The View From Mid-America

Quotes from LaLa Land

2011-11-28T12:24:00.000-06:00

The following material from the Media Research Center. It's indicative of why compromise with the left is impossible. How is it possible to compromise with people who think and talk like this?

“The utter confusion in the Republican presidential nominating process results from two discernible facts. One: they hate. That’s the simplest explanation of the disastrous course of this selection process. They hate so much they are not in the mood to fall in love with a candidate or even fall in behind someone. Their brains, racked as they are by hatred, they lack the ‘like’ mode. They are in no mood to go around looking around for a politician they like. The hating is so much more satisfying.”— MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Hardball, November 15.

Sad thing for this confused man is that he actually believes what he says.

---

HBO’s Bill Maher: “You’ve got to feel very bad for Mitt Romney. I mean, he’s been led, so far, by Trump, then Bachmann. Then Perry. Then Cain.”
Host George Stephanopoulos: “But, he kinda hangs in there. He’s everyone’s second choice.”
Maher: “I’m rooting for him. You know? Because, look, in a country with only two political parties, the Republican can always win. I mean, at least he eats with a knife and fork. I mean, he is all that stands between us and the rise of the apes.”
— ABC’s Good Morning America, November 14.

So who's filled with hate? The sad part about this is that Bill Maher is a joke, yet gets to say this kind of stuff on network TV.

---

“When I point out that Sarah Palin is a vainglorious braggart, a liar, a whiner, a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, and the leader of a family of inbred weirdos straight out of The Hills Have Eyes, that’s not sexist. I’m saying it because it’s true.”
— Bill Maher, as quoted in a November 21 Newsweek profile of the HBO Real Time host.

I rest my case.

Who are the obstructionists?

2011-11-25T09:27:00.000-06:00

Favorite line of Democrats when it comes to the failure of the supercommittee: It's the Republican's fault! Well, facts don't really back this up.

First of all, depending on which report you read, the Republicans on the supercommittee were willing to accept anywhere from $250 billion to $500 billion in additional revenue (translated as tax increases). But the Democrats wanted $1 trillion.

Secondly, the Democrats really didn't support any spending cuts. John Kerry, a member on the committee, admitted on MSNBC that the cuts the supercommittee Democrats were proposing were actually just a slowing of the rate of growth of government and not actual cuts.

Wes Pruden puts it this way:

If only there was no profound (insert word “partisan” here) and angry disagreement over how to find a detour from the road to financial oblivion. If only the Democrats would agree to cut the size of government. If only the Republicans would agree that big government is the answer. If only pigs could fly.

But they can’t, and neither can the partisan divide be bridged by a pontoon, however well meaning the pontoon men may be. Money is only part of what the debate is fundamentally about. Big government, designed to grow ever bigger with the turning of the seasons, is what the modern Democratic Party is all about. The Democrats are committed to building a bigger trough. The Republicans are committed to dismantling troughs. It’s all in the DNA.

President Obama is not to blame. He is a true believer in the European model of the welfare state. Everybody who was listening learned that three years ago. The fact that the European welfare states are crashing is irrelevant to him; true believers are never rattled by facts, not even facts that slap them in the face like a cream pie. The opportunity to impose a failing welfare state on America is what drew him to the presidency in the first place. The congressional elections last year, the Republican rout that Mr. Obama rightly called a “shellacking” of his party, made no impression, either. The results were all about cutting taxes and dismantling government, but not to Mr. Obama. Those elections were merely a few pebbles in the road to Utopia.

And here's an interesting chart, especially for all of you out there still ranting "it's Bush's fault!"

Please note that the deficits, by fiscal year, don't include FY2011, in which the deficit was $1.3 trillion. Bush averaged $266.7 billion a year, while Obama's average is $1.33 trillion.

Occupiers have to be idiots because Pelosi loves them

2011-11-23T10:29:00.001-06:00

Or is Pelosi the idiot? Probably both.

On the occupy protesters, Pelosi previously said: "God bless them . . . for their spontaneity. It's independent . . . it's young, it's spontaneous, and it's focused. And it's going to be effective."

These people really don't even know what they are protesting about. Wall Street? Banks? If they're mad about their economic situations, they mostly have themselves to blame, or the university they attended. They were scammed. They should be protesting their universities, their professors who sold them a lot of crap. Or they should be on the steps of Congress, which for the last 40 years has created a mess of of things.

Obama loves them too. Go figure. He recently said that the occupiers were the "reason he ran for office." Give me a break. He ran for office because he is a narcissist and wanted the power. All he's done is make it harder for people like the occupiers to succeed (of course if they'd quit protesting, cut their hair and take a bath, and start looking for work, they'd be better off, but I digress).

Now, I'm not defending the banking industry per se. There is much to be fixed, and neither Democrats nor Republicans have fixed the industry. Probably made it worse.

But when you embrace anarchy, theft, sexual assault and rape, and even murder, which all have happened at many of the "camps," then you don't belong in Congress or the White House.

The failure of the Super Committee

2011-11-22T10:13:00.000-06:00

Liberals will be in denial (and are), but the real reason the committee failed to compromise on budget cuts is not the intransigence of the GOP, but the desire of Democrats to raise taxes. Obama and the Dems have tried to raise taxes all year, but the GOP hasn't budged. Sometimes NO is a better answer than YES. If you're a parent, you'll understand that.

According to Conference Co-Chairman Jeb Hensarling, at the Wall Street Journal, "Why the Super Committee Failed:

Even if Republicans agreed to every tax increase desired by the president, our national debt would continue to grow uncontrollably. Controlling spending is therefore a crucial challenge. The other is economic growth and job creation, which would produce the necessary revenue to fund our priorities.

In the midst of persistent 9% unemployment, the committee could have enacted fundamental tax reform to simplify the tax code, help create jobs, and bring in over time the higher revenues that come with economic growth. Republicans put such a plan on the table—and even agreed to $250 billion in new revenue by eliminating or limiting most of the deductions, credits, loopholes and tax expenditures mainly enjoyed by higher-income Americans. We offered this to avoid the even larger tax increases already written into current law that will intensify the pain Americans are feeling during these difficult economic times.

Republicans were willing to agree to additional tax revenue, but only in the context of fundamental pro-growth tax reform that would broaden the base, lower rates, and maintain current levels of progressivity. This is the approach to tax reform used by recent bipartisan deficit reduction efforts such as the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission and the Rivlin-Domenici plan.

The Democrats said no. They were unwilling to agree to anything less than $1 trillion in tax hikes—and unwilling to offer any structural reforms to put our health-care entitlements on a permanently sustainable basis.

Unfortunately, the committee's challenge was made more difficult by President Obama. Since the committee was formed, he has demanded more stimulus spending and issued a veto threat against any proposed committee solution to the spending problem that was not coupled with a massive tax increase.

The GOP has passed 15 pieces of job creation legislation this year, but the Dems in the Senate have refused to even vote on them.

Global Warming. Global Cooling. Whatever!

2011-11-01T08:33:00.001-05:00

From the PJ Tattler: Another food fight breaks out

The charts are misleading, because the top chart is over more than 200 years, while the bottom chart is over only about 10, but look at the top right corner of the top graph: it drops, and appears to stay flat for the rest of the chart. The bottom graph is a magnification of just that section, and shows how flat temperatures have been for the last ten years (and a substantial dip right at the end — this could be a cold winter, folks.)

Of course, the problem with that is that the CO2-forced anthropogenic global warming models all say temperatures should be increasing steadily, not taking 10-15 years off. Now, not that this isn’t a disproof: there are other possibile explanations, but it is evidence against the simple models that ought to be explained, not hidden.

Actually, the average temperature over the last 50 years has increased 1.6 degrees. If it continues, that is about 3 degrees per century, not the 10-15 degrees claimed by many. Go back 1000 years. The planet was warmer than it is today. Go back 85 million years. It was a lot warmer than today. Explanation? There are only hypothesis, not proof.

For those of you who think the debate on global warming (climate change) is over, as per Mr. Gore, you need to realize that when scientific debate is closed, it becomes more like a religion than scientific investigation.

The climate has always been changing. Most likely always will, but I -- and you -- can't prove a thing.

And that's probably my first and last post on this subject.

The Democrats Don't Have A Clue

2011-10-20T08:18:00.001-05:00

Why anyone would vote for a Democrat is beyond me.

Did you know that a recent bill was proposed by a Democrat to provide free diapers?

An economic recovery bill authored by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D.-Conn.) seeks to empower struggling families by directing the federal government to distribute free diapers through day care centers.

The Diaper Investment and Aid to Promote Economic Recovery Act (DIAPER Act) would “relieve some of the stress on families facing hardship in this economy” by providing this direct service, DeLauro said in a letter to congressional colleagues urging them to co-sponsor her bill.

And Harry Reid says private sector job market is doing just fine!

Responding Wednesday from the Senate floor to a question about a new Democrat plan to raise taxes on working Americans to pay for another $35 billion bailout for the states and public employee unions, Reid said:

"It's very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it's the public-sector jobs where we've lost huge numbers, and that's what this legislation is all about."

No, we're not making this up. The comment is utterly wrong, of course, and underscores Democrats' cluelessness and insensitivity to the damage they've inflicted on the private economy since taking power in 2006.

And then Biden accuses Republicans of wanting more rape!

It was on Tuesday during a speech at the University of Pennsylvania where Biden initially argued that another round of government spending was needed to prevent sexual assaults. “It’s not temporary [administration’s proposed stimulus] when that 911 call comes in and a woman’s being raped, if a cop shows up in time to prevent the rape. It’s not temporary to that woman.” Then in the same speech he wished Republicans were themselves rape victims. “I wish they had some notion of what it was like to be on the other side of a gun, or [to have] a 200-pound man standing over you, telling you to submit.”

Biden’s demagogic language aside, police budgets are the responsibility of each individual state, not federal bureaucrats. And as Ed Morrissey at HotAir notes, the President’s “jobs” bill doesn’t go directly to hire police officers anyway. Instead, “it allows states to paper-over budget gaps for another year rather than address their systemic budgetary issues, and protect unionized bureaucrats whose jobs should be on the chopping block.”

The exchange between the vice president and HUMAN EVENTS was taken on Wednesday after Biden gave a speech calling for yet another government stimulus program. This one is union-backed, and aimed at getting teachers and public-sector employees back to work.

And of course, Obama is out there saying crap like this:

"My plan says we’re going to put teachers back in the classrooms, construction workers back to work," President Obama said at a campaign event today. "Tax cuts for small businesses, tax cuts for hiring veterans, tax cuts if you give your workers a raise –- that’s my plan."

The Republicans plan, Obama says, boils down to this: 'Dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.'

Actually, Mr. Obama, the Republicans want to quit spending money we don't have. If nearly a trillion dollars of "stimulus" money didn't work, why would $480 billion work? If you think the anyone with half a brain believes you, wait until November 2012.

And people think it's the Republicans, who haven't actually had control of Congress since late 2006. That's five years of Democratic rule. So if you think it's the Republicans, you really are clueless.

The Straight Stuff

2011-10-20T07:39:00.000-05:00

The folks who are getting free stuff,
Don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff,
Because the folks who are paying for the free stuff,
Can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

And;
The folks who are paying for the free stuff,
Want the free stuff to stop.
And the folks who are getting the free stuff,
Want even MORE free stuff on top of the free stuff they're already getting!

Now;
The people who are forcing the people who PAY for the free stuff,
Have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff,
That the people who are PAYING for the free stuff,
Are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So;
The people who are GETTING the free stuff,
Have been convinced they need to HATE the people who are PAYING for
the free stuff by the people who are forcing the people who are PAYING for
the free stuff and GIVING them the free stuff in the first place.

And,
That's the straight stuff!

Hat tip to Gary Simmons (I softened the language slightly)

The 1st Admendment and Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-10T09:42:00.000-05:00

I fully support the first amendment and the right of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, as mis-guided and ill-informed as they are.

What's really going on?

F. Robert, over at F. Robert's World, could not have stated it better. I repeat his entire post here:

Massive, highly organized, and well financed demonstrations are occurring across the country and in my opinion they represent a perfect example of transference to divert the electorate’s attention from the problems facing President Obama and the Democrat Party. Just consider who is behind these Occupy Wall Street gatherings: MoveOn.org, the Teamster’s Union, the Service Employee’s International Union, George Soros, and several other groups that thrive with the support of the current sympathetic administration and the Democrat Party votes (think ACORN).

With President Barack Hussein Obama’s support continuing to fall in the polls, unemployment hovering around 9.1%, and a strong campaign challenge being formed by the Republican Party, I believe the current demonstrations are all meant to divert attention away from the President’s problems, and cast the Republican’s and their candidates as the villains.

When questioned, many of those demonstrating cannot render a coherent reason for their participation. The main-stream media is granting the demonstrators a major forum with constant video on the major national newscasts, but few if any call attention to the fact that the Democrat Party was responsible for the legislation that led to the collapse of the financial institutions, the failure of over-sight by a Democrat controlled Congress, the failure of Congressional pressures from Senators Durbin (D-IL) and Dodd (D-CT), and Rep. Frank (D-MA). Why were Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and other financial institutions urged to grant loans to individuals who had little or no ability to repay their debt?

These demonstrations are an old political trick that has been around for years and we have seen it work time and time again. When you tell a lie enough times, people will believe it. The banks and Wall Street are not the cause of the current financial problems being faced by this country, because it was the utter failure of Presidential and Congressional leadership to adequately provide proper over-sight and appropriate controls.

All these demonstrations redirect the electorate’s attention from the current problems facing the Obama administration, such as illegal immigration, Operation Fast and Furious, growing $14.5 trillion federal debt, staggering 9.1% unemployment, Obamacare, considerable growth of government employment, and massive spending under Obama, etc.

Obama’s cohorts were successful in his first campaign using transference effectively and they are doing it again. Wake-up America! You are being used and abused and diverted from the significant issues of the day so Obama’s re-election chances are enhanced by diverting our attention away from the important issues of the day with a phony, divisive, well-organized and financed nation-wide mob action.

http://frobertsworld.blogspot.com/

Which Speaker of the House had the largest debt increase?

2011-10-04T15:50:00.000-05:00

When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as Speaker of the House in 2007, she vowed there would be “no new deficit spending.” Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.

The chart below tells a different story.

Andy Rooney retires after a gazillion years

2011-09-30T18:57:00.000-05:00

An icon of CBS for a million years (or 33 or so), he's finally retiring. (He was born in 1919).

One quote of his that I like a lot.

"I didn't get older by accident, it just happened. If you're lucky, it will happen to you."

Yea, baby. If you think it's a bitch getting older, think again.

How "Progressives" are taking over our country

2011-09-23T08:00:00.003-05:00

From Orange County, California, as reported by the American Thinker (among others):

An Orange County couple has been ordered to stop holding a Bible study in their home on the grounds that the meeting violates a city ordinance as a "church" and not as a private gathering.

Homeowners Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, of San Juan Capistrano, were fined $300 earlier this month for holding what city officials called "a regular gathering of more than three people".

That type of meeting would require a conditional use permit as defined by the city, according to Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), the couple's legal representation.

The Fromms also reportedly face subsequent fines of $500 per meeting for any further "religious gatherings" in their home, according to Pacific Justice Institute.

"We're just gathering and enjoying each other's company and fellowship. And we enjoy studying God's word." Stephanie Fromm told CBS2.

If we left these "progressives" to continue to take control of our schools, homes and government, we will sink into tyranny (we're almost there folks). Another reason people are leaving California for Texas and Oklahoma, where you can hold bible study at home.

An note about the $300 fine for holding regular gatherings in your home with more than three people. I guess the weekly poker games with the guys is a thing of the past as well.

Astounding. You think it couldn't happen here!

Guess they don't teach math at Havard

2011-09-22T10:13:00.002-05:00

President Obama said this the other day: "They should have to defend that unfairness -- explain why somebody who's making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that -- paying a higher rate."

Huh? Here's the actual taxes both would pay.

