge, and by Hot Air, and Michelle Malkin, and goodness knows how many others, is astounding that it tells the truth.

Now what is astounding, is this is a Democrat admitting that they've been stealing money in Washington, and tells us honestly that they will keep it up.

Now, Pay as you go, a proposal, and a rule for the Congress, has been ignored already. They have no intention of paying for anything as they go. Congress always tells us that they're powerless to do anything about it, they have to do things this way.

I'm going to thank the Shilling Show for finding this, and posting it to YouTube. I'm further going to thank Democratic Congressman Perrillo for admitting the truth that we've all understood for so long. It's nice to know that one person up there is at least marginally honest.

Runaway cars.

2010-03-17T20:58:00.003-05:00

"Dad, what happens, or what should I do if the car runs amok? I mean, what if the gas pedal sticks?"

"Push the clutch in, just shove it to the floor." Dad said while gesturing. "Then apply the brake and stop. The engine will be revving up and may even blow up. Don't worry about that, first rule boy, people's lives, people's injuries, and then property."

"But, what if it's an automatic transmission?" I asked next.

"Bump it up to Neutral. Same thing. Engine will keep running, but the car can then be slowed, and stopped. Don't kill the engine with the key because most automatic transmissions have engines that also power the brakes. Wait until you get the car stopped before shutting down the engine."

"OK, and if the engine blows before I get stopped?" I asked him.

"Use the emergency brake, just shove it down and try to get out of traffic. Or if it's a handbrake, use it to get the car stopped. That works, but most cars with automatic transmissions are so heavy they don't like to stop on the emergency brake."

I spent the next week or so after school practicing this as my father patiently taught me how to drive. Fast forward ten years or so, I'm listening to a CD and the case is sitting on the seat next to me. I braked and the CD case fell off the seat, but I didn't notice. Instead I found an opening and shifted lanes to the left. When I did, the CD wedged between my handy drink and tissue holding doohickey on the Transmission Hump, and the accelerator pedal. The Ford began to speed up and I removed my foot from the gas pedal. It still sped up. I tapped the brake to disengage the cruise control, and then pushed harder because ahead of me was an 18 wheel truck.

Without thinking about it consciously, my hand reached out and slapped upwards on the transmission lever. The car dropped out of drive and into neutral, the engine began to scream as the depressed gas pedal continued to feed it fuel. I pulled over to the left into the center, put the hazard lights on, and when stopped shut the engine off. A quick inspection found the CD case had gotten into the worst possible position. Yet, it was my Father who saved the day from an accident years before. He had me practice for an eventuality that was so improbable, that most driving manuals only barely mentioned it.

Fast Forward again, and I'm driving a piece of heavy equipment. I approach a stop line and depress the brakes. The vehicle does not slow. The brakes have failed. I pull the emergency brake knob and the vehicle continues forward unimpeded. Realizing it's another runaway, I hit the horn next, and as I shifted to neutral, glided through the intersection with the air horn blowing madly. Upon reaching the other side, I turned the wheel into an open area, and left it fully right once into that area. The momentum is finally bled off the vehicle as it circles clockwise, and I shut the engine down, and call for maintenance to come and repair the equipment. A small valve was stuck, and wouldn't allow the brakes to be applied, or the parking brake to be applied. Once changed out, a total of ten minutes of labor later, I was back at work with no injuries and no damage.

A lesson I learned from my father. Expect things to go wrong. They will do that from time to time. He taught me to always act first to stop the vehicle, and accept potential damage to the vehicle as preferable to the loss of life or limb.

I have to wonder, how many of the recent reports of runaway vehicles would have been solved in seconds if the operators had only just shifted to neutral? Forget all the technology, because technology can and will fail at the worst possible moments. Just that simple operator action, shift to neutral, ends the problem 999 times out of a thousand. For that last one, it's the fault of demonic possession, and all the shifting in the world won't drive that out.

New day, new Liberal Histrionics

2010-03-17T10:18:00.004-05:00

Liberal Histrionics, defined as normal liberal tantrums by the grown ups, have long been a bell weather. If a Liberal isn't flailing around apoplectic with rage, then you're not doing it right according to Ann Coulter.

Apparently, Texas is doing it right. A San Francisco Liberal goes right past the hoity sniffing at the changes the Texas State School Board is making, and enters stage three insane rage. He accuses Texas of claiming that the Slaves wanted to be, that the Indians were helped by the White Man, and that Viet-Nam was a big victory until the Liberals screwed it up.

Yet, none of these charges are backed up by his evidence, a link to another story that keeps the outrage to sniffing, or level one liberal rage. You reach that with most liberals by wearing a leather jacket. Fur goes to two, or three, depending on the Liberal in question as a comparison.

Now, you know when a Liberal is just outraged for the sake of being outraged. They refuse to give specific examples for their outrage. An example of this would be. They would describe the problems with a conviction of a cop killer by highlighting the procedural errors in the case. The Liberals would tell you specifically what page of the proposed legislation would be used to outlaw a woman's right to choose. In other words, the devil, is in the details.

Yet, our pundit here, doesn't give any examples. He just makes them up and then says that no one should be forced to be brainwashed by the Texas State School Board. One of the horrific changes is that the United States is being referenced as a Constitutional Republic, instead of a Democracy. Well, that's actually true as I explained here.

A strict definition of a Democracy is one person, one vote, each issue. This form of Democracy was practiced in Greek City states in the thousand or so years BC. Yet, our form is that we elect representatives, who in turn, make the decisions and cast the important votes within the framework of the Constitution. In other words, a Constitutional Representative Republic.

So why would this upset the Liberals? The accurate name for things should be something we all strive for right? I'm not sure why the Libs are so upset about this, but perhaps the Lib who wrote this was suffering from a buildup of Republican Rage since he can't really blame Bush anymore. Either way, Texas, you're apparently doing it right.

Why I love Sarah Palin

2010-03-14T19:47:00.002-05:00

Sarah Palin has replaced Rush Limbaugh as the Conservative Liberals love to hate. I joked with the wife that if you wanted to avoid hiring a Liberal, the best thing you could do is put a picture of Sarah Palin in your office, an autographed picture would be best, and just watch the applicants enter the room and try to get the job.

A liberal would see the picture, and start to twitch, and before long would be screaming that Sarah Palin is an idiot, and only a bigger idiot would have her picture on the wall. Thus, you would avoid hiring a perpetual complainer who would be a serious drain on the moral of the rest of the employees, and have justification. Spitting all over the office as you rant and rave aren't really good tricks to use to get a job.

