So What You're Really Saying Is

One Trick Pony

2009-08-17T10:09:00.000-07:00

Harry Reid revealed what many of us already know; that when it comes to health care reform the Democrats are a one trick pony. Their only idea for fixing the issue, or any issue, is a government take-over, also known as a public option. That's it. If that doesn't happen then they are out of ideas.

Harry Reid has said that there is no purpose to health care reform if there is not a public option, and yet the public support for that public option is dwindling -- pretty rapidly. According to previous statements by the President this means you want the status quo, but that's not true either.

The "my way or the highway" statements of the president have indicated that if you don't support the public option then you don't support reform. This must be because they have no other ideas, no inkling of how to institute reform without the government taking over the industry. The problem is that even though they are out of ideas, other people aren't and yet the Dems are unwilling to listen to anything that does not include their one and only public option solution.

They are definitely a one trick pony and their only trick is to take a big ole crap on the American people. Maybe it's time they learn a new one.

Caps on Insurance Company Profits

2009-08-14T09:43:00.000-07:00

In House Bill 3200 there is a provision that states your insurance company will have to re-imburse you if they made too much money (according to the government of course) in the premium Vs payout ratio. So what will they do in the years, currently paid for with those overruns, when the payout exceeds the premium? Nothing would be my guess. So here again we have the government dictating the profits that a private company can make.

This is from page 24 of bill.
A qualified health benefits plan shall meet a medical loss ratio as defined by the Commissioner. For any plan year in which the qualified health benefits plan does not meet such medical loss ratio, QHBP offering entity shall provide in a manner specified by the Commissioner for rebates to enrollees of payment sufficient to meet such loss ratio.

It does specify that it is based on a benefit year so there is no provision for balancing the good years against the bad; nor does it say exactly who is going to be calculating this ratio or how.

This sounds an awful lot like government dictating privat industry profits to me. What do you think?

White House Misinformation

2009-08-14T06:27:00.000-07:00

The largest bit of misinformation is what is coming out of the white house about being able to keep your coverage if you like it. All you have to do is read the text of the bill to find out that this is absolutely not true. Well, it's sort of true I guess, you can keep it for 5 years if it meets the government standard and your employer doesn't change a single thing in your benefits for those 5 years.

I found the text of the bill, one that didn't crash my computer when I tried to pull it up, at http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf and I encourage everybody to read it.

Sec 102 beginning on page 16 of the bill is laughingly titled "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage". Here's the rundown on this section.
subsection (a)describes individual coverage and defines grandfathered as any insurance in effect before year 1 of this new bill and which does not change.
subsection (b)defines the grace period for employer based health plans. If we get to keep it if we like it then why exactly is there a grace period? Here's what it says...
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

So this means that we get to keep the insurance we like for up to 5 years if, and only if, it meets the requirements set down by the government. They even define "acceptable coverage" and your plan has to meet their definition of this acceptable coverage in order for you to keep it, and then you can only keep it for 5 years before being forced off of it. Your employer may still be able to offer you a plan after that, but it will be whatever plan the government deems "acceptable".

The bill also includes information to determine whether your employer has the right to be "self insured" which means that they write the plan and absorb the costs while paying an insurance company to administer the benefits. So the government can come back and tell your employer that -- although your business has decided to self insure and your accountants are sure you can support it-- being self insured is just too risky and you can't do it. Gee, guess you better put your employees on that government plan. Nice!

So tell me again Mr President how I am going to be able to keep my coverage if I like it. Lie to me one more time.

In Case You're Feeling Left Out

2009-08-13T13:22:00.001-07:00

I somehow was bestowed the dubious honor of being added to David Axelrod's chain letter e-mail list. Don't know how. Don't know why. Don't much appreciate the spam, but in case you were not granted the same honor, here's the e-mail that's coming from the white house. For some strange reason it reminds me of junior high school.

Dear Friend,

This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.

Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.

As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.”

So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.

Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.