-Taxpayer earning $50K - pays $4,156 in federal income taxes, or 8.3% effective tax rate (not higher than 15% as erroneously bellowed by the illustrious campaigner)

-Taxpayer earning $50M - pays $17,466,318 in federal income taxes or 34.9% effective tax rate (considerably higher than, well, you know)

Remember how taxes work? For the single teacher making a gross income of $50,000 after standard deductions and exceptions, he or she is not paying tax on the full $50,000. The first $8,500 of taxable income is taxed at 10 percent. From there, up to $34,500, the tax rate is 15 percent, then 25 percent over $34,500. So the amount of tax paid as a percentage of income is never the highest bracket your marginal income may land you. Obama is intentionally misleading the public to conduct his class warfare.

Even if the $50M were all long-term capital gains (assets held for one year or longer), the taxes would be $7.5 million, or 15%, nearly twice the effective rate of the teacher.

Guess Obama and his staff need to go back to class. No wonder you can't fix anything.And Mr. President, this is indeed class warfare, regardless of what you say. (Hard to believe anything this guy says anymore).

Perry's first web ad

2011-09-22T07:55:00.000-05:00

This is not an endorsement of Gov. Perry. I am yet undecided. There is too much time left before the primaries to make a decision. A lot could happen. But as political ads go, I think Perry's is not bad at all.

A List of Taxes

2011-09-02T14:05:00.000-05:00

I'm sure there are more, but you get the drift. Are you fed up yet? And please note, none of these taxes existed 100 years ago. Some of these are called "fees" but I consider any payment to the government a tax. Now, remember, our liberal friends in power want to tax sodas and carbon dioxide. Where will it stop?

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Driver's License Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges&Penalties-tax on top of tax
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State & Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

Obama the Oracle

2011-08-22T17:21:00.000-05:00

A recent prediction of Obama, during a CBS interview last week:

"I don't think we're in danger of another recession, but we are in danger of not having a recovery that's fast enough to deal with what is a genuine unemployment crisis for a whole lot of folks out there..."

Because not one of his other predictions have come true, I'll stick with my financial advisor, who thinks there is a huge chance of another recession, or even a depression, and a bear market like he predicted in October 2007. He has a much better track record than any politician.

What does Mr. Obama want to do? (After he gets off vacation of course.) While he talks about reducing the deficit and balancing the budget, he doesn't mean now. No, no. He's talking 10 to 20 years from now. Right now we have to "double-down" on stimulus spending. Oops, I meant investment. Because the last few trillion worked so well at jump-starting the economy, which we know it didn't.

That's because we haven't done enough. Well, Mr. President, I think you and your party have done more than enough, and if you and Congress would just stay on vacation and leave us alone, we'll work this out just fine without you.

Treacherous puppets of The Man

2011-08-22T07:56:00.000-05:00

"There may be a touch of Stockholm syndrome in there, because anytime I see a person of color or a female in the Republican Party or the conservative movement or the tea party, I wonder how they could be trying to curry favor with the oppressors."

This was out of the mouth of actress Janeane Garofalo -- a former comedian who has become a vile, offensive, Republican-bashing bitch -- on the Current TV talk show of foul-mouthed and former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann.

The response from Michelle Malkin, a "person of color" herself, and a female conservative:

"I've heard more than 20 years of this oppressive windbaggery from do-gooder liberals who treat my unhyphenated American brothers and sisters and me as treacherous puppets for The Man. Their smug refusal to acknowledge free will, individual choice and true diversity of thought confirms that race-obsessed liberals remain the most unrepentant and odious racists of all."

For those who survived the 30s thru the 70s

2011-08-20T09:30:00.000-05:00

Got this in an email. Thought it cute enought to repeat...

TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED THE 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s!

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can and didn't get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-base paints.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, locks on doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had baseball caps not helmets on our heads.

As infants and children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, no booster seats, no seat belts, no air bags, bald tires and sometimes no brakes.

Riding in the back of a pickup truck on a warm day was always a special treat.

We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and no one actually died from this.

We ate cupcakes, white bread, real butter and bacon. We drank Kool-Aid made with real white sugar. And, we weren't overweight. WHY? Because we were always outside playing...that's why!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.

No one was able to reach us all day. And, we were OKAY.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride them down the hill; only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem

We did not have Play stations, Nintendo's and X-boxes. There were no video games, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVDs, no surround-sound or CDs, no cell phones, no personal computers no Internet and no chat rooms.

We had friends and we went outside and found them!

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

We would get spankings with wooden spoons, switches, ping pong paddles, or just a bare hand and no one would call child services to report abuse.

We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.

We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them.

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law! When we got in trouble in school, our parents sided with the school. It was double trouble.

These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever. The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.

We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all..

If you are one of us, congratulations!

You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated so much of our lives for our own good.

While you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave and lucky their parents were.

Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it? Or at least eat a big bowl of real ice cream, not the low-fat variety...

Tax the miles you drive?

2011-08-19T18:01:00.001-05:00

As vehicles get better and better gas mileage, we use less gas. That reduces the revenue the government collects because it taxes each gallon. Well, that just won't do. Democrats will always find a way to increase taxes.

By the way, is there anything that is not taxed today?

So to increase the amount of revenue for all of Obama's pet projects, Sen. Kent Conrad (D.-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, is expected to make a recommendation later this year on whether the federal government should drop the gas tax and implement the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax.

But it probably won't go very far. Even environmentalists oppose the legislation because they said it would be contrary to the incentive to buy fuel-efficiency vehicles, and that the technology required to collect the mileage information is an invasion of privacy.

But the idea does shed light on the way your average Democrat thinks.

What has become of America?

2011-08-19T17:11:00.000-05:00

Originally printed in the local newspaper in Tawas City, Michigan, by Ken Huber:

Has America become the land of special interest and home of the double standard? Lets see:

If we lie to the Congress, it's a felony and if the Congress lies to us its just politics; if we dislike a black person, we're racist and if a black person dislikes whites, its their 1st Amendment right; the government spends millions to rehabilitate criminals and they do almost nothing for the victims; in public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK, but you better not use the word God in the process; you can kill an unborn child, but it is wrong to execute a mass murderer; we don't burn [history] books in America, we now rewrite them; we got rid of communist and socialist threats by renaming them progressive; we are unable to close our border with Mexico, but have no problem protecting the 38th parallel in Korea; if you protest against President Obama's policies you're a terrorist, but if you burned an American flag or George Bush in effigy it was your 1st Amendment right.

You can have pornography on TV or the internet, but you better not put a nativity scene in a public park during Christmas; we have eliminated all criminals in America, they are now called sick people; we can use a human fetus for medical research, but it is wrong to use an animal.

We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't want to work; we all support the Constitution, but only when it supports our political ideology; we still have freedom of speech, but only if we are being politically correct; parenting has been replaced with Ritalin and video games; the land of opportunity is now the land of hand outs; the similarity between Hurricane Katrina and the gulf oil spill is that neither president did anything to help.

And how do we handle a major crisis today? The government appoints a committee to determine who's at fault, then threatens them, passes a law, raises our taxes, then tells us the problem is solved so they can get back to their reelection campaign.

What has happened to the land of the free and home of the brave?

Another liberal talking point about Texas

2011-08-19T12:48:00.002-05:00

One statistic that we’re likely to be hearing a lot over the next few months, and over the next year if Gov. Rick Perry becomes the nominee, is that Texas has the highest uninsured rate of any state in the nation, with one out of every four residents lacking health coverage (or 25.6 percent).

Those poor, poor Texans. And it must be Perry's fault to treat Texans so mean. (Perry has already been called "Perry the Meany")

But not so fast, batman! Statistics are useless unless you dig into the data and find out why the numbers are what they are.

The following facts are based on an article in the Washington Examiner:

1. Census data on the number of uninsured are often misunderstood or intentionally distorted.

2. The high proportion of Hispanic immigrants, a community that has a higher than average uninsured rate. In fact, if you look at the Census data on the uninsured, the four states that border Mexico are among the top six states when it comes to the uninsured rate: Texas (1), New Mexico (2), Arizona (5), and California (6). The top 10 included other states in the general neighborhood: Nevada (4) and Louisiana (10); and Florida (3), which also has a high Hispanic immigrant population.

3. It has been estimated that in 2006, 29 percent of the state’s uninsured were illegal immigrants.

4. Texas has a younger population than the national average, and as noted above, many young people don’t purchase insurance because they don’t feel they need it.

5. Another factor is that despite being a low regulation state in many ways, Texas actually ranks fourth when it comes to mandating insurers offer certain benefits in all of their policies, according to a Council on Affordable Health Insurance report. Texas has 60 such mandates driving up the cost of insurance, such as making sure policies cover in vitro fertilization and morbid obesity treatment. Perry opposed most of these mandates, but was overridden by the State Legislature.

Perry will have a tough time defending the insured rate in Texas, because the underlying reasons are complicated, which can't be crammed into a 30-second sound bite.

And then, if you're a liberal, you won't listen anyway.

Refuting liberal talking points about Texas

2011-08-17T17:27:00.001-05:00

I knew it wouldn't take long after Gov. Rick Perry announced his presidential campaign before all the pundits came out with "facts" about how Texas is really a bad place and Perry is a bad governor. I've heard it all before, but most of it is not based on any thoughtful analysis of the real data.

Here's one example. One writer compared the median income in California vs. Texas, stating that the level of income in Texas was so much worse than anywhere else. California has a median income of $56,000 while Texas comes in at $48,000. Now go look at the cost of living and decide which income has more purchasing power. Texas blows California away. According to apartmentratings.com, a one-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles ranges from $1,500 to $2,500 a month. In Dallas, the same apartment rents for $700 to $1,200. You can get a fairly nice three-bedroom, 1400-square-foot house in the Dallas area for about $100,000, maybe a little more. Try that in California.

But don't get me wrong. Texas ain't perfect and I haven't decided if I'd vote for Perry. And while there is no income tax, property taxes make up for it. Take a look at Texas' neighbor Oklahoma, with an income tax, but lower property taxes. And it's scorchingly hot here in the summer. Like Phoenix, but with a little extra humidity thrown in. But the winters are much colder. Half the state is mostly desert, and it's pretty flat. I like mountains, so I'll probably not retire here, but many people from California and New York are doing so right now. But baby, there are jobs here.

Here's some more liberal myths (thanks to PolitcalMathBlog.com):

Texas Liberal Myth #2: Texas' 8.2 percent unemployment is hardly exceptional - Texas is adding jobs at a rate faster than any state at 2.2 percent. But the state's unemployment rate is 8.2 percent, which is higher than blue states like Massachusetts and New York. How is this possible? Easy. Texas' population is growing much faster than any other state. They have added 739,000 residents since the recession began. If Texas had the same population at the beginning of the recession that they do now, its unemployment rate would be 2.3%.

Texas Liberal Myth #3: Texas has only created low-paying jobs - Texas median hourly wage is $15.14 which is actually slightly below the median (28th out of 51 regions). But wages in Texas have actually increased in Texas since the recession began. In fact, since the recession started hourly wages in Texas have increased at a 6th fastest pace in the nation. And as stated above, the cost of living in Texas more than makes up for slightly lower wages.

Texas Liberal Myth #3: Texas wouldn't be leading in job creation without the oil industry - Energy has been a major source of job growth in Texas. In the last year, 25 percent of all job growth has come from the energy sector (which includes all natural gas, coal, and electricity generation). But even if you remove all of Texas' energy-job growth, it would still lead the nation in job creation.

At PoliticalMathBlog.com, the following line of reasoning highlights the errors in thinking made by many people:

One can argue that Perry had very little to do with the job situation in Texas, but such a person should probably prepare themselves for the consequences of that line of reasoning. If Rick Perry had nothing to do with creating jobs in Texas, than why does Obama have something to do with creating jobs anywhere? And why would someone advocate any sort of "job creating" policies if policies don't seem to matter when it comes to the decade-long governor of Texas? In short, it seems to me that this line of reasoning, in addition to sounding desperate and partisan, hogties its adherents into a position where they are simultaneously saying that government doesn't create jobs while arguing for a set of policies where government will create jobs.

You can also read about more myths and why there aren't really true, with charts and data sources. Another author blows Debbie Wasserman's (DNC Chairman) reasoning out the water.

So the next time you hear left-wing talking points about Texas coming from the mouths of Democrats, or MSNBC, the Huffington Post, bloggers, or other "news" sources, think again. While I may or may not support Perry for president, I'm pretty tired on "informed" people blowing "facts" out of their rear ends. If you want to refute this post, you'd better have some hard data, with links, and not some reference to a idiot blogger.

Yea, I get cranky about this. So be it. I'm just tired of all the bool sheet, as they say in Texas.

Worst President Ever!

2011-08-17T08:18:00.001-05:00

"President Obama is barnstorming the heartland to boost U.S. jobs in a taxpayer-financed luxury bus the government had custom built -- in Canada, The New York Post has learned."

What a jerk. First, he should have had the bus customized here, in the United States of America. Second, he shouldn't even use a bus at my expense. Third, he isn't boosting anything except his own ego.

Can't wait until we get this ass out of office.

Just as Gunnery Sgt Ermey would say

2011-08-16T10:13:00.002-05:00

For more information about the Gunnery Sgt. Ermy, see R. Lee Ermey at Wikpedia. (Hint: He played a therapist in a Geico commericial, among many other tv and film projects).

Sinbad - Friday End of Week Humor

2011-08-12T15:54:00.000-05:00

Jokes.com

Sinbad - Old and Married

comedians.comedycentral.com

Jokes

Joke of the Day

Funny Jokes

Obama's lack of leadership

2011-08-09T07:35:00.000-05:00

After all that has happened in the last week, what is our "leader" in the White House calling for?

1. Extend the payroll tax cut. As if that really worked in the first place.
2. Extend unemployment benefits beyond 99 weeks. Another great program that has completely failed to lower unemployment. It actually makes it worse.
3. More "investment." Let's build some roads and bridges. Really? Let's spend some more money we don't have. That should do the trick.

"Markets go up and markets go down," was his response to the recent implosion of the markets. What a lack of insight this man has.

Is he really trying to destroy us from within? Or is he just incompetent?

But remember: None of this is his fault, or so he says.

Throw the bums out

2011-08-05T18:25:00.001-05:00

Amusing quotes from Ronald Reagan

2011-08-05T18:00:00.002-05:00

To highlight this day in history, Aug 5, when President Reagan fired 11,000 air traffic controllers in 1981, here's some humorous quotes from the gipper. And we all need a good laugh now and then.

"Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Barack Obama loses his."

Opps. Sorry. He actually said Jimmy Carter, but you get the drift...

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement."

''The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.''

''Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.''

''I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency -- even if I'm in a Cabinet meeting.''

Would someone please educate Paul Krugman?

2011-08-05T09:57:00.000-05:00

According to this quack, inflation is "hypothetical." A quote from Paul Krugman's latest op-ed in the New York Times:

The Fed has by no means done all it could, partly because it was more concerned with hypothetical inflation than with real unemployment, partly because it let itself be intimidated by the Ron Paul types.

Time to get out of your ivory tower, dude. Have you been to the gas station or grocery store, looked at your electric bill, or even been out of the house lately?
I don't know about this guy, but ever time I turn around, something is more expensive than it was last week, last month, or last year.

The problem with Krugman is that too many people take his word as gospel, when it should be relegated to just another left-wing nut trying to form a economic theory through liberal filters. Doesn't work.

And don't defend him because of his Nobel Prize. These prizes are now not worth the paper they are printed on (even though the recipient gets a huge amount of cash.)

Democrats? Republicans? Who created the Federal debt?

2011-08-04T13:16:00.000-05:00

I read this all the time on left-wing web sites: "George Bush and the Republicans created our Federal Debt. (Or Reagan started it.)" And if you visit conservative web sites, just the opposite. "Obama and the Democrats exploded the debt."

Well, it can't be both ways. Maybe both parties are responsible. So what's the truth, based on hard numbers?

First, some assumptions for those of you who are a little fuzzy on how our Federal government works. Presidents submit budgets to Congress (or at least they are supposed to). Congress then takes that plan, debates and revises it, votes on it and when approved, sends it to the President, who can then either sign it, or veto it. If it's vetoed, it goes back to Congress for another round, until it finally gets signed by the President. In some cases, the President's veto gets overruled by the Congress, in other cases a compromise is reached.

So technically, Congress is responsible for spending, as outlined in the Constitution. But the President also has a huge influence in the amount and type of spending that is approved.