Now, to today's reason I love Sarah Palin. Scientific American has an article, that finally explains the end of days theory. The earth will be destroyed if Sarah Palin is elected President. Seriously. I honestly wish I was joking here.

That's right, the connection to 2012 and the end of our world is Sarah Palin. Thankfully, the author has a plan to save the earth, don't elect Sarah Palin, and oh by the way, accept Global Warming, or Man Made Climate Change, or whatever they're calling it this week.

Sarah Palin is a the red cape to the Liberals who happily play the part of the bulls. All you have to do is wave it once, and they can't resist charging it. No matter how stupid they look, no matter how asinine their deranged arguments are, they won't resist the impulse to scream it's all Sarah Palin's fault.

They used to have this kind of reaction to Rush Limbaugh, but they've reached the pretend he doesn't exist stage again. They go through these stages from time to time. Absolute focus on everything he says, and then ignoring him and hoping he'll go away, only to return to absolute outraged focus over something he will say.

However, with Sarah Palin, they never reach the pretend she doesn't exist stage. A picture of her will send them into twitching migraines in record time. If she dares to speak, and say anything, they start frothing at the mouth and go into seizures.

Now, we know why the earth will be destroyed in 2012. Sarah Palin may be elected President. The best thing about that day will be watching all the Liberals have strokes all over the world. I wonder where I go to donate to the Sarah for President fund? Perhaps we can rename it the Send Liberals into Conniption Fit fund.

No difference between the parties.

2010-03-06T20:27:00.002-05:00

Recently the argument has again fired up about the political system in our nation. For all intents and purposes, it is limited by tradition, and the reality of winner take all states, to a two party system, especially for Presidential Elections, but also for seats in Congress.

Yet is there really a difference between the two parties? I have long believed that there isn't a difference, and I've mentioned it many times. During a recent discussion, I think I stumbled upon a perfect example of the sameness that pervades both parties.

Both parties want bigger Government. Republicans and Democrats voted overwhelmingly to renew the PATRIOT Act. President Obama hurried to sign the re-authorization, before it should expire and die a natural death. The reason is obvious. The politicians, even those who have railed against the PATRIOT Act, are afraid of looking like they're not going to protect the nation.

Yet, there is a better example. Part of what disgusted the population during the Clinton Years was the Brady Law. The Republicans ran against it, and got both houses of Congress partially because of this abomination of a law. When Bush 43 was elected, the obvious answer existed. Repeal every bit of that freaking law immediately. Instead, they let parts of it expire, and left the rest in place. They never acted to repeal it, because they are not in favor of going against it, they're in favor of having it in place.

So why wouldn't the Republicans, who every election cycle, claim correctly I might add, that the Democrats want your guns not repeal in its entirety the Brady Law? Because the obvious answer is that the fear of losing your guns is a big enough political issue to get you donating, and to the voting booth.

They didn't repeal the law because it is a good way to get you to keep supporting them.

In 2004, the Democrats demonstrated the stupidity of running against something or someone with their campaign motto. Any Body But Bush. That was pathetically the only reason they gave you to vote for John Kerry. Surprising no one, this technique, known as the death by lack of policy, failed to inspire enough voters to achieve their goal.

So what are the Republicans doing for the midterm elections? They're running against Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Putting out Power Point memo's on how to scare people into donating, and voting Republican.

The biggest win the Republicans had was in 1994 when the Contract With America swept the Republicans into power. Yet for some reason, no one has learned from this. That Contract was a simple document, that highlighted the frustrations of the population. It embraced them, and people who signed onto it swore that they would go with that as their guiding principals. That lasted until about ten seconds after they were elected. Then it was business as usual with bigger Government.

The answer both parties have for every supposed problem is bigger Government. So now, when the people are screaming about the out of control Deficit, and they're shouting about Government taking control of Health Care and denouncing all efforts to even lay the groundwork of that effort what do the Republicans do? Do they finally understand that most Americans really want a smaller less intrusive Government? No, they want to scare people to the polls again, and scare them into donating again, by claiming their opponents are Socialists.

So, what should we vote for? We we should vote for the Republicans because the Democrats are Socialists. Does that sound familiar? It should. It is similar to the Democrats Vote for us because Republicans want to take away your Social Security you Seniors. It's similar to the Democrats vote for us because Republicans want to take away your right to vote Blacks and Women. It's the same fear mongering that has gotten to be the only thing that the parties have to run on.

Neither party will admit to what they stand for. The Democrats are loath to admit that they do in fact have many Socialist polices that they are in favor of. The Republicans are loath to admit that they have many of the same policies, call it Socialism Lite, as evidenced by Bush's push for Prescription Drug Benefit that has cost triple what we were told it would and is in fact, going to help bankrupt the very Medicare benefit and Social Security benefit that Democrats scream Conservatives want to take away.

There is no difference between the parties. The Democrats are in a bullet train to Socialism, the Republicans are on a slower freight train to the same destination. No one actually does anything about smaller less intrusive Government anymore. They just vote to make it more intrusive and much much larger.

A Republic, if you can keep it.

2010-03-01T08:32:00.003-05:00

Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying that our nation was a Republic after the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

In order to be a Republic, the Government must be representative of the people. Otherwise, we have a different type of Government all together.

I thought of that quote this morning when I was reading David Frum's latest opinion piece at CNN. David Frum wants to bring back the good old days of Congress, where smoke filled back room deals are what made Legislation happen.

Yet David forgets, that the reason the "reforms" that he denounces happened, is that people weren't happy with those backroom deals that he states were much better than modern gridlock. He points to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Voting Rights Acts which passed as backroom deals. Yet during the same period, many bad laws passed as well, and many bad things happened as a result of the lack of transparency.

There was Watergate of course, where Congress sat on the sidelines until the Press had done a vast majority of the investigation. Then they went after Nixon, who was stupid enough to play into the hands of Congress by ordering people to lie to cover up his first lie, to cover up the Burglary that he didn't order.

There was the cover up of the Golf Class Soviet Submarine sinking, and the creation of the Glomar Explorer as part of Project Jennifer.

There was the Gulf of Tonkin incident which led Congress to get us involved in Viet-Nam, and then there was the inaction of Congress when the North Vietnam broke the treaty and invaded South Vietnam.

There was the Space Race, which led to the creation of NASA. There was the curtailing of that exploration, which led to the limited capacity of the Space Shuttle, which was to be limited by Congress's authorization to research and build it, to Low Earth Orbit.

I could go on and on and on about things that either Congress authorized, Legislated, or required, that went contrary to the Publics own good.