Thanks,
David

David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President

P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/

8 common myths about health insurance reform
Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf

Those Greedy Doctors

2009-08-13T07:54:00.000-07:00

In speeches promoting the need for government oversight and cost control of our health care, Obama has accused our doctors of willful negligence in their care of patients in order to make more money. Does he honestly believe this or are these just exaggerated scenarios? Either way, they're insulting to our medical professionals.

At a press conference in July he said that a doctor will remove a kid's tonsils because he can make more money subjected a child to an unnecessary surgery than be treating the sore throat. That's a nice view of the medical professionals isn't it? But perhaps that was just a bad example. Maybe he didn't really mean it; he just misspoke. Isn't that the excuse we get from Press Sec Robert Gibbs. The president misspoke. OK, I can live with that. So what did Obama do to make up for that characterization of doctors?

At the recent town hall he said that a doctor will allow a patient's diabetes to advance untreated until his foot needs to be amputated because he can make more money depriving a patient of a limb than by treating the disease itself. So we've gone from taking out tonsils unnecessarily to shopping off limbs, all out of greed. You've got to be kidding me!

Does Obama know the difference between a GP and a surgeon? First, if you go to your GP for a sore throat unless he is an ENT he's not going to be the one to take your tonsils out. Second, your GP treating you for Diabetes is definitely not going to be the one to remove your foot. Does Obama think that doctors are giving kick-backs to each other? I can hear it now, "Hey, if you let your patient slide and send the amputation my way I'll hook you up with an extra case of tongue depressors."

I don't know what kind of doctors Obama has been surrounding himself with, but these aren't the kind of doctors I've ever been exposed to. My doctors harass me to do what I need to do in order to stay healthy; they do not, nor have they ever, encouraged me to be in bad health so they can make more money off of me. If anything they've put me through more tests than I would have liked in order to find something early.

If I'm interpreting the message from Obama correctly there are three things that Obama believes.
1) The insurance companies are evil and cackle with glee each time they deny a claim.
2) Doctors go to the Sweeney Todd Medical Academy where they learn they can make more money by hacking than healing.
3) Government is the answer to all questions and concerns.

And this is what is referred to as reasonable discussion and rational debate.

Pre-Existing Conditions

2009-08-12T17:32:00.000-07:00

If you can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition you should probably shop around. There are many plans that will not apply a pre-existing condition clause, and for those that do, most will waive that if you had insurance before your current effective date.

The real purpose of a pre-existing condition clause is to prevent people from only spending the money on insurance after they know they need it. Insurance is supposed to be a "just in case" situation and the premiums are based on the risk of the health care costs you will accrue. The idea is that you'll pay while using it little and that money will be there if you need to use it a lot.

Is it fair to the company which will cover you to go without insurance until you know you need it, and then expect them to pay for everything you've let go for years? I can already hear many people saying, yes it is, those evil insurance company bastards just want to steal my money and not cover me. This might be a slight exaggeration.

The healthy people paying their insurance premiums are paying for the sick people paying their premiums. It all goes into one big pool and the insurance company prays that they don't have to pay out more than they take in. The pre-existing clause is designed to help with that goal.

Would you wait until after a tornado struck your home to obtain homeowners insurance and then expect the new company to pay for the damage done before your coverage began? Waiting until you're sick to try to obtain insurance is basically the same thing. The tornado has struck and now you're saying "oh shit I better get covered."

HIPPA regulations currently limit the wait time for a pre-existing condition to be covered to 12 months, but most companies will waive this, again, if you've had insurance previously. This is due to the probability that you've been receiving treatment for it and have not just allowed it to get worse (and exponentially more expensive to address).

Insurance companies are companies; they do not print their own money and they do not have limitless resources. If there are no pre-existing clauses the alternative is to set the premium based on the anticipated expenses, which means that your coverage will cost you. A lot. The funny thing is that people who decide not to get coverage until they're sick expect to pay the same premium as a healthy person, and if you shop around enough you may be able to find a company with a wide enough margin to give that to you, but don't count on it.