To get to the bottom of this, I created a chart of Congresses and Presidents and which party controlled each chamber and what party the President was from, beginning in 1953 and ending in 2010. I totalled all deficits and put them in columns based on who controlled Congress and who controlled the White House. The deficit or surplus amounts I used were in current dollars, not adjusted for inflation.

Who controlled what?
Republican Presidents: 36 years
Democrat Presidents: 21 years
Republican Congresses: 10 years
Democrat Congresses: 37 years
Split Congresses: 10 years

Who spends what?
Democrat Congresses: $10,350 billion
Republican Congresses: $1,397 billion
Democrat Presidents: $4,353 billion
Republican Presidents: $7,394 billion

(Note: I didn't include split Congresses, because in all cases except one, the Democrats were in control of the House, which has the most power over the budget).

The only conclusion I can reach is that the Democratic Party, when in control of Congress, spends like drunken sailors with no restraint. But, as Reagan once said, that is unfair to drunken sailors because at least they're spending their own money. Yet, on the other hand, many of our Republican Presidents should be ashamed of themselves for approving all the Democrat-approved spending. (In a few cases they actually didn't, because the Congress overruled them).

Well, it takes two to tango, and the result is that we are now more than $14,000 billion in debt (when you add in the 2011 deficit of approximately $1,500 billion), and by the end of next year this will go to more than $16,000 billion. The two worst years where 2003 with $892 billion (all Republicans) and 2010 with $1,350 (all Democrats).

For those of you weak in math, $16,000 billion is $16 trillion, or $16,000,000,000,000. This works out to about $52,400 for each man, woman and child living in this country. And here I thought I was finally debt free.

So it isn't all one party's fault, though in the long run Democrats tend to spend more.

But regardless of who's at fault, We the People are sick and tired of this and want Washington to live within its means. The rest of you who want more of this crap, or think its all good and we should be spending even more, should see a therapist.

Tea Party Terrorists

2011-08-03T11:02:00.000-05:00

Remember when Obama called for more civility in our public discourse? He really only meant that for Republicans and conservatives. Liberals and democrats are exempt.

Personally, I'm a little tired of the double standard, but I understand the mentality behind it. Left-wing tactics call for marginalizing your opponent. They know they can't debate facts; therefore, if you disagree with a liberal, you're a racist, moron, ignoramus, terrorist, bigot, homophobe, islamaphobe, idiot, extremist, crazy, greedy, and the list goes on.

When you try to correct their re-writing of history (see a good example of typical liberal rants here), you're at least ignorant, but more probably stupid.

Here's what Maureen Dodd wrote in the New York Times about Tea Partiers:

But, in this case, it was the president — and the federal government — being chased through dim corridors by a maniacal gang with big knives held high...They were like cannibals, eating their own party and leaders alive. They were like vampires, draining the country’s reputation, credit rating and compassion. They were like zombies, relentlessly and mindlessly coming back again and again to assault their unnerved victims, Boehner and President Obama. They were like the metallic beasts in “Alien” flashing mouths of teeth inside other mouths of teeth, bursting out of Boehner’s stomach every time he came to a bouquet of microphones.

So true fiscal conservatives are now monsters.

But wait, there's more. In another NYT opinion piece, Joe Nacaro wrote:

You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them. These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. . . . Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that's what it took. . . . For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests. But rest assured: They'll have them on again soon enough.

All that over $7 billion in spending cuts for next year (none for this year)! Sure, our politicians are saying they'll cut $1.2 trillion, or $2.4 trillion (they really don't know) or more over 10 years, but that doesn't even come close the balancing the budget.

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal summarizes the whole mess like this:

The Obama presidency has reduced the liberal left to an apoplectic rage. His Ivy League credentials, superior attitude, pseudointellectual mien and facile adherence to lefty ideology make him the perfect personification of the liberal elite. Thus far at least, he has been an utter failure both at winning public support and at managing the affairs of the nation.

Obama's failure is the failure of the liberal elite, and that is why their resentment has reached such intensity. Their ideas, such as they are, are being put to a real-world test and found severely wanting. As a result, their authority is collapsing. And if there is one thing they know deep in their bones, it is that they are entitled to that authority. They lash out, desperately and pathetically, because they have nothing to offer but fear and anger.

Americans wants Washington to quit over-spending. But Democrats -- and liberals in general -- are acting like children who don't get their own way.

Washington Examiner: Daily Outrage

2011-08-02T08:25:00.000-05:00

Who: The National Institutes of Health

What: The NIH sent more than $90 million of taxpayer money to China to fund several public health research projects, according to the Daily Caller. In one of those studies, which cost $17 million, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a study of prostitutes, some only 14 years old, and their clients that looked into the use of microbicides as a way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases.

Where to vent: Call NIH Director Francis Collins at 301-496-2433.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/daily-outrage/2011/08/daily-outrage-17-million-china-study-prostitutes-and-microbicides#ixzz1TsTLSoWb

A blast from the past: Obama on the debt ceiling

2011-07-29T07:22:00.000-05:00

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” - Sen. Barack Obama, 2006

Now I know: Pelosi is insane

2011-07-28T15:17:00.000-05:00

After declaring that not one Democrat will vote for Boehner's budget plan, she is reported to have said:

"What we're trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We're trying to save life on this planet as we know it today."

This is the same person that, as Speaker, said that Congress had to approve the Health Care Bill in order to see what was in it. No wonder we are in such trouble. After five years of Democrat control, we're almost there...

Liberals and conservatives: Are we really that different?

2011-07-27T15:35:00.001-05:00

A few years ago, I received an e-mail from a fellow in southern Oklahoma who was starting an e-mail newsletter called The Texoman, which signifies an area on each side of the Red River in Texas and Oklahoma called Texoma. I happen to live just south of that border in Texas.

His purpose, he said, was to provide a forum for honest debate on the issues. But after reading several issues – and responding to one – I decided that his newsletter was so left-leaning in content I didn’t need to receive any more issues. There didn’t seem to be any debate at all. Besides bashing conservatives in general, most of the newsletter was just repeats from left-wing websites.

So I e-mailed the editor and asked that I be taken off the distribution list because I didn’t find any serious discourse in the content. What I received back shocked me, because in no way did I attempt to denigrate his publication or his right to send it out; I just didn’t want it anymore.

According to this gentleman, because I was a conservative – a term I had never used to describe myself – I was filled with hate and anger. “You and your buddy Rush are going to destroy this country,” he stated. Of course, he had no way of knowing if I ever listened to Rush Limbaugh, let alone that we were friends.

It got me to wondering – once again – what causes this type of reaction from our liberal friends. You know them: instead of really wanting to debate the issues, they attack you personally. While not all liberals are like this, it's been my experience that most are.

The question is what are the differences between conservatives and liberals, besides the supposedly differing political philosophies of more government vs. less government? So I dug into some of the literature, read a couple of books, and while I do have a degree in psychology, I don’t claim to be an expert. But what I found opened my eyes a bit. In general, liberals just have a different world-view, based more on emotion than logic.

According to a book by Peter Schweizer, about 71 percent of conservatives say they have an obligation to care for a seriously injured spouse or parent, compared with 46 percent for liberals. Asked if they would endure all things for the one they love, 55 percent of conservatives say yes, compared with 26 percent of liberals.

Equally revealing, liberals are far more likely to say they are depressed and to view the world bleakly. Schweizer attributes that to an attitude that they and those around them are victims and helpless unless the government intervenes.

In answer to a question from Newsmax, Schweizer says that may help explain why liberal politicians and reporters tend to see everything with pessimism, from the economy to the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

Schweizer says the media and liberal professors have successfully obscured these differences by painting a picture of conservatives as mean-spirited. He quotes one professor as saying that conservatives embrace the “unimpeded pursuit of self-interest” to get what they want and that as children, they were insecure and whiny.

In a NYU study, researchers have found evidence that supports a 2006 PEW Research Center survey. The survey showed that 47 percent of conservative Republicans describe themselves as "very happy" while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats describe themselves similarly.

Conservatives put a much higher value on the role of force and accord a lower priority to multilateralism. In The Hill's polling, 68 percent of conservatives but only 28 percent of liberals identified with the need to take unilateral action for our security regardless of what other countries might think. Pew found one of the most important determinants of Republicanism (and I would wager conservatism) was agreement with the view that military strength is the best way to ensure peace.

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227), according to an article by George Will in Real Clear Politics.

Pollsters asked “Everyone has to decide for themselves what’s right and wrong in particular situations” or “There are absolute standards of right and wrong that apply to everyone in almost every situation.” As befits a country almost evenly divided on cultural issues, 50 percent adopted a position of moral absolutism and 46 percent identified themselves as moral relativists. But only about a third of conservatives embraced relativism, while more than 60 percent believe in moral absolutism.

In response to the exit pollsters’ question, only 28 percent of conservatives wanted the government to do more to solve problems, compared with 69 percent of liberals. In practice, of course, conservatives favor a large number of government programs — from education to health care to aid to the poor. But at the broader level of principle, conservatives are deeply suspicious of government’s ability to solve problems.

So it seems that the differences go beyond mere politics, to encompass a person's worldview.

I could sum it up this way: Liberals view the world through an emotional lens and allow their emotions to rule their thinking, while conservatives view the world less emotionally, and generally don't allow emotions to overrule rational thinking.

Which one is better is still up for debate, but considering the long-term affect of liberal policies over my lifetime, I'll lean conservative.

The price of food and the Missouri River flood

2011-06-24T10:06:00.002-05:00

Corn and more corn
Have you noticed the ridiculously high prices at the grocery store lately? Blame it on the Corn Bubble. Reuters reports that earlier this month, "the World Bank and other international organizations called on governments to stop their ethanol subsidies because of concerns they were driving up food prices" – and pushing millions of people worldwide into poverty. Read more...

The environmentalists and the Missoroui River flood
There are many well-publicized examples of absurd obeisance to the demands of radical environmentalists resulting in great economic harm. The Great Missouri River Flood of 2011 is shaping up to be another -- only this time, the price will likely be paid in lives lost as well as treasure. Ayn Rand said, "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." Read more...

Both of these examples highlight the law of unintended consequences.

OMG! Glad I don't live in Chicago

2011-06-08T08:57:00.002-05:00

This is the epitome of narcissism. My sympathies to the Chicago taxpayer who had to watch their taxes go to pay for their new mayor's ego. Each new sign reportedly costs $15,000 to put up, costing the taxpayer nearly $500,000.

The practice wasn't started by Rahm, and he promised to put an end to vanity signs, so why is this one going up?

Don't need no government, man

2011-06-08T08:27:00.002-05:00

What's wrong with this statement?

In California, parents want a new law that 'would allow parents ultimate control over their kids' Facebook pages, including the right to demand the company erase certain content or even delete the whole page within 48 hours of the request.'

If you said nothing, you really need to examine your beliefs. Why do we (or Californians) need a law to do what is actually a parental right? We don't need government to raise our children.

No wonder California is in such trouble.

Reaction to Rep. Weiner's lewdness and lies

2011-06-07T15:57:00.001-05:00

In response to a defense of Rep. Anonthy Weiner (it's not so bad; look at all the other, but worse, scandals) in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled "Weiner will rise again," one poster said it all.

Well of course he should not resign. If his district is full of liberals they will most likely support him. Forgive me if I am inaccurate, but my understanding of the liberal political philosophy is that it is ok for voters to band together to pass laws which enable the government to take money from the people who earned it and give it to them (the liberals). I would view that as stealing and if you are ok with that, what's a little lying.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

But to the author of the above article in defense of Weiner, it is NOT OK to send sexual comments and photos to nonconsenting women and then lie about it in front of the American people. Should we not hold our elected officials to high moral and ethical standards?

The thinking of the author of the SFChron oped, a self-proclaimed liberal, is the problem with this country, and will be its moral decay and eventual downfall. If you don't believe me, study Greece and Rome.

One-third of companies to ditch health care

2011-06-07T12:55:00.001-05:00

The Health Care Affordability Act, or ObamaCare, just got some not-so-good news. According to a management consulting firm, which surveyed 1,300 companies, about one-third of them will most likely quit offering health care benefits when the law fully kicks in (which is conveniently after the 2012 elections).

For those companies that fully understand the law, the number becomes 50 percent.

Of course, those in Congress -- who aren't affected by the law-- or those who work for the Federal government -- who also aren't affected -- or those thousands of companies (cronies of the Democrats) who got waivers, don't care.

Again, the hard-working American taxpayer is screwed.

Government should not be in the biz of creating jobs

2011-05-26T15:03:00.000-05:00

I received this article in a newsletter I get each week from the Mises Institute, which promotes the Austrian theory of economics.

The author wanted to remain anonymous because he was afraid his company would suffer retribution from the U.S. Government. Yes, folks, it's come to that under Obama. Speak against him and you become an enemy, and we know that he views political opponents as enemies.

Here's some excerpts:

The last few years as an executive in a manufacturing company gave me a frighteningly close look at the inner workings of regulators in our government. Maybe I'm just naive, but what I discovered was shocking.

In the past, I realized our leaders were disingenuous when they spoke about "creating jobs" and "improving the economy." Now, I have a slightly different take. After my experiences this year, and after giving this a lot of thought, I am adamant that our leaders have no business in the first place "creating jobs," or "improving the economy," or even claiming they have the ability to do so.

In fact, I have witnessed the loss of jobs as a direct result of regulations by unnamed and unelected bureaucrats, who are backed up by threats of prosecution from the government. Our government is stifling job creation.

Although I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am certain that if I wrote about my experience with specifics, the company for which I work would suffer retribution by our government. I do not have the right to put them in jeopardy. And if the legal department of my employer knew I was writing this, they would "lose it." For these reasons, I feel it necessary to write anonymously and with some imprecision.

This fear of retribution, in and of itself, is a powerful statement about the sad conditions in which we live and do business in the United States.

Read the rest of this article at Mises website.

WIC cuts? Oh my!

2011-05-24T18:35:00.002-05:00

WIC, a federal program that is supposed to provide assistance to low-income families with children will have its budget cut back under a GOP proposal. The proposed cut would scale back spending on WIC (Women, Infants and Children) to 2008 levels, about $6.3 billion.

As you can imagine, the left-wingers and liberals and Democrats in general are up in arms over this. What hypocrites, they cry. Taking food away from hungry kids! Tax cuts for millionaires (well, those who make more than $200,000)! Subsidies for big oil with their obscene profits (8 cents on the dollar)! My oh my!

(BTW, any informed person knows that the oil and gas industry does not get subsidies, but tax credits similar to all businesses, so it's really the tax code that needs to be reformed).

The truth is this: Food subsidies now cost the taxpayer nearly $100 billion a year, which has almost doubled in the last decade. The federal government as a whole has about 26 food and nutrition programs operated by six different agencies.

Originally set to help low-income families, currently about 45 percent of all families receive WIC payments. Here we go: So about 50 percent of Americans are helping to support the other 50 percent!

Remarkably, the WIC program accounts for about half of all infant formula sold in the nation. The program was supposed to be only for low-income families, yet it now provides free formula for many middle-income families that certainly don’t need government subsidies.

An even more troubling aspect of WIC is that it encourages parents to feed their babies infant formula rather than breast milk. The share of mothers on WIC who are breastfeeding is substantially lower than that of mothers not using WIC. That effect runs directly counter to the universal advice of health care experts regarding the superiority of breast milk for child development. The WIC program results in low-income parents substituting less nutritious formula for more nutritious mother’s milk.

Another troubling aspect of WIC is that the program’s large subsidies for infant formula appear to be driving up the retail price. The price of formula has risen rapidly since the early 1980s as WIC enrollment has increased. Because recipients are not sensitive to the pricing of WIC food items such as formula, stores can raise prices and receive larger cash redemptions from state agencies.

The WIC program drives up the cost of formula for families not on the program as well, and some portion of the taxpayer subsidies for WIC ends up going to the makers of infant formula. This “leakage” of benefits is a common problem in subsidy programs. It is thought, for example, that rising government subsidies for college education have helped spur the rapid inflation in college tuition costs.

Spending must be cut. We just can't keep increasing the number of Americans getting payments from the government. There isn't enough money. Even if you taxed all "millionaires" 100 percent, there still wouldn't be enough money.

There will be some compromises made, and other agencies -- like Defense -- will also have to be cut. Hey, how much are we spending by bombing Libya in an illegal war.

But crying over this cut is nonsense.