David Frum in desire to have Congress do something, forgets that all too often, those backroom deals have led to Congress doing the wrong thing.

The age of transparency and of representatives who are answerable to the public is much preferred. Because if we had a Congress that still did the back room deals, then what could we have now? Immigration reform would have passed easily. No one would have sent a brick to congress, because no one would have known the details. Congress would slap a misleading name on it, and that would have been all we the people would have known.

Gridlock Mr. Frum seems to say, is a bad thing. He believes we need a Congress that does anything, as often as possible.

I say Gridlock is a good thing, even a great thing. Because that means that when Congress does act, they do the right thing, the right way. Those who wish for Reform, can educate the people as to why they want it. Ronald Reagan sold the AMERICAN PEOPLE on Tax reforms. Congress opposed him. Reagan created the ground swell of public support, and got the people behind it. Congress had to act on that Public Demand. They gave Reagan nearly all of what he wanted.

Open and responsive Government Mr. Frum, has led to some wonderful things. It often doesn't lead to the Oppressive and restrictive governments that we see elsewhere. If my choice is a congress that does everything behind closed doors, and give me lots of legislation, and a Congress that does everything in the open, and passes very little legislation. I'll take the very little route. Change may be slower, but it's the right change, for the right reasons.

That way, the headquarters for NASA isn't put into Houston, while the Rocket Test Facility is in Alabama, and the launch facility is in Florida. Those Geographic choices weren't made just because Florida was a good place to launch Rockets from. The Senators in those states that had to vote for NASA wanted a piece of the Pie. Senator Lyndon Johnson of Texas wanted a piece of the pie. Senator Sparkman of Alabama wanted a piece of the pie. So Huntsville, a sleepy little town, became Rocket City USA. Houston became home of the NASA Administration Headquarters, and Astronaut Training Center.

Is this the way we should get things done? The good old days of backroom deals with the quote most often heard. "What's in it for me?"

Mr. Frum, those landmark pieces of legislation may have been impressive, and even milestones in legislative history. However, you can't seriously believe that backroom deals are better than public interest in, and activism in the legislative process.

As I said before. I would prefer that we not get much of anything done in Congress, because most of what they do screws up the lives of the citizens.

Forced into Sex Trade, in OHIO?

2010-02-11T10:46:00.002-05:00

That's the summary of a panel that was created by the Ohio Governor to look into the state and find out if there was a problem.

OK, so my scepticism needle is twitching. Has anyone ever seen a panel report, or a special report commissioned that failed to find the exact problem they were told to look for? In other words, if you convene a panel to look into the problem of the color red. Is it too prevalent in our society, they'll come back with a long winded report telling you that yes, the color red is in fact, far too prevalent in our society. In fact, the color red is dangerously close to becoming overused, and perhaps even the dominant color of the spectrum.

Now, the panel in question purportedly looked into the sex business in Ohio, and amazingly enough, found huge problems with Ohio regarding this problem.

Yeah. I mean, when you hear of people taking a sex vacation. Ohio is right at the top of the list right? Wait, Ohio isn't on the list? How did that happen? Let's be serious for a moment shall we? In Nevada, Prostitution is legal. So why would you go to Ohio, where the nightlife is best shown on the Drew Carey Show, and appears to consist of a bunch of people sitting in a bar and drinking beer until they pass out. Why go to Ohio when you could go to Vegas, and have all the fun you want, legally?

Yet, it's apparently Ohio's weak laws on Human Trafficking that make Ohio such a dangerous place for people. Ohio, the State? Apparently, the folks in Ohio haven't yet heard, but here's a news flash. You are a State. Human Trafficking of the type mentioned in the article, from and to foreign countries is really the area where that huge Federal Government is supposed to be working. Especially if you are actually believing that there is this secret underground conduit from Canada, through Ohio, to the world. (Canada is another of those low on the list sex vacation spots)

So how many people are estimated to be forced into the sex trade in Ohio each year? According to the hype of the report, 1,000. A thousand. Now, knowing how Government Estimates when they are claiming a problem are always way higher than the truth. From the Hundreds of Millions of Homeless that suddenly exist only when a Republican is President, to claims of jobs created or saved, Government estimates are always hyper inflated.

So we can assume that the number is roughly half that, or about 500. Now, I'll agree that one girl being forced into prostitution is wrong. Yet, the question that comes up is what do we do when the girls run away from home, and seek out people who will abuse them? That is what happens in nearly every case. The girls get involved in drugs, or normal teenage angst, or above normal angst, and then run away from home.

There is another problem with this claim. The National Center for missing and exploited children lists a total of 45 kids, total, missing from Ohio. That is for all years. Even if you say that list is hardly complete, and I agree, it probably is very incomplete, where are the families of the other children who are missing? Are they in on this human trafficking problem?

To read the report, you would think that there is some shadow organization that is finding clean cut good girls from the honors list and kidnapping them into a world of sex and drugs. The truth is, the girls and boys in questions are victims, but they begin as willing participants, and often finish as such.

They want the drugs, and don't care about what comes with it. Now, are the men, and women who use these kids bad? Yes. Yet the truth still remains. This is on a national scale, a very minor problem. Even on the scale of the state, it's a very minor problem.

With a population of 11.5 million people, even the claimed number of 1,000 people forced into the sex trade is a fraction of a percentage point.

By comparison, Ohio had more than 500 murders in the state in 2008. They had more than 4,000 reported rape cases. These are crimes that are reported, in which the victim hopes to get some justice.

The problem with Prostitution, even child prostitution, is that the victim often refuses to appear and testify. Cities give summons to Prostitutes all the time, and know that they won't appear in court. They'll move on to another city, another area. They'll find another place to do their crime, and buy their drugs.

If we must focus an entire panel on the problems of children, why don't we focus on the problems that affect all the children? The problems we can fix are numerous, and widespread.

Start with school. Why are kids who choose to play football lauded over the kids who choose to study art or music? Why do we not herald the achievements of kids who get high grade point averages? Why not tell the kids starting at an early age that academic achievement is an excellent goal that takes years of hard work?

Why not show the earnings potential of science and math versus athletics to the kids?

If we want to help the kids, why not start young, and give them the foundation of knowledge that would reduce this trend of drugs, and sexual exploitation, in a meaningful way?

Instead, a panel spent weeks, or months, creating a hyped report, with seriously questionable conclusions, all at taxpayer expense. The conclusion? Of course, more Government. More laws. More regulations.

Sex with a minor is against the law in most states. Ohio is one of those. Coercion, Racketeering, and abuse is against the law. Are you telling me that the people committing these crimes against kids aren't violating one of the existing laws? We don't need panels, or new laws. We have millions of laws on the books already. We need to enforce the existing laws.