Elimination of a pre-existing clause while simultaneously keeping the premium low is like telling somebody you'll pay them $500 a month for the use of their credit card and then charging $20,000 a month to it. You're leaving that person holding the bag for the extra $15,000; is that really fair? Maybe if they have lots of other people paying $500 per month and charging less than that. It's a big maybe.

So what's the answer to this issue? Simple, get coverage while you're healthy.

Fearmongering

2009-08-12T14:35:00.001-07:00

We've been hearing a lot about fearmongering as it relates to any political debate. Right now the opposition to government run health care are being accused of spreading misinformation and fearmongering; so what exactly does that mean?

Wikipedia defines it as: is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.[citation needed]

Merriem Webster defines a Fearmonger as somebody who incites alarms needlessly.

If we use the Wikipedia definition then isn't anybody who says, "hey this bad thing could happen" considered a fearmonger?

If we use the Webster definition then is pointing out potential and probable issues around government health care really raising a needless alarm?

The biggest question though may be why it's ok to be a fearmonger when you oppose something, but bad to have a fearmonger opposing what you support? For example, does anybody remember the attempt to fix social security by phasing it out; giving the young people another option while leaving people over a certain age on the social security program? What happened to that? Opponents screamed that seniors would have their benefits taken from them and be left to die in the streets. Completelly untrue according to the information proposed but I guess that wasn't bad fearmongering because it was done by the same people crying about fearmongering now. But what is the fearmongering now? Is saying that there will be rationing of healthcare in the US based on what has happened in every other nation who has tried this type of program really fearmongering? Is telling the truth as you see it, calling out a consequence there is a high probability of occuring, fearmongering?

So here's how I see it -- Telling both faced lies about a proposed legislation and using those lies to scare the shit out of the general population is not fearmongering, but showing the true and actual potential problems of a piece of legislation is bad fearmongering.

Do I have this wrong?

Obama On Immigration Reform

2009-08-11T11:53:00.001-07:00

While at the North American Summit, President Obama addressed the issue of illegal immigration. The clips below are from the Washington Post.

"Wrapping up the two-day meeting, Obama said that there needs to be "a pathway to citizenship" for millions of illegal immigrants in the United States, and that the system must be reworked to avoid tensions with Mexico. Without it, he said, Mexicans will keep crossing the border in dangerous ways and employers will continue exploiting workers."

Avoid tensions with Mexico? So having a secure boarder might create tensions with our neighboring nation, but we'll pay no attention to the tensions created within our own nation over NOT securing the boarder. Isn't this like saying that though the neighbors keep breaking in to my house I'm not going to lock my doors because my neighbors may not like it? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it?

Mexicans will keep crossing the boarder in dangerous ways? So what we're really interested in here is making it less dangerous for the Mexicans to violate our immigration laws? I know that's my top priority when it comes to immigration reform. It's so dangerous to break our laws that we should just do away with the laws all together. That will make everything so much nicer because right now it's just tragic what they have to go through to bypass all of our immigration laws and boarder patrols. I think it is tragic what people suffer when violating our laws, but we can't forget that they wouldn't be going through any of it if they weren't violating our laws.

Employers will continue to exploit workers? The workers of course have no culpability in their own exploitation; or should we make it easier for them to get false documentation so they aren't exploited. It's just so unfair that we don't give somebody who shouldn't be here taking the job of a citizen the same way we treat the citizen. How rude.

"We can create a system in which you have . . . an orderly process for people to come in, but we're also giving an opportunity for those who are already in the United States to be able to achieve a pathway to citizenship so that they don't have to live in the shadows," Obama said during an hour-long news conference at the Cabañas Cultural Center in downtown Guadalajara. "Am I going to be able to snap my fingers and get this done? No. This is going to be difficult."

So they don't have to live in the shadows? How dare we force the people who break into our country without documentation, violating our immigration and labor laws and putting stress on our educational and healthcare systems, to live in the shadows.

The common theme in these statements from Obama is that none of the fault for the illegal immigration issue lies with the illegal immigrants. It's all our fault and the poor illegal immigrants are being unfairly forced into dangerous environments to get here illegally, exploited when they try to work illegally, and live in the shadows like a criminal just because they're here illegally.