I have a new nickname for Obama

2011-05-24T13:13:00.000-05:00

Oh yea. After his trashing of U.S.-Israeli relations, and his bafoonery in the United Kingdom, he is now dufus-in-chief. And speaking of his foreign policy handling of Israel, I don't think I've ever witnessed a poorer performance by a sitting U.S. President. He was going to get the world to like us. But they're just laughing.

Netanyahu had him for lunch and spit him right out.

And here he is hard at work in London.

His foreign policy is just as good as his domestic policy: it's a train wreck. I'm not sure we can last the next 20 months.

Pelosi gets 20 percent of new healthcare waivers

2011-05-19T07:42:00.001-05:00

If "ObamaCare" is so great, why have more than 1,000 waivers been granted? But "we-have-to-pass-the-bill-to-see-what's-in-it" Pelosi's district got more than its fair share.

As reported by the Daily Caller, of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

Santana: Great musician, but ignorant of history

2011-05-17T08:26:00.000-05:00

At a ball game in Atlanta, here's what Carlos Santana had to say:

"Never mind about immigration, because everyone immigrated. Everyone is an immigrant, other than American Indians," Santana said. "So stop shucking and jiving and slipping and sliding and make some spiritual traction. Spiritual traction is, really read the Constitution, you know, and live your life. Stop shucking and jiving and doing what other people tell you to do. Do what your heart tells you to do...."

"If people want the immigration law to keep passing in every state then everybody should get out and just leave the American Indians here. This is about civil rights."

Wrong. We are NOT all immigrants. I'm not. My grandparents were. Even if you go back to 1775, about half of those signing the Declaration were born on American soil. The others were colonists, not immigrants.

If you want to get really technical, based on Santana's rant, even the American Indians can be considered immigrants. Their ancestors, it is believed, migrated here as well, across the Bering Straits.

Illegal immigration is a problem. Since the feds aren't dealing with it, the states are forced to. These are not racist laws. And it is about civil rights: The civil rights of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.

Being a good actor or musician doesn't mean you're smart on other subjects.

Boeing: If government wins, we all lose

2011-05-14T09:00:00.001-05:00

Boeing is building a new aircraft, the 787, an aircraft that can carry up to 250 passengers some 8,000+ miles, using 20 percent less fuel than today's jetliners. They have so many orders that the current assembly plant in Washington can't handle all the business.

So Boeing decides to build a new plant in South Carolina to supplement the older factory. After 18 months and about a billion dollars, Boeing is ready to start hiring workers so they can start building next year.

But wait. The union in Washington files a complaint with the feds. So Boeing has to stop until the hearings clear all of this up, which could take up to 2 years and cost millions in legal fees.

The union says Boeing is short-changing the union by building a new plant in a state that doesn't require an employee to join a union in order to work. (Right-to-work state). The union claims the decisions was retaliation for a strike in 2008 which cost Boeing billions. (Some airlines said that if another strike occurs, they'd be forced to take their business elsewhere).

Boeing says the decision was based on business principles, and that after talking to the union about the building of the 787, decided it was better business to build the plant elsewhere. Not one worker in Washington will be laid off, and they will continue to build 8-9 airplanes a month, while South Carolina will build 3 a month.

If the union wins, business everywhere will lose. The American people will lose. International companies will be afraid to build factories here. American business will be motivated to build elsewhere.

If a business can't build a plant or open a new division where they want, based on sound business principles, what has become of this country?

How does this help? How are unions even relevant to today's world? Look at what the unions did to Detroit...

We had more freedoms under King George in 1775, didn't we?

Here's the plant, and below that is the plane Boeing wants to build in South Carolina, but may not be allowed to by our government.

Yes, Mr. President, I do want alligators in my moat

2011-05-13T18:00:00.001-05:00

From Lauri B. Regan at American Thinker:

In yet another one of Obama's highly touted campaign speeches (are there any other type?), the President once again chose to use derisive rhetoric to whip up the masses against those horrible Republicans. Obama attempted to put the GOP on the defensive by suggesting that Republicans not only want the country surrounded by a moat to prevent evil immigrants from entering, but that in order to ensure success, they would fill the moat with alligators.

Apparently, the only result that Obama achieved from these ridiculous and extremely un-presidential one-liners was an electorate feeling complete and utter disgust at his obnoxious display of arrogance with regard to such an important domestic issue. The country is in economic turmoil and is being threatened by terrorists who originate in the Middle East and Northern Africa but who are crossing our borders undetected, and our president wants to lead from behind so that he can campaign (and bash Republicans) from in front...

...I am getting sick and tired of his kitschy, fighting rhetoric designed to pit citizen against citizen. And it sickens me that the American taxpayer is paying for the garbage that comes out of this President's mouth -- the man who urges civility is the most hypocritical, uncivil President in the history of the country. And it stems from his flawed character and single-minded desire to remain in power.

I agree.

Once again, Obama is loose with the facts.

In his recent immigration speech, Obama claimed that the "fence is now basically complete." But there are only 350 miles of fence along the 1,954 miles of border. That's 18 percent.

Charles Krauthammer explains all this nonsense perfectly:

Obama then boasted that on his watch 31 percent more drugs have been seized, 64 percent more weapons — proof of how he has secured the border. And for more proof: Apprehension of illegal immigrants is down 40 percent. Down? Indeed, says Obama, this means that fewer people are trying to cross the border.

(On a side note, it has been revealed that Homeland Security has directed the Border Patrol to apprehend fewer illegals crossing the border. Just send them back south. That way, the numbers will agree with the premise that the border is more secure because the Patrol is apprending fewer people.)

Krauthammer continues:

Interesting logic. Seizures of drugs and guns go up — proof of effective border control. Seizures of people go down — yet more proof of effective border control. Up or down, it matters not. Whatever the numbers, Obama vindicates himself.

You can believe this flimflam or you can believe the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. The GAO reported in February that less than half the border is under “operational control” of the government. Which undermines the entire premise of Obama’s charge that, because the border is effectively secure, “Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement” didn’t really mean it.

I count myself among those who really do mean it. I have little doubt that most Americans would be quite willing to regularize and legalize the current millions of illegal immigrants if they were convinced that this was the last such cohort, as evidenced by, say, a GAO finding that the border is under full operational control and certification to the same effect by the governors of the four southern border states.

Americans are a generous people. Upon receipt of objective and reliable evidence that the border is secure — not Obama’s infinitely manipulable interdiction statistics — the question would be settled and the immigrants legalized.

And again, I agree.

More global warming insanity

2011-05-13T17:00:00.022-05:00

Every weather event is affected by global warming? Hmmm...Or is it climate change? I never can figure out where we're going. Some days it's warming, other days it's cooling, and lately it's just change, period. Of course the climate is changing. Always has been. But to left-wing kooks, it's a way for them to push their socialist, freedom-destroying agenda.

On a web site called "ThinkProgress", they reveal their mushy thinking in these two paragraphs, nearly blaming the tornado outbreak in late April on the victims because they vote Republican.

“Given that global warming is unequivocal,” climate scientist Kevin Trenberth cautioned the American Meteorological Society in January of this year, “the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of ‘of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.’” [Emphasis mine]

The congressional delegations of these states — Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky — overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that polluting the climate is dangerous. They are deliberately ignoring the warnings from scientists.

Wow.

For those of you who don't know what a null hypothesis is, I'll provide a brief explanation. A null hypothesis can be considered a default position. For example, in our legal system, a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. The null hypothesis is that the defendant is innocent.

More technically, the typical null hypothesis at the outset of the experiment is that no difference exists between the control and experimental groups (for the variable being compared).

So in the statement above, the null hypothesis is that all weather events are affected by global warming. But for anyone who has studied statistics and/or the scientific method at the graduate level (undergrad schools don't cover it well enough or not at all), this is backwards. The null hypothesis should be that weather events are NOT affected by global warming.

Your actual hypothesis then, the one you have to prove, is that any or all weather events are affected by global warming. This is why the "proof" or "fact" of global warming is wrong when you use the incorrect null hypothesis.

I'm not saying that global warming won't affect weather systems. But to accept the null hypothesis above would be bad science. And just so I don't get blasted by the loonies, polluting the environment is bad because we all like clean air and water, etc...so don't get confused here.

No wonder our education system is screwed up. Garbage in, garbage out.

The end of the age of terror?

2011-05-13T12:25:00.001-05:00

Eugene Robinson, who lives in a left-wing fantasy world, claims in an IBD editorial that with the death of Osama bin Laden, the Age of Terror is about to end. Yes, there will be some terror attacks in the name of Islam, but "most will be amateurish failures," he writes.

But Foreign Affairs published an article the same day that claims that "Al Qaeda is likely to survive bin Laden's killing for one simple reason: the group had already largely passed him by."

And today, a couple of Taliban suicide bombers kill 80 Pakistani police recruits in retaliation for the killing of bin Laden because the police or army (are they the same?) didn't prevent the U.S. mission.

Sorry Eugene, but the world you live in isn't real.

The Politics of Oil

2011-05-11T12:01:00.023-05:00

Obama claims that we are producing more oil in this country than ever before. But that's not true. According to the Energy Information Agency (EIA), domestic oil production has fallen 50 percent since 1970.

In another statement, he placed a caveat on this production mumbo-jumbo: Production is at its highest level since 2003. Big woop. But this isn't accurate.

Figures from the EIA:
2003: 2,073,453,000
2004: 1,983,302,000
2005: 1,890,106,000
2006: 1,862,259,000
2007: 1,848,450,000
2008: 1,811,817,000
2009: 1,956,596,000
2010: 2,011,856,000

The second caveat is that the EIA projects that production totals are poised to fall from their current levels over the next two years.

Domestic crude oil production, the agency says, is projected to decline by 110,000 barrels a day in 2011 and by an additional 130,000 barrels per day in 2012. The agency makes that projection based on expected production declines in Alaska due to maturing oil fields. Production in the Gulf of Mexico is also projected to decline. Both are partially offset by projected increases in the Lower 48 states, but on balance, EIA sees the numbers falling.

Here's an interview with a former CEO of Shell Oil (which by the way recently had its permit held by the EPA to drill up off the coast of northern Alaska in fields that contain 27 billion barrels -- after investing $4 billion in the project):

Obama and his ilk want higher hydrocarbon prices. They are getting their way. Too bad for most Americans though. But King Obama doesn't have to worry as he jetsets around the globe like a Monarch.

And realize this: Obama is no longer giving policy speeches, but campaign speeches.

Why the tax code needs to be changed

2011-05-09T15:09:00.001-05:00

What is someone's fair share? Shouldn't everyone pay at least something, since we all do get benefits from government?

A recent CNN Money article highlights the mess that our tax code is. Why 45 percent don't pay anything at all. The top 1 percent pay as much as the bottom 95 percent.

But there is truth that many higher-income people don't pay their fair share. Some of those who didn't pay taxes: About 18,000 were households taking in more than $500,000 -- and of those, 4,000 made more than $1 million.

Wouldn't it be nice to make a million bucks, tax-free?

This is ridiculous. Many deductions do favor the rich. It's about time we all paid, at least something. If you don't have any skin in the game, you're not going to really care.

Reactions to this week's news

2011-05-06T12:35:00.001-05:00

Part of the problem in deciding if government is effective or not is trying to learn the truth of what is actually going on. With the Obama administration, in their attempts to be "transparent," they actually create a public relations nightmare.

While Obama made the right decision to go after Osama bin Laden, the spin doctors at the White House pretty much screwed things for the aftermath. However, while he did make the right decision, the ability to do so was not his doing. No, they were able to kill bin Laden because of programs and policies put in place during the Bush Adminstration, and continued by Obama.

But in the larger, more strategic, view of the world today, we have more problems than ever before.

By Star Parker, a former liberal turned conservative:

The morality of freedom transformed into the politics of race. The antidote of personal responsibility transformed into entitlements and victimization.

We've now gone beyond blacks just buying into the great welfare-state lie. We now have a black president who is leading us all into the abyss.

A black president more interested in protecting abortionists than babies, burying the nation hopelessly in debt, piling on more and more spending with increasingly worthless dollars, to pay for government programs that never have and never will work.

This is happening in a world increasingly in chaos. Millions in nations in the Middle East suddenly are aspiring toward freedom and mobilizing to achieve it as blacks did here in the 1960s.

But they are faced with the same dilemma. What does it mean to be free? It's easier to know what you don't want than what you do.

Unfortunately, the spreading chaos in the Middle East is exacerbated by the absence of leadership from an America, once the world's beacon for freedom.

How can those in the Middle East look to us when the American president's message is that the poor are poor because the rich are rich and that eternal moral truths are irrelevant to political freedom?

All the world is waiting for a new America to come forth that again understands that freedom isn't about politics but about moral truths and personal responsibility.

I couldn't have said it better.

In tribute to the killing of Osama bin Laden

2011-05-02T08:01:00.000-05:00

Why are oil prices high?

2011-04-28T07:50:00.000-05:00

There are, of course, a lot of ideas out there. I read this morning it was the fault of the Republican takeover of the House. Of course, the House hasn't been able to do anything that is actually constructive, because of the Senate and the White House.

Another group to blame are speculators. I'm sure they have something to do with it, but I don't think the blame is all theirs alone. Then there's the Middle East. Actually, most of the oil is still flowing, so that can't be it all by itself. And when hasn't there been turmoil in the Middle East?

Oil companies. Must be them. Let's investigate. Of course, this has been tried before. Or let's take away some of their tax breaks. That $4 billion would reduce the deficit. Oh wait. Obama wants to "invest" that money in green energy projects. The hell with the deficit. (Deficit under Bush was bad; deficit under Obama is good, right? Or at least that's what Krugman says.)

Or is it the policies of the Obama administration that is driving up the price? I don't think anything Obama or his minions have done has helped. Actually, I believe he wants higher prices to force us to adopt his "green" ideology. He has said so himself.

Most likely, it is a combination of all these factors. Here's some actual figures. You can come up with your own conclusion.

According to projections made by the Energy Information Administration in April 2010, the Gulf of Mexico should have produced 1.84 million barrels of oil a day in the fourth quarter of 2010. Instead, according to the most recent EIA estimate, due to the Obama permitorium, the Gulf only produced 1.59 million barrels. That is 250,000 barrels a day in lost production. Overall, since Obama instituted his drilling moratorium, oil production from the Gulf is down more than 10%.

But while Gulf oil production is down from pre-moratorium estimate, total oil consumption is actually higher than EIA predicted last year. Total crude oil input to refineries is up from an estimated 13.85 million barrels a day to an actual 14.25 million barrels. But if domestic production is down and consumption is up, where is the extra oil coming from?

Foreign oil.

While oil production in the Gulf is down more than 10% from April 2010 estimates, net crude oil imports are up 5%. At $83 dollars a barrel (the approximate average price of oil in the fourth quarter of 2010) that means Obama’s oil drilling permatorium increased American dependence on foreign oil by about $1.8 billion dollars in the fourth quarter of last year alone. The numbers only get worse as Obama’s permitorium further cuts into production. A Wood Mackenzie study predicts that for all of 2011 the permitorium will result in the loss this year of about 375,000 barrels of oil a day.

More imported oil also means higher prices at the pumps. The EIA explains: “Retail gasoline prices tend to be higher the farther it is sold from the source of supply.” It costs more money to transport oil to your gas station from the Persian Gulf than from the Gulf of Mexico.

And another factor not mentioned: Our huge deficits, and the falling value of the dollar. Oil is traded with dollars and when the dollar goes down in value, it takes more dollars to pay for oil.

Isn't it time we adopt an energy policy based on reality? Or just maybe a policy at all?

Are gas prices high enough yet?

2011-04-27T13:14:00.000-05:00

What's happening to the oil market is exactly what Obama and his fellow socialists want.

By Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner:

President Obama says there's not much the federal government can do to bring down gas prices any time soon. Michael Bromwich, Obama's chief bureaucrat in charge of issuing permits for oil and gas companies to drill off-shore, said the same thing yesterday:

“‘Even if we permitted the hell out of everything tomorrow -- every pending permit, some permits that haven't even been filed yet -- it would not have a material effect on gas prices. That's the simple, clear reality,” said the director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE).