Our approval of Politicians

2010-02-08T13:45:00.002-05:00

A friend recently asked me why we get angry, or annoyed with Politicians when we elect them. The point was this, they campaigned, and we cast our ballot for them, and then when they do what they said they would, we get annoyed, or even angry with them. That question got me to thinking and I wanted to blog it to explain the fickle nature of the public.

1) Candidates only campaign in the most general of terms. They promise reform, or in the most recent election, hope and change. Yet, those terms are so vague, and his explanations were so general, lacking in any specifics, that you are left to create your own details.

The comedic newspaper writer Dave Barry has "run for President" in two elections. His views on the issues? He agrees with you on 100% of the issues. Now that is a chuckle getting line, but when you listen to a Politician running for office, they are slightly more serious when they say essentially that they do agree with each and every one of you on a vast majority of the issues.

2) Willingness to doubt the statements of the Candidate we don't agree with. Then there are statements that the candidate makes, and we are willing to deceive ourselves and pretend that he wouldn't be dumb enough to actually do that. He's just playing up to this group, or that special interest to get their votes. He's really far more reasonable than that isn't he?

Or as an alternate to that one, we're willing to believe he can be stopped from pursuing that one.

To summarize, it's our willingness to pretend that the candidate isn't as big of a moron as we suspect he might actually be.

I've personally started to think that Douglas Adams had the right idea in the Restaurant and the End of the Universe. Anyone who wants to hold High Political Office, is automatically disqualified from having the power that comes with it.

I mean think about this. They're spending millions of their own money, to get a job that pays about $200,000 a year. That makes such bad financial sense that it makes you wonder how dumb they really are. Until you realize that for them to get the money in the first place, or keep from losing it all about ten seconds after they inherited it, they would have to be way smarter than that.

So we're left with the idea, that they are running for Political office for what they can get out of it, and us. I also note that no President has ever left office broke.

President Clinton for example, born poor in Arkansas, is a millionaire several times over. Yet, he spent a good portion of his life in Public Housing. The People technically owned the Governor's Mansion in Arkansas, and the White House in DC.

Was this an unintended consequence of his being elected President? I doubt it, but have no idea in reality.

We hear all the time about Politicians getting sweetheart loans, and we realize that again, Senators and Congressmen rarely leave office in a bad financial state. Most of them are usually Wealthy.

So why would we lose faith in the very politicians we elected? Simple, we vote hoping that they're different, and realize afterwards that they're just as bad as the last one. The only change we get, is the position we get screwed in. The only thing I can think of to eliminate this trend is to put term limits and extremely high taxes on the Politicians, so they leave office flat busted broke and have to get a job with the rest of us.

Then we might have a government that is a bit more Of the people, By the people, and FOR the people

Now the Police want a cops only net?

2010-02-04T09:12:00.002-05:00

Yes, the Police actually want to have an easier time investigating you, and be able to stop waiting around for some person at a company to quit taking days to comply with a Subpoena.

By looking at the history of the police, and their abuse of technology, we can clearly see that each database we give them, and give them access to, is abused by someone. From the NCIC being used by then Chief of Police Southers to run background checks on people he had no business interfering with. If the former Chief of Police was running background checks on his ex-wife's new boyfriends, then how many other police officers are doing the same thing? Is this something that all the cops are doing? Are the police running people through the computer at the slightest whim of curiosity?

My belief is if you give a group a chance to screw up, then someone in that group will screw up eventually. If it is a chance to abuse power and authority, then someone will do it eventually.

The police are also hoping that changing the law will require Internet Service Providers to maintain records for up to five years. The article claims that frustrations for the police are extreme.

Kardasz's survey, based on questionnaires completed by 100 police investigators,
says that 61 percent of them had their investigations harmed "because data was
not retained" and only 40 percent were satisfied with the timeliness of
responses from Internet providers.

Allow me to translate this for you from the blame game, to human speak. The police investigated, and felt the suspect was guilty as could be. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough evidence that the guy committed the crime. So it's not that the police investigated an innocent person, it's that the Internet Service Providers didn't keep enough stuff around for the Police to prove the guy was guilty.

Hunches such as the ones described above, may be a good enough reason to take a look at someone. However, if the evidence doesn't support your hunch, you admit you made a mistake, and move along. Yet, the police in question, don't blame their hunches, they blame the evidence. Talk about shooting the messenger.

I say that the Police do NOT need a cops only Internet, and I say that the investigations were flawed from the get go. If a person is guilty, you should be able to prove that. If all you have is some weak circumstantial evidence, then the person is innocent, until proven guilty.

The IRS needs Shotguns?

2010-02-04T09:01:00.002-05:00

The IRS, you know, that Federal Bureaucracy that employs thousands of accountants, lawyers, and nosy busybodies, is accepting bids from sellers of Shotguns. Seriously.

The statement is that the shotguns are needed for their Criminal Investigations Division. You need a shotgun to go over someones financial records? Are you joking? Please tell me you are joking.

Quotes are solicited under Request For Quotation (RFQ) number TIRWR-10-Q-00023.
This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; a written RFQ will not be
issued. If your company can provide the product listed in the RFQ and comply
with all of the RFQ instructions, please respond to this notice.

This requirement is a Small Business Set-Aside and only
qualified sellers may submit quotes. NACIS code for this requirement is 332994.
The RFQ opens on the date this announcement is posted and closes Wednesday,
February 10, 2010, 2:00:00 PM Pacific Standard Time. Response should be emailed
or mailed by the closing date to Marc.Feinberg@irs.gov or IRS, 1301 Clay Street,
Suite 810S, Oakland, CA 94612. FOB Destination shall be Washington DC.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty
Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division

I guess they aren't joking. Apparently, it's only that I wish they were. Are you seriously telling me that the IRS actually needs shotguns to crawl over the financial records of a citizen? Am I the only one who finds this incredible?

Just a few questions Mr. President

2010-02-01T13:05:00.003-05:00

The current fleet of Space Shuttles should reach the end of their service lives this year, 2010. Obviously, we could push that envelope a bit, and try to keep it going for another year or two. However, the question comes up, what do we replace it with?

The Constellation Program. Was part of a larger idea. Earth, the Moon, and Mars with one system that was adaptable to it's needs. It would have allowed us to service the International Space Station, transfer supplies, and allow us to plan and execute missions beyond Earth Orbit, which the Shuttle couldn't.