So the people who violate the laws are the victims and the people who seek to uphold the law are the criminals. Isn't that typical.

Specter Tells The Truth

2009-08-11T07:08:00.000-07:00

At the town hall in Pennsylvania Senator Specter finally tells the truth about Washington by making the statement that he didn't have to be at that town hall and he was under no obligation to meet with his constituents.

So what he's really saying is that he's doing the people of PA a huge favor by actually listening to them. I guess I must be reallly naive because I was under the impression that the Senators worked for the people.

His statement that he was under no obligation to listen is the perfect reflection of what's going on right now, but it also reveals how these town halls are perceived by the legislators. If they don't think they are obligated to listen, then they won't, and these town halls are all for show. They will do what they want to do and what the people think about it matters not a jot.

Finally, somebody tells the truth about how the politicians view the people.

Creating Terrorists

2009-08-10T12:41:00.000-07:00

We've been repeatedly advised that our behavior in going on the offensive against Islamic Jihadists has created even more terrorists instead of reducing them; that the harder we attack the more vehemently they oppose us. Why then are the Democratic leaders not following their own advise when dealing with irate Americans?

We who speak out against policies we strongly disagree with have already been labeled as radicals and potential terrorists, our ideals scoffed at and our very existance marginalized, but has this shut us up or has it made us louder?

Is it logical or reasonable to believe that disregarding the opinions of people already upset with their leadership will help a volatile situation, especially considering that the situations is only volatile because people feel they are not being heard? Is it really a good idea to deal with a dissenting opinion by telling the concerned people to sit down and shut up whiile in no way addressing the concerns that drove them to speak, or are you only swelling their ranks?

By going on the offensive and referring people to exercise their very American right to question their government as Unamerican, the leadership appears to be alienating even more people. The support for the Obama plan is steadily declining and yet on July 29th Time published an article titled "Americans Back Reform, Worry Over Details". Although the title says we all support the reform, in the body it indicates that over 60% believe that with the government plan the cost and the complexity will rise, while 56% believe that we will no longer be able to choose our own doctors. Yet the title says we back this reform and we wonder why people are getting frustrated.

The leadership will argue that they have told us repeatedly that these things will not happen, that costs will not go up and we'll be able to keep our doctors, and what possible reason could we have for questioning the word of our politicians. They wouldn't lie to us don't you know.

My question is this; will the pat answer of "because I said so" combined with the stradegy of discreting dissenters serve to reduce protests -- or increase them?

The Cruelty of Compassion

2009-07-12T12:27:00.000-07:00

Let me start out by saying that I believe it is our responsibility to help those who are incapable of helping themselves, and to assist those down on their luck to get back on their feet. Having said that, I believe the way we currently help, is no help at all, and is actually cruel.

I made a comment on soembody's Facebook posting that basically said most of what is above, but also that giving a handout to somebody who is fully capable of working only serves to drain their ambition and keep them poor, as we see daily evidence of. Here is the response that I received. "Just what makes you think that you are the "judge and jury", or can play God by determining who is capable of working, and who isn't? Can you tell when a person is physically able,and that he/she isn't suffering from a mental illness so debilitating that they can barely function and perform daily tasks that you take for granted? Not everything is black or white, there are a whole lot of gray areas in life, and if you truly believe that we're all on "a level playing field" and that we are all given the same opportunities to succeed, than that is what precisely what separates our belief in the role of Government, and allows me to wear the label of a Liberal as a badge of honor. Try changing the color of your skin and grow up in a housing project, without the love and support of your family, and tell me that we're truly all equal and born with all the same opportunities to improve our own conditions."