Both Obama and Bromwich either are purposely lying or they simply don't know what they are talking about. Check out the chart that accompanies this post. Notice what happened on July 14, 2008? Oil prices suddenly plummeted from their historic high of $145 a barrel. Why?

Because that was the day President George W. Bush signed an executive order lifting the moratorium on off-shore drilling in the eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico and off the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Overnight, the price per barrel of oil plunged, and that plunge was reflected at the pump soon thereafter.

In other words, Obama could with the stroke of a pen sign an executive order telling his appointees at EPA, the Department of Interior and the Department of Energy to stop throwing up obstacles to increased U.S. oil and natural gas production and instead work with the energy industry on a crash program to "drill here, drill now."

Welcome to the New World

2011-04-27T08:52:00.000-05:00

When the U.S. Government can prevent Boeing, a private company, from building a new plant in South Carolina because of union pressure, we are no longer free. Period.

When a local union with 9 employees in a workforce of 92 can shut down an operation, then we are no longer free.

Just two examples. There are so many more that I could write a book...

Remember in 2008 when oil prices peaked at $140? How it must have been Bush's fault because all his buddies were in the (big) oil business. So now what? Well, it certainly can't be Obama's fault. But he'll get to the bottom of it, for sure.

Investors Business Daily gets it right:

In his radio address last Saturday, President Obama bragged that his attorney general had just two days earlier "launched a task force with just one job: rooting out cases of fraud or manipulation in the oil markets that might affect gas prices, including any illegal activity by traders and speculators.

"We're going to make sure that no one is taking advantage of the American people for their own short-term gain."

Last month, the president promised that his administration was "taking various measures to deal with oil prices, and (is) watching out for price-gouging."

This is the sort of rhetoric that beleaguered consumers, aching from soaring fuel prices, are vulnerable to. Obama is giving them a straw man on which they can vent their frustrations. But their focus should be on the presidential candidate who said while campaigning in 2008 that under his environmentalist regime, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

On the day Obama took office, gasoline was $1.83 a gallon. On Tuesday, according to the American Automobile Association's Daily Fuel Gauge Report, the national average was $3.87. While electricity prices haven't yet necessarily skyrocketed, gasoline prices sure have.

Obama could have prevented this. But he's done nothing to push crude supplies up and thereby bring gasoline prices down. In fact, it appears that his goal is to reduce domestic supply. Among the energy roadblocks his administration has thrown up:

• An illegal moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

• The rescission of permits that had already been issued for drilling in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska.

• The withholding of air permits for drilling, prompting Shell to walk away from an estimated 27 billion barrels of Arctic oil.

No, the oil in those reserves would not be in tomorrow's pipeline. But the promise of more oil in the future has an effect on prices today. The opposite — a future of artificial scarcity — is the reason oil is currently trading at elevated levels.

Despite its denials, the administration has also increased gasoline prices through its promotion of a weak dollar. Because oil is traded in U.S. dollars, those who sell it on the open market demand more dollars for the same amount of crude because those dollars are worth less.

This administration includes an energy secretary who has pined for European — meaning $8-a-gallon — gas prices. But the White House would rather the public remain ignorant of its role in driving prices higher. So it cynically kicks off probes of investors and oil industry executives that will turn up absolutely nothing.

And then when Bill Maher gets on Leno and says that "tea-baggers are corporate America's idiots" and Keith Olbermann thinks that S.E. Cupp should have been aborted, just because she disagrees with him, I'm about ready to scream.

It's gotten so ridiculous that it's hard to take. But we need to keep up the good fight against the left before they bury us all, as promised in 1961.

Obama: Another task force

2011-04-21T19:19:00.000-05:00

Remember the "commission" on the deficit. What did Obama do with its recommendations?

Nada. Nothing. Zilch.

Now, we are going to have a "task force" over energy prices.

Man, you REALLY can't make this stupid stuff up!

The man doesn't have a clue how the real world works.

Gary Johnson to run for President. Who?

2011-04-21T18:00:00.001-05:00

Finally, someone from the Republican side of things has made a decision. From the Atlantic Journal:

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson has just announced his candidacy for president, and, finally, a Republican is actually running. Johnson didn't announce an exploratory committee, or that he's thinking about running. He announced that he's a candidate for president.

"I'm ready for a different America," Johnson said on the steps of the New Hampshire state house.

You may be asking: Who is Gary Johnson? Is he a serious candidate? Why have I never heard of him?

In a field of potential contenders who all talk about drastic spending cuts and echo a small-government message designed to resonate with tea partiers, Johnson is the only bona fide social and economic libertarian in the race. If Ron Paul doesn't run, then Johnson really will stand a chance to inherit the libertarian mantle in the 2012 Republican primary, though Paul formed an exploratory committee two weeks ago.

Johnson served two terms as governor of New Mexico, winning that job as an entrepreneur with no prior political experience. He earned a reputation for his vetoes, which he talks about a lot these days.

He stands for school vouchers, a balanced budget, the block-granting of Medicaid, and against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Johnson will sound to many like a one-issue candidate, because there's one issue that sticks out, above all else, in his platform: Johnson wants to legalize marijuana. And he's eager to tell you about it.

After reading his stance on issues (see GaryJohnson2012) I can't find anything I disagree with. So this will be interesting to follow.

Some see Texas wildfires as a joke, because it's Texas

2011-04-21T13:23:00.003-05:00

(Update: Apri 21, 2011 at 2:41 PM CDT. A second firefighter has died today in Texas fighting these fires, and the number of homes or buildings lost nears 400.)

Some people hate Texas and Texans, for some idiotic reason I've never been able to understand. But I guess some people just have to find something or someone to hate, and since it isn't politically correct to hate another race or ethnic group, I guess Texas makes for a large target. But anyway you try to rationalize this, it's simple bigotry.

Well, bring it on. Though not a Texan (I'm from Michigan), I've lived in Texas for several years and can find no fault worthy of mentioning at this time of trouble.

But for some, like (I'll do a favor and keep him anonymous) from Colorado, the editor of his shallow but illustrative blog, FamGuyToday, who has repeatedly shown his disdain for anything Texas or Texan, thinks the historically destructive wildfires in Texas is a great opportunity to make fun.

Since Colorado also has problems with fires from time to time, you'd think he'd understand.

This is how I responded to his posting:

The only two things you can come up with is a joke and something about preachers (not main stream preachers, but the fanatics, which aren't all in Texas)?

In the meantime, a firefighter (volunteer) has died, another injured, 160 homes up in flames, more than 1 million acres burned (more than Rhode Island), not to mention livestock and wildlife burned alive.

In times of trouble, it is normal for Americans to come together and put aside our petty political differences to help each other.

But there are those who can't see past their bigoted hate.

As my dad used to say, it takes all kinds...

Is Gore really green?

2011-04-21T10:21:00.000-05:00

I find this interesting. Greenpeace has rated Apple as one of the least green companies in the world.

Al Gore Jr., former Vice President of the United States and Global Warming advocate, is on Apple's board of directors.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Random thoughts (from me and others)

2011-04-20T08:22:00.004-05:00

From the Washington Examiner April 18:
If America's having a financial crisis, why are our leaders on recess?
Cancel all recesses and junkets, park Air Force One, get back to the capital and do your job. Does Harry Reid and 9 other Sens and Reps really need a vacation -- oops, I mean fact-finding-mission -- to China? Or John Boehner and his six fellow legislators to Iraq, Afganistan and Pakistan (which actually makes more sense, but the timing of both are awful considering the circumstances)?

---

Cal Thomas writes: It's peculiar how the Left embraces choice when it comes to aborting children, but opposes it for children languishing in failing public schools. These substandard schools virtually guarantee their students a life of poverty, teen pregnancy, near illiteracy and welfare dependence.

But Cal, that's exactly what they want. A whole generation of voters dependent on government handouts.

---

Obama's budget speech last week was two things: a campaign speech and an attempt to ridicule his opponents. Obama learned during his community organizing days how to bully and ridicule people to put them on the defensive. He has done that since 2007 and has never quit. Instead of him taking on the responsibilities of being President, Obama is stuck in time as a community organizer using what he learned from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Alinsky's Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.” People need to see Obama for what he is, not what he says he is.

---

Taxing the rich won't reduce deficits, by the way. If it makes you feel better, go ahead, but it won't improve anything. Anyone who has seriously studied (besides Paul Krugman) economics and tax issues should come to that conclusion. This tax the rich thing is leftist class warfare and not based on fact. It is based on feelings. Nothing else. What we need is a fairer tax code, without all the special stuff for special interests. Everyone should pay the same percentage.

---

I mention Paul Krugman because his latest column is like most: stupid leftist bs. And don't throw his Nobel prize around, because we know how those are given out. You don't have to accomplish anything to get one, as long as your politics are correct. Anyway, I digress. Krugman had this to say:

Last week, President Obama offered a spirited defense of his party’s values — in effect, of the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society.

But anyone with their head out of their keester knows that those two "programs" did not work. Might as well have taken those trillions of dollars and just thrown them down a black hole. In fact, with less government involvement, things might actually be better.

I think people are beginning to wake up to that, after years of liberal propaganda.

---

Democrats are still winning

2011-04-18T08:33:00.002-05:00

Here's something interesting from the Washington Post: "Obama to take deficit plan on the road..."

What plan? There's no plan. It's just generalities, and silly attacks on Republicans. But many, many people really do believe the Republicans are only about the rich and really want to starve granny. We libertarians call these people sheep. Yup, both sides have them.

But Obama and the dems are probably going to get their way. Higher energy prices, higher taxes, and even more spending. For a while anyway. Then we'll be in a recession that will make 2008 a mild correction.

When 50 percent are pulling the wagon, and the objective is to put more people on that wagon, it doesn't take long before the wagon starts to slow down for everyone.

Why we should go with a fair tax

2011-04-13T10:25:00.002-05:00

From a reader's post at American Thinker, in response to the article posted earlier. I couldn't have said it any better:

The importance of the state of the economy is always ignored by the Left, and often by the Right. When things are booming, the money-hungry Congress get more of our money to waste, even at lower tax rates. Therefore, it makes more sense to boost the economy than to raise taxes. When things are booming, people are happy to pay reasonable taxes. When things are bust, they complain about every penny.

The tax code is just plain stupid and counter to what we as Americans stand for. All Americans are equal, so all Americans should pay precisely the same tax rate. I don't care if you're a 90 year old granny on a pension or Jeffery Immelt, or General Motors, your tax rate should be equal. Federal income taxes should have exactly zero exemptions, loopholes, and dodges.

When you go down the exemption road, it makes Americans unequal. When you overly burden business and the rich, they hide their money. When you excuse poor Americans from paying tax, it takes them out of the system, saps their ambition, and makes them part of an under class.

We must never, ever tolerate government defined classes. It's against everything America stands for. 10% tax is enough if everyone pays. It would make the economy so vibrant that there would be plenty of money left over to help the poor.

What's not to like about Ryan's tax proposals?

2011-04-13T09:51:00.002-05:00

A very fine analysis:

Ryan's Sweeping Tax Reform and the Left's Inane Response

My response to the above article:

The left-liberal-progressive position on taxes is not about government revenue or economic growth, and when they say it, don't believe it. It's all about the ideology of wealth redistribution, of spreading the wealth around. They do not care about anything else. It's class warfare, right out of Marx and Lenin. They don't feel good about a person becoming rich and being able to keep the fruits of their labor when someone else might be poor and in need of help. It's all about what they think is fair. But only for the poor person, who probably is poor by personal choice or design. Those truly in need have always gotten help, but now -- thanks to progressive programs -- we have a huge number of people who have become dependent on the government. Anyway, I ramble a bit...

The bottom line here is a battle between capitalism and socialism. Those of us who still retain the ability to form our own opinions based on reality know that capitalism, for all its faults, works so much better than socialism, which has failed everytime it's been tried.

But that doesn't matter if you're "progressive," because it might not be "fair." Like the child who stomps his or her feet and yells "But that's not fair!"

What I'm reading today

2011-04-13T07:31:00.001-05:00

We’re There to Help
And they’re there to kill us.

The liberal's plan: Cut defense and tax, tax, tax
Reader's comments to this oped are interesting. I'll repeat a few here:

At some point Americans will need to face the reality that the purpose of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party is to create a dependent citizenry. Under the guise of helping the less fortunate, they will create an ever growing class dependent on government largesse, and this, they hope will be a voting class to keep them in office. Americans MUST stop thinking of government handouts as"entitlements". They are chains, if you really don't NEED "free lunch" for your kid don't take it. 42%of Americans receive "food stamps"? What percentage of that whole doesn't really need them but takes them because they are "entitled" to them? It is a mindset that needs changing. Based on our income my children were "entitled" to a free lunch in public school. Since I was capable of making their lunches myself I refused the offer.

I think it's great that the Leftists have finally been smoked out of their hole and we can see exactly what they REALLY stand for. Their budget is nothing less that full europeanization of the US; a headlong leap into the failed policies of 1970s era socialism. Funny how the so-called intellectuals on the Left haven't absorbed the fact that europe is moving away from the very models the Left is proposing for the US. And oh yeah...can there be any doubt how utterly tone deaf these neo-marxists are? Naming it The People's Budget? Really? The slogan reeks of communism and is bound to turn off everyone to the Right of Dennis Kucinich.

Mr. York's assumption is wrong. President Obama can claim he's playing the independent card by rejecting both budgets and pushing for something in the middle. When doing so, he will claim the GOP's budget is radical and extreme all while claim he is taking the middle road. He will do this because he has no fear of losing his base as York suggests. The fact is those commie drones will vote for him regardless because they do not know how to vote for anyone other than a Democrat. Maybe if the entitlement class actually got some education from all the government programs they participate in they could cast an intelligent vote but the reality is most of the entitlement class has been indoctrinated into thinking all republicans long for the days of slavery and make their money by stealing from the poor.

Obama: We've met the Republicans half-way

2011-04-06T18:00:00.004-05:00

When I heard Obama say that "we have met the Republicans half-way" after his meeting with House Republicans, I thought what a really great guy he must be to actually talk to a Republican face-to-face.

Big whoop. So you've met the Republicans half-way. They proposed $61 billion in cuts and you only want $33 billion. Neither proposal is adequate.

Political cartoonist Michael Rameriz from IBD puts it in perspective with this pie chart:

More stupid liberal responses to Ryan's budget plan

2011-04-06T13:35:00.001-05:00

At FireDogLake (and what else would you expect), someone who calls him/her/itself BlueTexan has a plan to balance the budget.

Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Cut all defense spending by 50%.
Restore all tax rates to 1981 levels — across the board.
Double the Estate Tax.
Pass a millionaire’s tax.
Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction > $500,000.
Eliminate mortgage interest deduction on vacation homes.
Eliminate corporate tax loopholes.
Eliminate tax breaks for Big Oil.
Eliminate Big Farm subsidies.
Pass a carbon tax.
Pass a bank tax.
Problem solved

What's even more amazing are the number of people who see this as a viable answer.

You didn’t solve health care spending — neither did Ryan, and he just put debt on people’s backs rather than the government — so just throw in some single-payer scheme, or British NHS system and we’re good.

He (Ryan) put debt on people's back rather than the government? And just who pays for this debt? What a friggen' idiot.

I could put more stupid left-wing comments here, but let's just let it be that one. But the majority of the moonbats at FireDogLake wanted more taxes! Higher taxes on gas! More taxes on the banks! Taxes on overseas investments! Taxes on unearned income! Higher Social Security and Medicare taxes! And make sure those evil "rich" pay their fair share.

I'll bet none of these loons pay taxes.
But higher taxes for those who produce, work and earn in this country are the answer to our prosperity, dont' you know, so that the other half can live off the government teat? Come on. Where's your empathy?

Gag me.

Where's the Democrat plan? Nada, zilch, no where to be seen

2011-04-06T10:05:00.000-05:00

Now that the Republicans, via Paul Ryan, have released a plan to restore fiscal sanity in Washington, where is the counter-plan from the Democrats? Well, doesn't seem that they have one.

Their plan is to continue with the status quo, regardless of the outcome, because it's the "nice" thing to do. Pelosi's response to Ryan's plan is typical, and stupid, even for witch Nancy:

While Ryan was announcing his plan at a press conference, she tweeted:

The #GOP Ryan budget is a path to poverty for America's seniors & children and a road to riches for big oil #GOPvalues

#GOP Path to Poverty budget eliminates guaranteed benefits for seniors under Medicare http://is.gd/LEmuZp #GOPvalues

These are nothing but scare tactics. I guess she'd rather spend us into oblivion. Then everyone would be poor. But we'd all feel good on the way down.