The President has decided that first on the chopping block is the Constellation program. This is the first thing he feels needs to be cut from the Federal Budget.

OK, let's say I agree we need to curb Federal spending, which I do. However, I have one question Mr. President. How do we service the International Space Station without the Shuttle, or it's replacement? You know, get people up there, supplies, things like that.

The Russian system is incapable of sustaining a full crew on the Space Station indefinitely. The Euro Space Program is just now getting the tests underway of their unmanned cargo system online. It's not ready yet, and the question is again, how do we service the ISS?

Only the Shuttle is capable of carrying the components into space, and positioning them where they need to be to complete construction of the station. Only NASA has the experience needed to conduct the long term spacewalks required to connect these components. They aren't Lego's, they have to be precisely aligned and connected properly, the very first time.

So why am I the first person to ask this question, what are we going to do with this huge station we have in orbit right now? Are we going to fly the Shuttle indefinitely? Already, NASA is having trouble getting parts, you see, the technology that went into the Shuttle was cutting edge, in 1976. Computer chips that were revolutionary at the time, are astoundingly difficult to find. A Gateway laptop probably has more computer power than all the computers used by the shuttle combined at it's inception.

So what are we going to do with the International Space Station Mr. President? Also why isn't the NASA administrator, who is busy explaining why this is just the way the Federal Budget bounces, asking these questions?

There is another issue we haven't considered. Helium 3, which seems mathmatically to answer a number of issues concerning Fusion Power, and it's eventual replacement of all other power sources on Earth, is rather rare here on Earth. As in nearly non existant. However, it is far more abundant on the moon. Also there are theories that Helium 3 can be used in medical treatments and tests to show actual Lung activity in real time.

Yet, by canceling the Moon phase of of NASA, aren't we putting this material, and cheap, clean, efficient energy beyond our reach for decades?

It is an axiom that we should reduce spending during difficult times. That is a truth that every family in America knows. However, it's also a truism that you don't cut your nose off in spite of your face. By canceling NASA's moon program, and the larger Constellation program, aren't we doing exactly that? Isn't the short term gain, as small as it is a part of the budget, more easily found elsewhere? Isn't our potential long term loss so great we should reconsider this idea? I believe it is, and I think that the White House hasn't really considered this matter fully. I think that NASA should have made a better case, and the cries for Green Energy would be clamoring for Fusion power.

Perhaps not, because truly reliable, clean, cheap energy, would be the opposite of what the environmentalist nuts want. They want expensive rationed energy instead.

Time to end the two party system?

2010-01-26T14:26:00.002-05:00

The Two party system, which is the system that only the United States has adopted, is seriously flawed. It doesn't allow the people to really express their true beliefs, and in fact, limits the choices to two corrupt institutions.

For those who believe in freedom of expression, and freedom of choice, the answer is obvious, end the two party system. This would require coalitions to gain control of congress.

The reality is that if you're a Democrat, even if you're a fiscally conservative, socially moderate, and a touch internationalist, defined by having great respect and deference for the United Nations, you're never going to amount to much in the Democratic Party. You simply put, can't gain influence over the extreme left wing radicals that are the titular heads of the party.

If you're a Republican who believes in open and honest Government, smaller and less intrusive Government, and individual liberty, you're similarly doomed to spend your life slamming your head into the wall of the Blue Blood Republicans who want watered down versions of the Democratic Policies.

So what is the answer? As many parties as you like. If you think that the Democratic Party of today is too Conservative, join a party that is much further to the left. If on the other hand, you think that the Democratic Party is too Liberal, then a vote for the Conservative Democrats may be the way to go. Same with the Republicans.

Other nations do this, and it gives a better example of the people's attitudes. If the Conservatives sweep in with two or three different parties to the right of center, then there is little doubt that the people feel a more conservative line is expected of the Government.

In America, we pretend that the people's votes, are what we say they are. When President Obama was elected, the pundits, and legislators screamed that this was a clear sign that the people wanted extreme socialist principals to guide and build the Government.

When the Democrats took control of Congress, this was claimed to be the same thing, clear evidence that the people wants extreme socialist policies. Yet, the individuals who won the races, ran as Conservatives in Fiscal and International policies. For some reason, the fact that this gave the Democrats control isn't ever mentioned, or considered. These Democrats are labeled as Blue Dog's, but they have little or no influence in the party.

The same is true of Republicans, hard core conservatives are shunned by the party elite, as are the liberals at the other end.

So why not, why not go with the multi-party platform? If you have four parties, let's go with Extreme Liberals who believe in Government Control of everything. Fiscal Conservative Pro-Choice Candidates should go into that party, call it the Center-Left. For the Restricted Choice, in other words not funded by the Government, but available based upon States Choices in the matters, Center-Right. Then the more extreme Right wing, which with few minor exceptions, I would belong in.

That group would shrug helplessly when AIG, or GM says that their poor management of their business will cause them to go Bankrupt if we don't act right now. People like me would look at them and say. "Then I'm sure whoever comes after you, won't make the same mistake your company made, aren't you?" Sounds cruel, but that is the way the system is supposed to work. Nothing, is ever, too big to fail.

We would let the market sort it out, and let companies that are poorly managed, fail. We would have social programs designed to assist people back into society, not spending life dependant upon it. Workfare, where if you're on Welfare, you get job training to get you back into the self sufficiency. Unemployment with a possibility of additional jobs training to make you more competitive in the work force.

So coalitions would be formed, and it would probably swing back and forth between the Center Right, and Center left groups as to who held the most political power during any given time. However, this would eliminate the extremist's like Nancy Pelosi from wielding tremendous power that isn't reflective of the electoral base. We have no say who is the Speaker of the House, or the Majority Whip in the Senate. We the people should have some say, the second in line for the Oval Office, and if we have say over who the President, and Vice President is, shouldn't we have say in who the Speaker is?

I believe it's time for a more parliamentary set up to take root in the United States, and I think it will reduce, but never eliminate the dirty tricks and back room deals that permeate our current system.

The problem with Air America and Liberals

2010-01-25T11:48:00.002-05:00

Air America, the liberal dream to destroy Rush Limbaugh, filed for bankruptcy. The most common reaction that people in the world felt was. "Wait, they were still on the air?"

Now, Liberals have a problem. They don't understand reality, so they have no clue how to exist outside of the College Campus. That problem has always affected Liberals, and their solutions to whatever problems society is facing. Their answers simply put, exacerbate the problem.

Air America according to this explanation, failed not because they had a moronic business model, but because the Liberals just don't listen to the radio. Yeah, that's it.