E.J. Dionne, I assume, takes the position of most liberals. He writes about how radical the conservatives in Washington are, how Ryan's plan would "reportedly" do this and that, taking from the poor and giving to the rich, and that overall, the GOP wants to take us all back to 1956. Reportedly, he writes. Which means he hasn't read the document that he criticizes; instead he relies on others to do his investigation for him. Typical lazy liberal bullshit.

And I'll bet that Nancy hasn't read it either. Remember "we have to vote on the bill so we can read it" Nancy? She couldn't get the House to pass a budget last year. With a supermajority. The democrats controlled Congress for four years. Our deficit nearly doubled during those four years. They should be ashamed of what they've done, not proud.

But what else can you expect from twisted minds?

The wisdom of Clint Eastwood

2011-03-29T09:01:00.001-05:00

You don't live nearly 81 years (he'll be 81 on May 31) without picking up some wisdom along the way. So I thought I'd share a few quotes from Clint Eastwood, as reported by the Internet Movie Database. This is not to say that actors and directors are any more wise than anyone else, but I'm a fan of his work, so here goes.

My father used to say to me, "Show 'em what you can do, and don't worry about what you're gonna get. Say you'll work for free and make yourself invaluable."

I like the libertarian view, which is to leave everyone alone. Even as a kid, I was annoyed by people who wanted to tell everyone how to live.

Plastic surgery used to be a thing where older people would try to go into this dream world of being 28 years old again. But now, in Hollywood, even people at 28 are having work done. Society has made us believe you should look like an 18-year-old model all your life. But I figure I might as well just be what I am.

I think people jumped to conclusions about Dirty Harry (1971) without giving the character much thought, trying to attach right-wing connotations to the film that were never really intended. Both the director [Don Siegel] and I thought it was a basic kind of drama - what do you do when you believe so much in law and order and coming to the rescue of people and you just have five hours to solve a case? That kind of impossible effort was fun to portray, but I think it was interpreted as a pro-police point of view, as a kind of rightist heroism, at a time in American history when police officers were looked down on as "pigs", as very oppressive people - I'm sure there are some who are, and a lot who aren't. I've met both kinds.

I don't like the wimp syndrome. No matter how ardent a feminist may be, if she is a heterosexual female, she wants the strength of a male companion as well as the sensitivity. The most gentle people in the world are macho males, people who are confident in their masculinity and have a feeling of well-being in themselves. They don't have to kick in doors, mistreat women, or make fun of gays.

I don't believe in pessimism. If something doesn't come up the way you want, forge ahead.

They say marriages are made in Heaven. But so is thunder and lightning.

Maybe I'm getting to the age when I'm starting to be senile or nostalgic or both, but people are so angry now. You used to be able to disagree with people and still be friends. Now you hear these talk shows, and everyone who believes differently from you is a moron and an idiot - both on the Right and the Left.

[on President George W. Bush] You've got to admire somebody who stands up for what they believe regardless of how the polls go. A lot of presidents do everything by the polls. They do a focus group then all of a sudden they say, "OK, that's what I'm going to be for because that's where focus group is leading me.

[on the Iraq war] I wasn't for going in there. Only because democracy isn't something that you get overnight. I don't think America got democracy overnight. It's something we had to fight for and believe in.

Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right you meet the same idiots coming around from the left.

I don't want to be politically correct. We're all spending too much time and energy trying to be politically correct about everything.

Pelosi stays true to form

2011-03-28T15:39:00.001-05:00

From The Messenger, Fort Dodge, IA. I happen to agree with their conclusion and I'll add my 2 cents. Pelosi has to be plain nuts (as in crazy).

Nancy Pelosi, now minority leader in the House of Representatives, has launched a new tirade against Republicans who now control the chamber. It involves compostable eating utensils.

When Pelosi and her fellow Democrats were in control of the House, they established a so-called "green" requirement that only cups, knives, forks and spoons that could be composted were permitted in the three main House cafeterias. Once it became apparent the utensils were so flimsy they sometimes melted in hot soup and could not penetrate some foods, lawmakers of both parties complained.

Then it was revealed the program was costing a whopping $475,000 a year, plus expenses for hauling away and processing the compostables.

Once Republicans took over control of the House, the new leadership quickly decreed sturdier foam cups and plastic utensils would be used. That will save a substantial amount of taxpayers' money.

Pelosi's spokesman accused the Republican leadership of embarking on "policies that take us backwards."

Actually, no. We suspect little good - if any - was done for the environment by the Pelosi program. New GOP initiatives such as reusable dinnerware are likely to be "greener" than the Pelosi edict.

We had thought Americans might be spared examples of Pelosi's ultra-partisanship when she left the speaker's post. Apparently we were wrong.

Why can't these folks use regular silverware and glasses like the rest of us? I could buy enough silverware for 535 people for about $1,300 (check Walmart's prices on cheap silverware, which actually work) and buy enough drinking glasses so each person could have 2 glasses at a time for a little more than a grand (again, Walmart). And it would be all reusable.

No wonder we're in trouble.

The Savage Nation

2011-03-22T10:38:00.004-05:00

It was nice to take a vacation. San Antonio, Corpus Christi and the coastal islands are nice this time of year.

While driving home last week, surfing the radio stations, I heard Michael Savage say that using U.S. Navy helicopters, personnel and an aircraft carrier to assist Japan was a blatant misuse of military resources. And, he doesn't believe "anyone in the military is competent," but then quickly backpedaled and tried to cover his ass by pointing out maybe it was the "higher ups" that were incompetent.

I turned him off. As a veteran of 25 years, I'd like to slap him upside the head. He's so wrong on all accounts that I can't believe he is still on the air. I turned to my wife and asked her what she thought and she agreed that using the U.S. Navy, when available, to assist in a natural disaster is a good thing. And she's 8th generation Texan, and conservative on most issues.

Sometimes, our military personnel are put in harm's way. What does Savage (his real last name is Weiner) think?

Who cares what he thinks?

He gives conservatives a bad name.

Wisconsin Not a Tipping-point, But Reversal of Roles

2011-03-07T07:53:00.003-06:00

There is a fundamental change underway in American politics. Progressive is becoming conservative and conservative is becoming progressive, if you define conservative as protecting the status quo, while progressive is defined as rejecting the status quo and promoting changes which make sense in today's world.

It's conservatives who want to throw off the progressive experiment, while preserving some of the better traditions of the American experiment. It’s conservatives who want to reshape American politics so that the voter and taxpayer have more decision-making power than big-money unions and political action committees. It's conservatives who want progress by downsizing and restructuring government programs so they are affordable, effective and sustainable.

"Progressives" on the other hand, are desperately clinging to the past. Oh, don't get me wrong. Liberal rhetoric is definitely "progressive," and an excellent example is spelled out in the Progressive Strategy Handbook, published by the Cognitive Policy Works (think George Lackoff, one of the most left-leaning of Berkeley liberals). They still believe that conservatives are people who cling to "guns and bibles," and liberals are the tolerant and forward-looking people who will lead us all to a world without want.

While a majority of conservatives may desire traditional social values, instead of embracing and celebrating any deviate behavior whatsoever, conservatives look at a changing world -- and what needs to change -- when it comes to the success of the American people to determine their own destiny.

Yet almost the opposite is true if you ignore the liberal rhetoric and look closely at their actions.

Progressives will tell you they are the tolerant ones, but only if you toe the party line. And if you're black, Hispanic or a woman of any color, and are conservative, look out. They will attack you with all their might. Consider comments like that made by Sen. Harry Reid, who said he couldn't understand why anyone of Hispanic descent would be a Republican. And watch how they demonstrate. They make the Tea Party demonstrations look like a picnic, and the liberals don't clean up after themselves, either. I guess that's the job of their government. And when the vote will go against their programs, they cut and run. Democracy has been shut down in Wisconsin.

As William F. Buckley, Jr. said once: "Liberals claim to want to give hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."

Just reading two leading liberal columnists, Paul Krugman and Eugene Robinson, you'd think that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is a dictator whose sole purpose is "union-busting," that it's not about the budget, but about money and power.

But the actual bill is in fact quite different than what is being presented by both the left and the mainstream media.

There are no unions to be busted. Collective bargaining remains in place, though is more limited than before, which previously essentially had no limits. Instead of the unions deciding what taxpayers pay for government services, it’s the taxpayers who are attempting to take back the decision-making.

Robinson calls it a "coup," while Krugman calls it creating an oligarchy, neither of which is even close to reality. Other parts of the Wisconsin bill are also bad according to Krugman, especially the parts that allow the state to sell off industries it no longer wants to run, like a few power plants. Privatization is a bad word in liberal speak.

Limiting what and how much some public service unions can actually negotiate for is important, or we'll just end up like before. Don't get me wrong. At one time unions were a very important part of the nation's effort to end the stranglehold that business had on workers. But today, we have laws and regulations in place that prevent those sorts of things.

But the fact remains that it costs the state of Wisconsin nearly 75 cents in benefits for each dollar in salary. This amounts to an average salary and benefit package for teachers of about $100,000. Private industry averages about 25 cents on the dollar. "What these numbers ultimately prove is the excessive power of collective borrowing," is the conclusion of the Wall Street Journal. And it's the taxpayers who work in the private sector who pay for teachers.

And yet, Milwaukee, the largest city in the state, can’t even manage to graduate half of their high school seniors each year.

But liberals want more of the same: More education spending and more (or at least the same) power for unions, more of 40-plus years of the same old tired policies that have failed to work. Look at how they wail and protest at any hint of reducing any spending programs. They'll even complain if you propose to cut the increase in spending.

The majority of the American people are awakening. No longer can liberals hide in the shadows and force their programs on us. It's time for change, and change for the better, and it won't be our "progressive" friends that get us there, no matter how much they wail about the injustice of it all.

Finally, there might be real hope and change.

Obama: Head in the sand over Islamic terror

2011-03-04T07:48:00.000-06:00

From the Washington Times. I'll repeat most of it here, since it is so vital that we understand what is going on in Obama's head:

U.S. troops are gunned down by a shooter who screams “Allahu akbar!” before opening fire. Official statements are rushed out: The perpetrator was a lone wolf; his motive was unclear; there are no links to terrorism. Sound familiar? It should, because when Islam is the cause of American tragedy, President Obama hides his head in the sand.

On Wednesday, a young Kosovar named Arif Uka opened fire on a bus load of U.S. Air Force personnel in Frankfurt, Germany, killing two and wounding two more. Witnesses say he repeatedly shouted the jihadist battle cry, “Allahu akbar” as he emptied his weapon and screamed “Jihad! Jihad!” when tackled by German police. Uka’s victims had been heading to the fight in Afghanistan but because the jihadists have a global battlespace, the war came to them instead.

Mr. Obama made a typical noncommittal statement shortly after the shooting, saying it was a “stark reminder of the extraordinary sacrifices that our men and women in uniform are making all around the world to keep us safe, and the dangers that they face all around the globe.” He made no mention of the nature of the threat or the reason for the sacrifices. In this respect, he was behaving true to form.

The Frankfurt shooting is the latest in a troubling series of jihadist terror attacks in which the Obama administration refuses to face reality. Among the first was the June 1, 2009, shooting at a recruiting station in Little Rock. Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Muslim convert who had recently travelled to Yemen, killed one U.S. Army recruiter and wounded another. Muhammad told police if other troops had been available, he would have shot them too. The White House waited two days before making a statement that omitted any reference to the attacker or his jihadist motives.

The Nov. 5, 2009, Fort Hood massacre, in which 14 were killed and 30 wounded, was given a persistent coat of whitewash from the Obama administration. The first coat was applied with initial statements that shooter Nidal Malik Hassan was a “lone wolf” and continued through the comprehensive “force protection review” that somehow omitted any reference to Hasan’s jihadist motives or contacts with al Qaeda.

The Obama team had a similarly slippery reaction to the Dec. 25, 2009, attempted “underwear bomb” attack on Northwest flight 253. Al Qaeda-linked bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was initially not even charged with attempting to commit an act of terrorism. Faisal Shahzad, who attempted the Times Square bombing in May 2010, was also called a lone wolf with no ties to terrorism and was even described as more a victim of the economic downturn than a committed Islamic extremist. In all these cases, the initial assessments turned out to be wrong, yet the White House still obstinately refuses to discuss the jihadist motives of the terrorists involved.

The Obama administration’s knee-jerk instinct to deny reality in hopes it will go away is clearly not working. How many Americans have to die before Mr. Obama at long last admits the nature of the Islamist threat that killed them?

Obama and his failed foreign policy

2011-03-01T08:19:00.004-06:00

Remember how Obama and the Democrats promised us a new world order, where everyone would like us and we'd all get along?

That's not how the world works. We may wish for something different, more friendly, but it doesn't exist, so you have to deal with reality as it is. You don't apologize on the world stage, you don't bow to dictators, and you don't appease tyrants.

Now they are laughing in our faces. From the Telegraph in the UK:

Just a few years ago the United States was genuinely feared on the world stage, and dictatorial regimes, strategic adversaries and state sponsors of terror trod carefully in the face of the world’s most powerful nation. Now Washington appears weak, rudderless and frequently confused in its approach. From Tehran to Tripoli, the Obama administration has been pathetically slow to lead, and afraid to condemn acts of state-sponsored repression and violence...

In contrast to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, President Obama fails to see the United States as an exceptional nation, with a unique role in leading the free world and standing up to tyranny. In his speeches abroad he has frequently found fault with his own country, rather than projecting confidence in American greatness. From Cairo to Strasbourg he has adopted an apologetic tone rather than demonstrating faith in America as a shining city upon a hill, a beacon of freedom and liberty. A leader who lacks pride in his own nation’s historic role as a great liberator simply cannot project strength abroad...

It has also become abundantly clear that the Obama team attaches little importance to human rights issues, and in contrast to the previous administration has not pursued a freedom agenda in the Middle East and elsewhere. It places far greater value upon engagement with hostile regimes, even if they are carrying out gross human rights abuses, in the mistaken belief that appeasement enhances security. This has been the case with Iran, Russia and North Korea for example. This administration has also been all too willing to sacrifice US leadership in deference to supranational institutions such as the United Nations, whose track record in standing up to dictatorships has been virtually non-existent.

Less than 2 years to go...

Obama violates Constitution, once again

2011-02-25T07:40:00.009-06:00

When I took social studies in elementary school, and then U.S. Government in college, I learned about our three branches of government: The Congress, which passes legislation (laws), the President, our chief executive who is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws, and our Judicial branch, which can declare a law unconstitutional, and therefore void.

Not any more.

Now, President Obama has the power to decide a law as unconstitutional and decide all by himself that he won't enforce it or defend it. And if a judge considers a law unconstitutional, it doesn't even matter anymore, because Obama has already said he won't listen to the courts (and more than once).

His latest edict from on high: His administration won't defend the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in the 1990s, because he thinks it is unconstitutional. (Because he thinks it, not the Supreme Court).

Was a Constitutional amendment just passed? Did I miss that? Is Obama consolidating power of the Congressional and Judicial branches into the Executive branch? You can bet your ass he is. But you have to dig deep to find it. It's not covered from this angle by the mainstream media. The Washington Examiner, just today, covered another story about Obama's complete disregard for the law:

During a time when DOJ travel is purportedly frozen, these numerous DOJ staffers have been deployed for days in New Orleans and around Louisiana trolling for stories of state officials failing to urge welfare recipients to register to vote.

The DOJ will use the evidence collected from welfare recipients to support a lawsuit against Jindal's administration under Section 7 of Motor Voter.

The "Motor Voter" law passed in 1993 contained an important congressional compromise. Welfare and motor vehicle agencies would serve as voter registration offices, while states would be obligated to conduct voter roll cleaning to purge ineligible felons and dead voters. The two provisions act together as counterparts.

The Obama administration has refused to enforce the voter list integrity provisions while making the welfare agency registration law their top priority.

Other areas where Obama has violated the constitution: refusal to enforce voting laws against intimidation at the polls in Chicago, efforts to use the regulatory functions of the EPA to circumvent the specific legislation of Congress to ban cap-and-trade, refusal to enforce immigration laws, and attempts by the FCC to regulate matters banned from its jurisdiction by law.