Privately owned Radio Stations have to pay the bills, the income from those stations is in the form of Advertising. The biggest Advertisers, are the biggest Corporations. Now, name a corporation, or business that Liberals like. I'll take a minute and give you time to think. So Corporations that would like to advertise to sell products, or services, are simply put, not welcome on the Air America Radio format.

Who is going to advertise? GM? "Check out our new Chevrolet Pick Up truck, it's bigger and better than ever. It can tow a 747, and handle your weekend projects with ease." The song comes on talking about how Chevy is built like a Rock. Then the radio program comes back and the environmental nuts are screaming about how awful the new Chevy Pickup truck is. How anyone who buys it is in essence shooting a baby seal in the head. So Chevy won't be advertising will they?

Take any company, and the Liberals can't help but rail against it. So why would those companies spend advertising dollars to support people who don't like them, for an audience who won't buy the products?

Now, we can look at the ratings, and why Air America failed is simple. Dishonesty and completely out of touch opinions. After an hour of listening to them rant about how it's all the Republicans fault, you get bored and move on. They had no principals worth mentioning, and no ideals other than the single one, destroy Limbaugh.

When you look at the Air America business plan, you' can't help but think about South Park, who discussed bad business plans on the Underpants Gnomes episode. Their Business plan was simple.

Phase One: Collect Underpants
Phase Two: ??
Phase Three: Profit

What exactly phase two was, just never really got cleared up. However, they had a good idea to begin, and a goal, but that darned bridge phase, just didn't seem to work out.

Enjoy the clip, because the discussions on Air America were probably pretty similar.

Phase One: Start Radio Network
Phase Two:?
Phase Three: Destroy Limbaugh and the Republicans

President Obama and the TelePrompTer

2010-01-25T10:39:00.002-05:00

The running joke is that President Obama doesn't seem to be able to say Good Morning without the trusty TelePrompTer there to help him. The TelePrompTer of the United States has a blog page, where he tells the world how hard he and the "Big Guy" are working for the people.

Late Night Comedians have joked about it. The Onion has spoofed this dependence on the scripting tool.

So last week, the President was speaking to some kids in an Elementary School in Virginia. Now, as he is addressing children in the earliest stage of Development, we can assume that he was able to manage this without giving comedy material to the web right?

Er, no, he can't. As can be clearly shown in the picture. President Obama is addressing kids in the 6th Grade and has the usual TelePrompTer set up he needs when saying Good Morning, or ordering lunch.

Police beat teenager for bottle of soda.

2010-01-23T20:04:00.003-05:00

The story, a 18 year old senior violinist honor student at a Pittsburgh High School was beaten by three police officers who were "trying to determine what heavy object he had in his pocket".

This video is from the local news story.

Now, to make sure I understand. The police's only probable cause was that they saw a black teenager walking down the street with what appeared to be something heavy in his pocket. These plainclothes officers then started after the boy. This young man then did what anyone would do if suddenly chased, he ran. He was then beaten, stun gunned, and get this, hit by a tree branch during the "arrest."

OK, so the story thus far. Three trained adult male police officers had to beat this young man so badly that his eye was swollen shut, his jaw was swollen shut, and the twigs of the tree branch had in fact, penetrated his gums.

Who decided these three fools should be police officers in the first place? If it takes three men, who are supposedly trained to arrest people, to take down a teenager, and they have to use a stun gun, and a handy tree branch for a club to do it, what kind of cops are they? I can understand if the police officer was working alone, and was attacked by three people, that he grabbed a tree branch to defend himself. I can understand if the Police Officer grabbed a tree branch to use as a club if he was in a riot and seriously outnumbered.

I can't understand how you have the boy outnumbered three to one, and you still have to rip his hair out, literally, and beat him down with a tree branch. Whatever your talents may be, you are obviously inept as a police officer.

Now, according to Jordon Miles, they drew weapons on him. The police claim they thought the young man was armed. I have a hard time with that. Every heavy pocket is not a gun, and merely the existence of a heavy pocket is hardly probable cause to stop and search the young man.

The DA in Pittsburgh should drop all charges, and issue an apology. If an investigation is warranted, it would be better served looking into these three officers. This is obviously excessive use of force, and quite possibly Felony Assault.

Plan to pass health care

2010-01-20T03:11:00.003-05:00

I believe I have a plan to help the Democrats pass Health Care, that plays into the strength's of the White House.

After the great game changing effect that the President had on Virginia, New Jersey, and now Massachusetts, the White House should simply tell the Congressmen and Senators the following.

If you don't vote for Heath Care, then we will not only actively campaign for you, but we'll show up for the Primary in Air Force One, and President Obama will deliver a speech that mentions change and hope no less than fifty times.

This threat may be enough to get the bill passed in the next couple days. After what has happened in what should have been three safe races for Democrats, the promise of President Obama's help in campaigning, would be seen as a threat anyway.

Astounded

2010-01-19T21:37:00.004-05:00

Scott Brown won the special election in Massachusetts. Astounding, absolutely astounding. Honestly, I didn't expect this result.

Congradulations Scott Brown, and the citizens of Massachusetts. You have impressed and surprised me beyond my ability to describe.

What does this mean for President Obama? Obamacare is dead. The darned thing he's been trying to ram through Congress is the nail that was driven into the coffin now.

Why? Because Conservative values matter to Americans. We care about Conservative principals.

One thing President Obama and the Democrats keep saying is that a vote for Brown was a vote to go back to the way things were before President Obama. That's the problem Mr. President.

Then we had 5% or less unemployment. Essentially statistical full employment. Now we have double that, and that's just the folks still drawing unemployment checks. You're darned right people want to go back, they want to go back to work. They want jobs, and you've been wasting time focusing on your Obamacare bill.

Mr. President, forgive me for explaining this as though to a simpleton. However, when in charge, you tackle the most important problem first. Let's say you're the captain of a ship. It doesn't matter a fetid dingo's kidney if the brass is shiny, when the boat is sinking.

Sir, you passed up opportunity to fix things. Your stimulus package was a payoff to your supporters in slush funds for political cronies. We know, we see it. You bought GM, and propped up a failing corporation, at our expense. You screwed up the Bank Bailouts, and you picked your cronies to be your Cabinet. The people noticed, and we saw the caliber of people you selected.

We were told that these were the best people available. You would think with the rising unemployment, that someone else had to be available.

Mr. President, it's time to consider something. Something that President Clinton figured out. Liberal agenda items don't sell well with the public. He figured that out when the Republicans won big in 1994. He became far more conservative, and a better President for this nation after that date.

It's time to throw off those far left wing radicals, and hire yourself some Conservatives to advise you Mr. President. The far left wing Liberals may be more acceptable to your circle of friends, but they suck as advisers, or leaders. Think about it Mr. President, or you'll find yourself on the end of an Election Night shocker in 2012. The people of one of the most liberal states in the Union have spoken, and they rejected you as well as your anointed shoe in.

President Obama needs your help

2010-01-19T02:53:00.005-05:00

President Obama arrived to try and shore up support for the Democratic Candidate Coakley in Massachusetts. He promptly shoved his foot right into his mouth demonstrating how out of touch he is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XfMpCVegN4&feature=player_embedded

Everybody can buy a truck. They can? Perhaps you haven't noticed Mr. President, but the unemployment rate is 10% and the underemployed/Unemployed/Gave up category is estimated to be about 20% according to the BLS.

So Mr. President, the economy is doing worse than any time since the Great Depression. You're in control of the Government during this time, and you're the one who's most responsible for it's getting worse, and it's continuation. Instead you say, Everybody can buy a truck.

Isn't that a bit like Let them eat cake Mr. President?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. President Obama is destined to repeat the great work of President Carter. He's going to Shepard in a new Conservative Resurgence that will carry us through another Decade. One term President, considered a failure by history, that's the destiny of President Obama, and he'll have no one to blame but himself.

Liberals confirm their plan to win Elections

2010-01-16T18:55:00.003-05:00

Liberals even now are astounded. They don't understand why the polls seem to indicate that a majority of people don't like their policies. The Liberals don't care of course, their policies are the right ones, and if someone doesn't like it, that's only because anyone who opposes it is a homophobic hate filled racist sexist bigoted moron.

It began as a post on Hot Air for me. Ed Shultz, the MSNBC nutcase who thinks like all Liberals that they know what is best for everyone. Decried the potential loss of the "Kennedy Seat" to a Republican as potentially the end of Change as we know it.

From there, he's gone downhill. He says now that he would vote ten times to "keep those bastards out."

Interestingly enough, I wouldn't vote ten times to get a candidate I liked in, or one I didn't like out. Because I believe I am no better than any other person. I am but one single voice, and if I think the country is headed in the wrong direction, I have a choice. I can explain to my fellow citizens why I think things are going wrong, and my philosophy on what could be done. I can educate in other words. I can teach my fellow citizens why I believe that Conservative principals work and can give examples of historic significance as to why they have worked in the past.

Or I could take the Ed Shultz technique. I could vote ten times, because I'm certain that my own opinion is so right, my own beliefs so superior, that only I should be allowed to decide what happens to all of you, my fellow citizens. Arrogance doesn't begin to describe that by the way.

At least the Liberals admit their policies are unpopular, and further, admit how they can only win. They can only win, if they cheat.

Incredibly inept Democratic Campaign.

2010-01-15T13:11:00.003-05:00

In what can only be described as an incredible gaffe, or a thoughtless blunder, the morons in the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) have tried to help out embattled candidate Martha Coakley against Republican Scott Brown.

Friends, many people have complained that the Democrats have one page in the playbook, demonize all Republicans and especially Conservative Republicans (assuming there are any left) as hate filled racist homophobic morons who don't care for the "little guy" but do care about business's.

This one playbook is why every election we hear how all Republicans are always painted with the same broad brush strokes. However, as I read in Hot Air, and couldn't believe it at first, the Democrats are now recycling more than the same old tired lines, they're recycling ad campaigns.

These dolts actually included footage of the World Trade Center, not to show how he's soft on Terror, or a reactionary loon. But in an attempt to show how Scott Brown was a big friend to unregulated Wall Street. Are you joking DSCC? Did anyone review this before running this ad?

According to Politico, it was a mistake to include the image, and the DSCC has pulled the ad, and removed it from You Tube, and it will be fixed with a different image, and resubmitted.

I am sure that some of you will be able to describe to the mules at the DSCC what pictures you think they should use.

When Liberal and Conservative intersect

2010-01-13T03:19:00.002-05:00

I was reading and laughing at the various whiny posts at Huffington Post when I stumbled across one that made me agree with the writer, with the caveat that accepts the post as reasonably true.

The story from Victoria Fine is that her Father is being held indefinitely on Contempt of Court charges from a Judge.

Now, how long have I hated that charge? Pretty much all my life. When I was in school, I took a course that among other things gave a brief introduction into the courts. This instructor was astounded that I believed that Contempt of Court charges violated the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. You see, under this charge by a Judge, you are deprived of liberty without a trial by a jury of your peers. I suggested then that the proper way to do this was to have the charge reviewed and then moved to a trial by jury to see if the actions of the defendant were really contemptuous, or merely the ranting of a holier than thou judge.

Remember the asinine Judge in Niagara Falls New York? He jailed the entire court room over the ringing of a cell phone in his court. He was disbarred for Judicial Misconduct, but really, was his insanity any different than any other claim from a Judge?

Now, I understand that there must be some semblance of control in the court room, which is why I began by stating that it should be reviewed, and before you detain the offender for more than the normal 3 days, that charges be filed and the system allowed to work as it does for every other criminal complaint. I say criminal, because you're not supposed to be jailed for civil matters.

Accountability is the issue. Are the Judges accountable? Usually, no. All too often they're appointed for life, and this is the key. We have to hold the judges accountable. The obvious answer is one that will never be allowed by the legal profession. Have all Contempt citations reviewed by the next higher court. If a State Judge in Los Angeles issues a Contempt charge against a man, and orders him jailed, then the State Court of Appeals should review the record of that charge within three days, to guarantee that the charge is proper.

If it is found to be proper, then the person should be charged properly, and then tried by the prosecutor, and judged by a jury of his peers, not some sanctimonious potentate in a black robe.

Ms. Fine, I agree with you, that this is indeed troubling. This is one of those instances where the smaller Government less powerful Government Conservatives like myself, should support the cause of actual justice and the intent of the Constitution as written, no matter who the victim is.

Trust us, we're not lying

2010-01-11T21:28:00.003-05:00

Anyone who's ever watched Court TV or been in a court room knows how things go. The Prosecutor presents video, testimony, and explanations to the jury to explain that the defendant did do whatever he was accused of. Cop reality shows which show the dashboard video footage are all the rage on Television. Security camera's and video are often shown to the public so the people can see what really happened.

But we're told that these body penetrating ionized X-Ray's which produce pictures like this aren't going to be saved, or kept.