It's also very strange how most of the mainstream media doesn't really cover this aspect of it. If it was a Republican president, they'd be screaming.

Liberals are all about democracy and freedom and tolerance, aren't they? Only when it suits their agenda, though.

As I've said before: Obama has to go. Let's make sure that happens next year, huh?

Krugman: The worldview of the liberal

2011-02-22T08:59:00.000-06:00

Paul Krugman, liberal economist and opinionator for the NYT, wrote of the events in Wisconsin:

For what’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker’s pretense that he’s just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. And that’s why anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators’ side.

But Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner sees reality more clearly than Krugman:

But the unions are big money. Five of the top ten contributors to congressional and presidential campaigns since 1989 are labor unions according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In the last election, 10 of the top 20 PACs were union PACs.

More importantly, it's not as if Big Labor is balancing out the rest of "big money." Does Krugman know that all of the top ten industries contributing to the 2010 elections gave more money to Democrats than to Republicans? That's right: Lawyers, Health Professionals, Securities & Investment, Real Estate, Insurance, Lobbyists, Pharma, Government Unions, Entertainment, and Electric Utilities all favored Democrats in 2010.

And, Mr. Krugman, regardless of how you spin it, this is about the budget. The people of Wisconsin voted Republicans into the majority in order to stop the binge spending of the Democrats. Like alcoholics, the Democrats still are in denial that their spending will end up in disaster.

This is about union power, not the will of the people. And when Democrats flee to another state to avoid a vote, they are saying to the people of Wisconsin: Screw You.

Random Musings for a Monday

2011-02-21T08:59:00.003-06:00

War in Wisconsin
Public service used to mean just that: Public service, in which government employees served at the will of the people and provided us with services. Not any more, which is obvious in Wisconsin, and will probably spread to other states. And which side is our President on? The people? Of course not. He's on the side of the union goons.

I find is somewhat amusing that after all the vicious attacks against the Tea Party protests and demonstrations, the unions, with their Democratic party supporters, are even more vicious, and messy. It seems, from every account I've read over the last year, that conservatives always clean up after themselves, yet liberals don't. (Photo credit to Ann Althouse)

War in Somalia
On Friday, four Americans were hijacked off the coast of Somalia. The U.S. is considering options. I think there is only one. Go get them. And I was also surprised to learn that some 30 ships and 650 hostages are being held by pirates. This piracy thing was what caused the U.S. to create the Marine Corps in the late 18th century. So use them.

Are higher taxes the answer to our challenges?
As an American taxpayer, I think I pay enough. Just think about it seriously. Everything is taxed. When I got up this morning, I turned on some lights, and paid a tax. Of course, my home is taxed via property taxes. I drank a cup of coffee and paid tax. I put on my clothes, which I paid a tax on when I bought them. I got into my car to go to work, and paid a tax on the gas, and I paid sales tax on the car when I bought it, and I pay a "tax" every year to make it legal. When I got to work, I earned some income, which I paid some taxes on. My company also earned some money, which they will pay taxes on. At lunch, I stopped by my favorite restaurant, and paid taxes on the meal. After work, I'm going to get a new set of tires, and will pay extra tax. When I got home, I made a phone call, and paid some tax. Then I surfed the net, and paid more taxes. Even after I'm dead, if I'm fortunate enough to have an estate, my heirs will probably pay a tax on that...And so on, ad naseum. So don't talk to me about higher and/or more taxes. Enough is enough.

Tea Party clashes with GOP establishment over defense

2011-02-17T16:27:00.003-06:00

Maybe -- just maybe -- some common sense will prevail. From Timothy Carney at the Washington Examiner:

The tension between the Republican establishment and the Tea Party insurgents erupted on the House floor for the first time Wednesday when 110 GOP representatives -- mostly freshmen and some longtime conservative gadflies -- broke from their leadership and most of their caucus in order to kill a defense contract. The vote highlighted an establishment-versus-Tea Party split that was glaring during the campaign season, and brought to the fore the uncomfortable question of defense spending. The amendment, killing the contract for a backup engine for the F-35 fighter, passed 233-198 Wednesday, but 130 of the 240 voting Republicans opposed the cut, including House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor. This puts the GOP majority and its leadership at odds with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who doesn't want the backup engine, and former President George W. Bush, who also tried to kill it.

This is like the 17 C-17s that were forced on the Air Force, which said it had enough cargo aircraft to fulfiill its missions. And once these expensive (about $200 million each) aircraft are built, they have to be funded with parts and maintenance, crews, fuel, etc. But it was Congress who decided to have them built.

We need to get away from this kind of stuff if we're ever going to get our finances in order.

Stop laughing: I think Obama really means it

2011-02-17T07:00:00.002-06:00

If it wasn't so important, I'd laugh my ass off over the things Obama says. But it is really important to the future of our country.

I'm beginning to think he actually believes his own b.s. Here's a few quotes from his press conference Tuesday (Feb 15).

The source is the White House, so the first person to accuse me of misquoting him gets a swift kick to the curb.

When I took office, I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term. Our budget meets that pledge and puts us on a path to pay for what we spend by the middle of the decade.

Mr. Obama, the end of your first term is the end of 2012, not the middle of the decade. Your budget won't cut the deficit by half. And if you really think you'll even out spending and revenues by the end of 2015, you must be smoking crack.

And many Democrats and Republicans in Congress today came together in December to pass a tax cut that has made Americans’ paychecks a little bigger this year and will spur on additional economic growth this year.

What? My paycheck isn't bigger! It's just not smaller! You think I'm that stupid? That was not a tax cut. As one congressman so aptly said once: You lie.

We will not be adding more to the national debt. So, to use a -- sort of an analogy that families are familiar with, we're not going to be running up the credit card any more. That's important -- and that's hard to do. But it’s necessary to do. And I think that the American people understand that.

All I can say is -- huh? What the f*** are you talking about? The CBO estimates that our annual deficit will still be about $600 billion in 2020. Next year will be the third year of trillion-dollar deficits. During the next 10 years, our national debt will double. DOUBLE! He and his democrat buddies have increased the debt by $3,000,000,000,000 in just TWO years! Is he insane?

How did this guy get to be President?

I'd put in more quotes, but please excuse me while I head to the latrine and puke.

The "progressive" bottom line: more of the same

2011-02-15T15:10:00.006-06:00

First of all, I hate the label "progressive." It means nothing. From everything I've read, they base their "progressive" ideology on a socialist model. It's political framing. Progress must be good. But progress to what?

Robert Reich, who served under President Clinton, thinks the answer to our problems is more tax and spending programs, at least for now. But is there ever a time when progressives like Reich wanted to cut taxes and spending? No. Not in my lifetime, which is why we're in such a mess.

Take David Swanson at OpEdNews, who agrees with everything Reich writes: "I would tax the rich if all it accomplished was taxing the rich."

So that's really what we're faced with: class warfare. Penalize the successful for being successful. Redistribute the wealth. Equality of outcome, instead of equality of opportunity. Forget the American dream. Under "progressive" programs, we'd be no better off than eastern Europe during the Soviet empire.

"Progressives" are actually left-wing liberals. When someone makes a statement like Swanson, or says the mainstream media is right-wing, you know what playbook they're using, so hold on to your wallet. Our government -- federal, state, and local -- tax everything, and I mean everything, except the air we breath, and they want to do that too.

It saddens me that my grandchildren won't have the opportunities I did when I was coming out of high school with a good education. Look how liberal philosophy has ruined our education system over the last 40 years: We keep spending more with less result per dollar, yet the libs want to spend more.

Our debt burden by then will bankrupt us.

Sad, but true.

Global Shield: MITO takeoffs

2011-02-15T07:00:00.002-06:00

Global Shield exercises were conducted by the Air Force in the early 1980s. One of the objectives was to practice getting as many bombers and refueling tankers in the air as quickly as possible. MITO is an acronym for Minimum Interval Take Off. Intervals were usually 15 to 30 seconds.

I had the honor to be included on a Global Shield exercise in 1982. I sat in the engineers seat in the cockpit of the 5th aircraft in our cell, a KC-135 tanker, which accompanied the B-52s to a refueling point near the artic circle. The flight engineer was leaning between the two pilots to help watch; after all, there were four aircraft in front of us. This video is similar to what I experienced (this one looks like Wurtsmith AFB, Mich; I was at Ellsworth AFB, SD.)

Pilots' skill never ceases to amaze

2011-02-14T13:51:00.001-06:00

Honduras has one of the most dangerous airports in the world.

From the cockpit

Then there are our top guns:

Our crisis in government spending

2011-02-11T08:04:00.009-06:00

Obama's great new ideas: $5 billion so everyone can have high-speed WIRELESS internet; and $10 billion so public service agencies can have high-speed WIRELESS internet (if the first $5 billion includes 98 percent of the country, why do we need another $10 billion?).

I live in a rural area and I have high-speed internet, with speeds up to 12 Mbps available (that's 8 T-1 lines) but it's on a wire. Why do I need, or want, high-speed WIRELESS? Oh, wait! I have a $25 home router that provides this for my laptop.)

Biden: $53 billion on high-speed rail, when the government can't even make Amtrack profitable. High-speed rail won't work in the United States for three reasons: 1) We don't really want it; 2) The distances involved are better served by airlines; and 3) We don't have the money.

They're not even spending my tax dollars anymore. They'll have to borrow this from the Chinese, and then my grandchildren and their children will have to pay it back. If they're lucky enough to get the chance.

And I don't think the GOP is much better: Slapping each other on the back for coming up with $100 billion in budget cuts when the deficit is 15 TIMES more than that. The deficit is $1,500 billion. So they've come up with a way to cut 6.6 percent. I'm singing in the rain, dudes...

There is so much waste in government (like 47 different job training programs that cost $19 billion a year), that politicians and others who claim in the weeks ahead that a $4 trillion annual federal budget can't be cut by hundreds of billions of dollars simply aren't telling the truth.

If the GOP is really serious about cutting spending, why are they ignoring more than $5 billion every year spent on ethanol subsidies that neither help the environment nor save energy; $6.2 billion in tax credits for oil and gas companies flush in record profits; and $3.5 billion for an extra engine for the F-35 fighter jet that the Pentagon doesn't want?

We need to stop the insanity now!

Minot Daily News: Weather Bulletin

2011-02-10T09:46:00.011-06:00

I received this via e-mail and thought it interesting enough to repeat here. The text is reportedly from the county emergency manager in Minot, North Dakota. The e-mail has actually -- according to some sources -- been around for a while, and Minot has never had 25 feet in one storm. But the message is clear: Most Americans don't need the Federal government much at all...

Weather Bulletin
Up here in the Northern part of North Dakota we just recovered from a Historic event --- may I even say a "Weather Event" of "Biblical Proportions" --- with a historic blizzard of up to 25’ of snow drifts and winds to 50 MPH that broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, stranded hundreds of motorists in lethal snow banks, closed ALL roads, isolated scores of communities and cut power to 10 ' s of thousands.

FYI: Obama did not come. FEMA did nothing. No one howled for the government. No one blamed the government. No one even uttered an expletive on TV. Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit. Our Mayors or Governor did not blame Obama or anyone else. CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX, or NBC did not visit - or even report on this category 5 snow storm.

Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards. No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House. No one looted. Nobody -- I mean nobody -- demanded the government do something. Nobody expected the government to do anything either. No Larry King, No Bill O'Reilly, No Oprah, No Chris Matthews and No Geraldo Rivera. No Sean Penn, No Barbara Streisand, No Brad Pitt, No Hollywood types to be found.

Nope, we just melted the snow for water. Sent out caravans of SUVs to pluck people out of snow-engulfed cars. The truck drivers pulled people out of snow banks and didn’t ask for a penny. Local restaurants made food, and the police and fire departments delivered it to the snow bound families...Families took in the stranded people - total strangers.

We fired up wood stoves, broke out coal oil lanterns or Coleman lanterns. We put on an extra layers of clothes because up here it is "Work or Die". We did not wait for some affirmative action government to get us out of a mess created by being immobilized by a welfare program that trades votes for "sitting at home" checks. Even though a Category 5 blizzard of this scale is not usual, we know it can happen and how to deal with it ourselves.

I hope this gets passed on.
Maybe ...... SOME people will get the message ...... The world does Not owe you a living.

Government and the law of unintended consequences

2011-02-09T08:31:00.002-06:00

I generally don't trust government for solutions to problems, and I don't subscribe to the idea that government programs, regulations and intervention in our lives are any kind of solution. It's not. Usually, government makes it worse. Just look at the history of the Community Reinvestment Act and most of our "welfare" programs. Here's a couple more:

PROMISES, PROMISES: 'Widows' tax' lingers
Tens of thousands of the nation's war widows find it perplexing and downright disrespectful to their late military husbands: In order to fully collect on insurance their husbands bought for them when alive, they must marry another man.

Credit card rates at record highs near 15%
Interest rates are now hovering near record highs, at an average rate of 14.72%. And if your credit is bad enough, you could even end up with a rate as high as 59.9% APR. That's because while the CARD Act helped crack down on certain fees and requires more disclosures, it didn't cap every credit card holder's worst enemy: interest rates. Sure, the new rules prevent banks from raising most interest rates retroactively, but there's no limit on the rates they can charge new customers.

In my own personal experience, my credit union raised my interest rate, unannounced, from 5.9 percent to 8.9 percent, just before the CARD act went into effect. Recently, I purchased a TV from Sears with a no-interest-for-15-months deal. When I use the card next time, the interest rate on purchases is 24.95 percent. Incredible. And I have a very high credit score. It will be interesting to see how low I can get them to go; if not, I'll cancel and shop elsewhere...

While some regulation and oversight is necessary, government meddling usually goes way too far, and makes things worse. It's called the law of unintended consequences.

Need love? You won't get it from "progressives"

2011-02-04T10:48:00.004-06:00

From the Spokane Examiner and Newsbusters:

A video has surfaced showing the love progressives have for conservatives like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and talk show host Glenn Beck.

As hundreds of left wing activists protested a meeting held by the Koch brothers last Sunday, cameras were rolling and individual activists were asked what they would do with Clarence Thomas and other conservatives.

The activists questioned responded by calling for impeachment of Thomas, sending the African-American conservative back into slavery and hanging both him and his wife.

One woman challenged Glenn Beck to a duel with her Glock pistol.

Others called for the execution of Fox News executives.

One activist called for a revolution, similar to what is happening in Egypt.

Newsbusters points out the media's glaring hypocrisy regarding the coverage of the event:

Of course if this had been a Tea Party rally, you wouldn't need to come to NewsBusters to see the video, since it would be running on a loop on every nightly news broadcast. But that said, is it fair to call the entire "progressive movement" racist because of these few loons? Of course not. Still, it does give you quite a taste of the left's ungodly hatred for black conservatives.
Not just black conservatives, but practically anyone to the right of Stalin.

Stranger still is the utter silence from MSNBC, who would use this as a battering ram against conservatives had the roles been reversed. Does Chris Matthews approve of the racist, violent comments made by these activists, considering his recent "over-the-top" attacks against Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck?

Does Chris Matthews and the rest of the liberal MSNBC lineup approve of the idea of lynching Clarence Thomas and his wife because they happen to be conservative? Why is no one from that network berating Code Pink representatives over this?

The Blaze notes that 25 protesters were arrested at the event, organized by the progressive organizations Common Cause and Code Pink.

So you "progressives" out there who think it's the right the incites to violence, you need to take a hard look at yourselves first. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Obama, I think, needs to go

2011-02-02T13:16:00.005-06:00

First there was the creating of "czars" and the attempt -- so far successful -- of ruling by edict. Take the EPA for example, which has taken upon itself to create regulations not authorized by Congress. Now Obama is threatening a veto if Congress reins in this rule by edict way of doing things.

As Thomas Sowell writes:

In a classic example of this process, the EPA has decided that since milk contains oil, it has the authority to force farmers to comply with new regulations to file "emergency management" plans to show how they will cope with spilled milk, how farmers will train "first responders" and build "containment facilities" if there is a flood of spilled milk.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has expanded its definition of "discrimination" to include things that no one thought was discrimination when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed.