OK, let me get this straight. The vital chain of evidence is not going to be kept in the case of someone who is shown in one of these pictures as hiding a weapon, or an explosive? The chain of evidence which gives the law enforcement probable cause to initiate an additional search, or make an arrest, is going to be destroyed?

I guess you expect me to believe that right? Please tell me that you don't really expect me to swallow that lie.

My problem with this is obvious. I've yet to find an authority or power that the Government has given itself, that it hasn't yet abused or misused. National Security letters for example, which I have denounced more than once, were to be used only in cases where time did not permit a proper warrant application. It was the defense against the "ticking time bomb" scenario. So it was to be used sparingly right? OK, so sparingly is tens of thousands of times per year. Roughly 100 times a day, the FBI was serving people with these National Security Letters, to investigate ticking time bombs? Hello, how many ticking time bomb scenarios are you people looking at over there?

Allowing the Government to take this power, and trusting them to "Police themselves" is beyond foolish, it's another nail the the coffin that contains the remnants of our privacy.

I vote no. I vote no and have already decided never to fly again. I vote no and will not fly until or unless Big Brother decides that invading my privacy and giving extra random searches to every good looking blond girl is not the way to guarantee security and safety. I'll be taking my car from now on.

Tis the week for painfully obvious

2010-01-08T13:25:00.003-05:00

The problem with hype is this. Eventually, the hype falls flat in the light of reality.

President Obama's hair is going gray, no surprise, since his administration is on a run of a years worth of absolute failure. But let's look at the painfully obvious realizations that were made in the last week.

After a year's worth of "unexpectedly high" unemployment numbers, the press is starting to squirm when told that this weeks numbers are also "unexpectedly high."

Every single week for the last year, the experts have been supposedly surprised by the high unemployment numbers. We in the public have been less surprised, we've been expecting those higher numbers every week, and we know those high numbers are only a very small part of the total unemployed. Now, it's refreshing that the AP has finally figured it out. Next week, expect the numbers to be just as unexpected.

On the national security front, the administration was shocked, shocked mind you, that the people who haven't liked us, and have been attacking us since 1979, still don't like us, and still want to attack us.

Apparently the administration believed their own hype, that if we elected President Obama, that the world would shower us with love. Mr. President, that yellow stuff they're showering you with isn't sunshine.

So what is the plan? The plan is to use those whole body scanners, you know the ones that probably wouldn't have seen the explosives that the Eunuch Bomber had on him anyway. No one has asked the admin this, but perhaps someone will now.

To counter the privacy concerns, the admin is explaining that the photographs of buck nekkid people like this one, will be computer adjusted to blur the parts that you would object to. In other words, the areas normally associated with bathing suits.

Yet, if those areas are blurred, how can we see the explosives carried in someones underwear? The obvious answer is, that we couldn't.

So those areas wouldn't be blurred would they? If they aren't blurred, and my 16 year old daughter goes through the scanner, does that mean that the Federal Government is producing Kiddie Porn? It would be kiddie porn if I took that picture, and I would rightfully go to prison for a very long time.

So many questions, and no answers forthcoming from those in the administration, just more of the same old song and dance. "We have to do this to be safe." Guys, the painfully obvious reality of the Bush Admin is this. The panic sell didn't work to keep him in office in 2006 and didn't win McCain the election in 2008.

Final Painfully obvious observation of the week. Democrats are now admitting that they should have waited on Health Care and addressed things like the economy, and national security first. No kidding? Now you figure that out? Now you figure out that double digit unemployment is not a sign that the economy is getting better? Now a year into your control of all three branches of Government, you finally get the idea that the economy, and national security matter?

Apparently it is the week of the painfully obvious, and I thought I'd highlight these few examples. Next we're going to hear how it's really cold in the winter, and really hot in the summer.

Is it time for direct democracy yet?

2010-01-06T16:41:00.002-05:00

In 1776, when the nation was declared independent, it was done by Representatives of each state in the Continental Congress. At that time in our World History, the Representative Republic was frankly, the only effective means to govern an area larger than a city.

Direct Democracy, as was practiced in the ancient Greek City States was obviously too unwieldy to work over a large area. Transportation took days to get anywhere. Thirty miles a day in travel time was a very fast trip, this after all, was decades before locomotives were invented.

By sea, if the wind was favorable, you might cover 200 miles as the crow flies, with a heck of a lot of work by the crew in a single day.

So the idea that someone would travel to an area, and ask the people what they thought about an issue, and then travel back with that area's choice was obviously impractical, and essentially impossible. So Representative Republic, with elections held to choose the representatives was the only effective way to govern any large area, be it a state or a nation.

Today, communication is much faster. Trains, planes, and automobiles have made travel much faster and more efficient. Electronic communications have changed to allow people to speak to anyone instantly around the globe. You can read, watch, or listen to things as they happen.

In 1775, Paul Revere went from a silversmith of some note, to a famous historical figure with his midnight ride. Slightly faster communications were initiated in France shortly after the Revolution. Napoleon started a semaphore telegraph. This used flags to send messages along a line of posts. One station would send, another would receive, and then turn and transmit to the next station. This was faster than the alternative of racing down the road on horseback, but still not instant as we have today.

Today, when an issue faces our nation, the public has opinions. We're polled, some of us, and our national will is determined by these potentially fatally flawed polls. It isn't until the next election that we get to express our dissatisfaction to the elected, by voting them out of office, and choosing a new representative.

Yet, with the advent of instant communication, why haven't we gone to a more direct form of democracy? We could all vote on an issue, from the comfort of our homes. We could all vote on an issue with accuracy beyond the dreams of the founding fathers of this nation.

Imagine, we have a serious issue before this nation. Perhaps it's a treaty, the Law of the sea treaty for example. We can read, watch, and listen to the arguments, and then on the day indicated, we all phone, or use our computers, to register our vote. The nation, as a whole declares that we aren't going to join this treaty.

Perhaps it's a tax question. We can all vote that no, we aren't going to levy new taxes.

Would the Congress be able to make special deals to pass legislation then? Would the Senator from Louisiana be able to hold out for a special bribe to be included to get her vote? Would the Senator from Nebraska be able to demand special compensation for his support?

What do you think the other peoples in the remaining 49 states would say should such special favors be included. They would respond with a resounding NO. Would it end corruption in Washington? I doubt it, but it would limit it and reduce it to new lows not seen in modern history.

Direct Democracy wasn't practical at the time of our nations founding. It is practical now, and I think it's time to adopt it in some form of fashion.

There was a time when elections every two years was considered too short to really accomplish anything. Now, with the speed of communications, and the changes facing the world, it's too long to allow inadequate representation to continue.