The Federal Communications Commission is trying to expand its jurisdiction to cover things that were never included in its jurisdiction, and that have no relationship to the reason why the FCC was created in the first place.

Then, when Obama won't enforce Federal law in regards to the borders and immigration, and a state decides to do it themselves, what does he do? Does he step up enforcement? No. He sues Arizona and slaps ass with the President of Mexico? Who's side is this idiot on?

When he imposes a job-killing moratorium on drilling in the Gulf (since then, only one or two permits have been approved by Obama's henchmen), a Federal judge said no. He did it anyway.

Next, a Federal judge rules that Obamacare is unconsitutional. Well, regardless of whether you might agree or disagree, a ruling by a Federal court behooves the administration to alter its programs. Obama has said he will ignore the Federal judge. If Obama is ignoring legal rulings, this is a basis for -- yes -- impeachment.

And we all know (or at least those of us who can see clearly) that Obama's foreign policy has been a nightmare. Now, he's ok with allowing the Muslim Brotherhood -- which actually does have direct ties to 9/11 -- to help form a new government in Egypt. To a known terrorist organization, of all things. Ah, but only if they promise to give up violence. Fat chance.

His failed fiscal policies, his failed foreign policy, and his outright rejection of Federal law adds up to one thing: when do the impeachment hearings begin?

Super Bowl and prostitution: No link

2011-02-01T10:02:00.002-06:00

I guess it must be an urban myth that Super Bowls attract thousands of prostitutes. So says our elected officials, and the so-called experts. But as usual, these people really don't have any "facts." While this issue may not be that important compared to other issues, what remains is that the experts and officials we rely on really can't be trusted.

Why we don't trust government: SOTU and Egypt

2011-01-28T11:53:00.006-06:00

From the economy to foreign policy, it's all a mess. The Democrats just don't get it, and the Republicans don't have the guts to do what they know needs to be done. And out here in mid-America, we're fed up.

In a minute, I'll get to Joe Biden. But first, FactCheck.org sent me their weekly roundup. Seems that everything coming out of the mouths of our politicians -- regardless of party affiliation -- is bullshit. Here's a summary:

FactChecking Obama’s Address
We find some debatable claims and ambitious promises in his State of the Union address.

FactChecking the GOP Response
Ryan and Bachmann made two new false claims, and repeated other talking points, in their responses to the president's State of the Union address.

Schumer Exaggerates Proposed Defense Cuts
The Democratic senator vastly overstates Defense Secretary Gates’ plan.

Job Loss, Health Care and Bankruptcy
Former Bush adviser Hughes and Democratic Rep. Clyburn both come up short of the facts on 'Meet the Press.'

Pawlenty’s Bailout Blarney
The potential GOP presidential contender has changed his position on

And now on to our 'jenious' vice president, Mr. Joe Biden. For all of you out there blasting away at Sarah Palin, you really should have a look at Biden. He's just plain dumb...but of course he's not as sexy as Sarah.

From the Christian Science Monitor:

Ahead of a day that could prove decisive, NewsHour host Jim Lehrer asked Biden if the time has "come for President Mubarak of Egypt to go?" Biden answered: "No. I think the time has come for President Mubarak to begin to move in the direction that – to be more responsive to some... of the needs of the people out there."

He also appeared to make one of the famous Biden gaffes, in comments that could be interpreted as questioning the legitimacy of protesters' demands. Monitor Cairo correspondent Kristen Chick, other reporters in the country, and activists have generally characterized the main calls of demonstrators as focused on freedom, democracy, an end to police torture, and a more committed government effort to address the poverty that aflicts millions of Egyptians.

Biden urged non-violence from both protesters and the government and said: "We’re encouraging the protesters to – as they assemble, do it peacefully. And we’re encouraging the government to act responsibly and – and to try to engage in a discussion as to what the legitimate claims being made are, if they are, and try to work them out." He also said: "I think that what we should continue to do is to encourage reasonable... accommodation and discussion to try to resolve peacefully and amicably the concerns and claims made by those who have taken to the street. And those that are legitimate should be responded to because the economic well-being and the stability of Egypt rests upon that middle class buying into the future of Egypt."

Anyone who knows anything -- especially the conditions in Egypt and most of the Arab world -- would just have to conclude that Biden is indeed the dunce of Washington.

I say let the Egyptian people decide who rules them. (And I mean the people, not a radical group like the Muslim Brotherhood). And Mr. Biden would be better off not talking. Maybe we'd be better off too.

Oh. Oh. Another conservative woman in the spotlight

2011-01-18T07:51:00.001-06:00

Or dare I say crosshairs. It seems the new Miss America, Teresa Scanlan from Nebraska, is politically conservative. Even worse, she was home schooled. And...drum roll please...she plans to attend a conservative Christian college. My, my, what a field day the media will have. Or are already having. From the Washington Examiner:

according to Fishbowl LA, the West Coast site of the media insider's favorite web site. FBLA headlined its clip of Scanlan's response with this: "Miss America hates Wikileaks, might be an idiot."

All you have to be is conservative and female to be labelled an idiot. This is how "liberals" view all conservatives, especially women. If you don't agree with them, you must be stupid.

And good job on the civility of it all...

Payroll tax cut no gift horse

2011-01-13T14:04:00.001-06:00

While we did get a 2 percent cut in payroll taxes (for employees, not employers), the Federal Income Tax Withholding rates went up also because of the laspe in the stimulus cut.

In my case, on my most recent 2011 payday (tomorrow), my FITW went up by 11.7 percent, but my deduction for Federal Social Security Tax went down by 32 percent (in dollar amounts deducted).

Overall my net pay has increased 1.3 percent (though after increasing my 401(k) deduction by 2 percent, my take home pay is actually less than last year, but that was my choice, not the government's).

Woohoo. I'm singing all the way to the bank. Just think how much this will stimulate the economy. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

It's not just the right that advocates violence

2011-01-11T12:03:00.005-06:00

Admittedly, some hate speech does originate from the right. But a lot comes from the left as well.

Yesterday, a liberal blogger left this comment on one of my previous posts: "It's the right that advocates violence." Oh really? This was after his take on the shooting in Tuscon:

As much as I dislike the thought of Sarah Palin, as a politician, I think it is a real stretch to say she had any responsibility in the Arizona shooting, although there is an eerie video with Giffords saying she feels threatened because of Palin's 'reload' comment and finding herself 'in the crosshairs' in Pain's ad.' However, other right wingers, like Sharon Angle, of Nevada, have to share some of the blame. Her remarks, like, 'we need a 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms) solution to government officials' is totally irresponsible, and puts her right up there with Rush and Glenn Beck in inciting the whackos to violence. Words have consequences, and you never know who's listening.

Never mind that the Democratic National Committee also used crosshairs in 2006. Baaaaa go the sheep. This is just a regurgitation of left-wing talking points, by the likes of Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and their ilk.

Here are a few summaries of how the left has used hate, murder and mayhem. They are easy to find.

Michelle Malkin provides a history of left-wing hate and violence through pictures and video.

Michael Filozof provides a history of left-wing violence in his article at American Thinker.

Hate, Violence, and the Progressive Left (Vanity inspired by KOS rhetoric).

FNC’s Brit Hume rips left-wing ‘habit’ of equating disagreement with liberalism with hate

Return With Us Now To the Peaceful Protest Imagery Of the Bush Years AND How the Left Manufactures Hate For Political Gain

And for those of you who are too lazy to read -- or at least scan -- the articles above, take the time to read David Brook's "The Politicized Mind" published at the NYT. It is an excellent op-ed that provides balance to all the idiotic rhetoric.

And last, but not least, Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT), is using the tragedy for fund raising. A tragedy in which six people were killed -- including a 9-year-old child. Despicable.

So not only do those on the left advocate violence, they practice it too. To claim that only those on the right advocate violence is blatantly dishonest, and I'll leave it at that.

More Gun Control?

2011-01-11T08:13:00.001-06:00

It didn't take long for many people to call for stricter gun control laws after the shooting in Tuscon last weekend. But is this the answer?

One of the first things I thought of -- as I learned how mentally unstable Loughner was -- is how did he get a gun?

While I disagree with just about everything Eugene Robinson writes and says, he was pretty much on the money when he wrote this for the Washington Post:

We do know, however, that Loughner reportedly had a history of drug use and bizarre behavior. Students and a teacher at a community college that Loughner briefly attended found him so erratic, confused, menacing and potentially violent that they persuaded college authorities to bar him from campus pending a psychiatric exam.

Yet on Nov. 30, he was able to walk into Sportsman's Warehouse in Tucson and purchase the weapon that authorities allege was used in Saturday's rampage. He apparently also bought extra magazines loaded with ammunition.

To buy the gun, Loughner was required to pass a federal background check - and he did, a store manager told reporters. It is against federal law to sell a gun to someone who is mentally ill, but there is no indication that Loughner was ever officially deemed to suffer from mental illness. Even if he had been, there is a good chance that his name would not have been properly entered in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

To me, this is just another example of how systems we have in place to protect us are not being managed effectively by our government. So more laws aren't the answer, but the proper implementation of laws we already have.

But we know how well that works. This is one of the reasons -- and a big one -- why average Americans don't trust their government.

Krugman, Fonda, et al, are sick

2011-01-10T07:36:00.005-06:00

After the terrible shooting in Tuscon, you might expect this from Jane Fonda, who I've always considered a left-wing wacko traitor, but for Paul Krugman...he's just earned my utmost disrespect.

You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.

For one thing Mr. Krugman, Beck and Limbaugh are not GOP leaders, any more than Olbermann and Matthews are Democratic leaders.
Krugman's claims are completely divorced from the facts: Jared Loughner's beef with Rep. Giffords was that she couldn't answer his incoherent question once in 2007; and no one has found the words Obama, health-care, deficit, or taxes in Loughner's insane screeds.

Of course, our "unbiased" news media will fan the flames, as Byron York points out in his editorial.

Yet the network that had shown such caution in discussing the Ft. Hood shootings openly discussed the possibility that Loughner was inspired to violence by…Sarah Palin. Although there is no evidence that Loughner was in any way influenced by Palin, CNN was filled with speculation about the former Alaska governor.

And speaking of CNN, there's Ruben Navarrette Jr., who has used this horrible tragedy and sick act of violence by a deranged individual as his own personal soap-box promoting his cultural agenda. I believe the term 'hijacking' would be applicable in this instance. They say that you can't squeeze blood from a stone, but I imagine that if Navarrette were to give one a squeeze he'd manage to find Latino oppression dripping from it.

When it comes to violent rhetoric, of course it was Obama who said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun," and other comments about getting "in their face." Olbermann once said that he wished Hillary Clinton dead.

But I doubt if Palin or Olbermann had that much influence on Jared Loughner, who has been described as a pot-smoking crazy liberal, a paranoid social outcast. Really? I don't think his political orientation had anything to do with his killing six people. He was freaking crazy, OK?

While it's popular nowadays to point fingers and try to push the blame on to someone else (oh, it's not my fault!), there is only one person here who pulled the trigger. And since he still lived at home with his parents, where were they all this time?

What we need in this country is a return to the concept of personal responsibility and morality, not liberal moral relativism and the preaching of vicitimhood.

Porker of the Month

2011-01-07T08:21:00.000-06:00

A little old (October), but still illustrative of the bullshit that our elected officials push on to us...as if we're that stupid.

Also some good reading with the Citizen's Against Government Waste 2010 Congressional Pig Book Summary (pdf).

The Reading Room for Jan 6, 2011

2011-01-06T08:51:00.001-06:00

Thomas Sowell: The progressive embrace of Third World culture
Dr. Victor Davis Hanson's quietly chilling article, "Two Californias," in National Review Online, ought to be read by every American who is concerned about where this country is headed. California is leading the way, but what is happening in California is happening elsewhere-- and is a slow poison that is being largely ignored.

Byron York: Pelosi's partisan parting shot
At mid-day Wednesday, it fell to now-former Speaker Nancy Pelosi to introduce her successor, John Boehner, as he was sworn in as Speaker of the House. Some might have forgotten, but four years ago, on January 4, 2007, it was Boehner (not the departing Dennis Hastert) who introduced Pelosi when she first became Speaker. A look at the two speeches -- Pelosi introducing Boehner and Boehner introducing Pelosi -- shows striking differences.

Larry Elder: The top 10 political lies of 2010
The biggest political "lie" of 2010? The winner is: the Republican assertion that ObamaCare is a "government takeover of health care."

City Journal: Why NYC can’t afford enough sanitation workers to clean up the snow
If money could melt snow, Mayor Bloomberg would be basking in victory over the storm. When he took office in 2002, Gotham spent $1.3 billion annually on the Department of Sanitation. Today, the city spends more than $2.2 billion on “New York’s Strongest.”

Promises, promises...

2011-01-05T11:04:00.002-06:00

When Nancy Pelosi took over as House Speaker, she promised to "drain the swamp" and eliminate deficit spending. We know how that worked out, when corruption remained the same and her Congress raised the deficits more than any other in history.

Now, John Boehner just took the gavel and he's promising to give government back to the people and end congressional gridlock.

We'll see. I'm really not getting any warm and fuzzies that this Congress will be much better, but will give them a chance to prove themselves.

We can always fire them again.

"Progressive" disdain for the Constitution

2010-12-29T07:19:00.007-06:00

When bureaucrats and judges ignore the will of the people through their elected representatives, this country is no longer a democracy nor a democratic republic, which ever definition you prefer, though the second is more accurate.

The Obama administration and the liberal judges in bed with the left-wing of the Democratic party have been silently, but ruthlessly, defying the will off Congress, and therefore, the American people. Obama looks more like Hugo Chavez every day.

Whatever the merits or demerits of the proposed provision in Medicare legislation, the Constitution of the United States makes the elected representatives of "we the people" the ones authorized to make such decisions. But when proposals explicitly rejected by a vote in Congress are resurrected and stealthily made the law of the land by bureaucratic fiat, there has been an end run around both the people and the Constitution. [Thomas Sowell]

The EPA has also been creating new regulations, or changing existing ones, behind closed doors, without Congressional approval. But these dealings are coming to light, as the recent case with Texas. And in a separate case, Sen. Harry Reid wants to do an end run around Congress and change the rules of how legislation is passed, without the Senate voting on these new rules.

In other words, Obama and the Democrats (and some Republicans) continue to say to the American people: "FU. We know best."

When will the people wake up? We need to continue to vote these "progressives" out of office as quickly as we can, regardless of party affiliation.

The alternative is to lose our liberty.

Favorite TV commericials for Christmas season

2010-12-23T07:58:00.000-06:00

There are two tied for first place, but both are PSAs for the Marine's Toys for Tots program.

Kerry complains about the reading of a bill

2010-12-17T08:14:00.000-06:00

John Kerry calls having to read a spending bill a "delay" tactic. I find the continuing arrogance of our political class amazing. They just don't get it.

"Progressives" wish for higher tax rates

2010-12-16T13:26:00.005-06:00

Joseph Thorndike at the HuffPo today about the estate tax:

It's much easier to raise a tax than create one. When revenue needs make tax hikes unavoidable, the estate tax will still be on the books, blessed with a remarkably low rate just begging to be raised.

Notice the term "revenue needs?" If the government keeps spending like it is, then of course we'll have justification for raising taxes. In this case, the estate tax.

The rate set for 2011 is 55 percent over $1 million. The Dems wanted 55 percent over $5 million. The new tax "deal" sets it at 35 percent over $10 million. That's remarkably low, according to Thorndike. I think not.

So let's say I've amassed a $15 million dollar estate, with earnings, dividends, or other investments that I've made over my life, which have already been taxed.

Under the current law for 2011, my estate would pay $7.7 million in taxes. Under the Dem-preferred plan, the tax bill would be $5.5 million. In both these cases, if my estate were tied up in real estate (family property), or a small farm, or a business, my heirs would most likely have to sell. Under the proposed rate, my estate would pay $1.75 million, which is still a lot of money, but may not be catastrophe.

What is even more frightening is the thinking process of many people, like this reader:

If we gave one million dollars to every adult in the country, within a few years the same people would be broke and the same people would be in possession of most of that money. Since some do not save or plan for the future, we need to take away the accumulated wealth of those that did not waste their resources.

Punish success, reward failure. This is what they must teach nowadays in our school systems. It will be the downfall of the American way.