Here is my problem with the philosphy espoused above. First, we should assume that there is no abuse in Welfare and give everybody the benefit of the doubt that they are incapable of working. I've seen, first hand, too much abuse to accept this. And any government program should be vetted for fraud. Second, Where somebody grows up and the disadvantages they had does not make a handout right. All it serves to do is keep them disadvanted and ensure that their children grow up in the same unequal environment with the same lack of opportunity. However, helping those people climb out of that environment, giving a hand up, helps to level that playing field and presents new opportunites for them to take advantage of. Government cannot make the poor wealthy, it can only make the wealthy poor and ensure that the poor stay poor.

By saying that we should support people through welfare because their live has been hard and disadvantaged, is the equivalent of saying "I know your life has sucked so far, so take this check to ensure that your life will suck forever."

Instead of giving a check in apology for what their lives have been, we should invest in them and work with them to bring them up to a level where they can compete and succeed. This is an investment in the individual, but it does take work on their part as well. However, by investing in this person, once they succeed, they will pay back way more in taxes than was ever put into them. And, it improves the opportunity for the next generation.

Keeping somebody in a bad environment out of "compassion" is not compassionate to either that indivual or their children. It is cruel. Not to mention that we are not designed to be idle creatures, and just giving them a check takes away their reason to get up in the morning. It tells them they have no purpose. And I believe we all have a purpose. We just need to help some people more than others on their quest to find that purpose.

So why is giving them money to keep them in the projects considered compassionate at all? Isn't claiming that where they are is horrible, and yet working to keep them there, really the very heights of cruelty?

Bush's Inherited Surplus

2009-07-11T09:51:00.000-07:00

I've been hearing a lot about how Bush inherited a surplus and turned it into a deficit. And this is true, but there might just be a little more to the story.

Where did the budget surplus under Clinton come from? Were they spending more responsibly for social programs? Did he make reforms to the entitlement programs, the biggest drain on our federal budget? Did he set out to reduce the scope and power of the federal government and therefore the related costs? To a certain extent, he did. He slashed the budget as it pertained to our military and our intelligence agencies. The main role, the most important role, of our federal government is protecting our sovereignty, and this is where he targeted his cuts. Just ask yourself whether Bush would have inherited that surplus if Hillarycare had gone into place.

So what happened to that surplus? Well, for one, the country was in a recession when Clinton left office and Bush came in. The economy is cyclical and will have it's ups and downs. The only thing the government can really do to affect this, is to make it worse. Bush believed, and I agree, that when the economy is flagging you make government bite the bullet and let the people keep more of their money to put back into the economy. Obama believes that you make the people bite the bullet, and give their money to the government to put back into it where and however the government sees fit. Let's ignore for a moment that raising taxes in a struggling economy has only ever served to make it worse. I know many will say that government spending got us out of the depression. But what got us out of the depression was WWII. So maybe it was government spending on the war, but it wasn't new social programs. All those served to do was stabilize the unemployment rate in the double digits.

So Bush has a surplus, but the economy is on the downward slide, meaning revenues are going down and that surplus is being eaten up without any additional spending. And then what happened? We got attacked on 9/11. There was the recovery cost of that to deal with, while at the same time spending money to rebuild everything that Clinton had torn down. The CIA needed to be rebuilt so we could actually obtain intelligence that Clinton had deemed irrelevant now that the cold war was over. Setting aside the attacks on our planes, our embassies, and our Navy, we didn't need intelligence to deal with those. And the military? We were at peace so what was the point of having a strong military. Don't you know being proactive and prepared is way overrated?

And then we had natural disaster after natural disaster again eating away at the budget. Then Bush had the idea to create the new entitlement program that the country was clamoring for. Medicare part D. A new drain on the budget, a new entitlement program, and more spending.

After that the Republicans in Congress hit their spending stride. The economy was booming and revenues were climbing at a faster rate than ever before, but they fulfilled the old cliche of the more you make the more you spend. Setting none of these new revenues aside for the future, they kept a short-sighted vision on the expectation that the economy would never have another downturn.

At the same time, the banks were being put under pressure by the likes of Barney Frank and ACORN to give loans to people who didn't actually qualify for them. All in the belief that every American has the right to own their own home. A right I have as yet been unable to locate in the Constitution. This drove the housing costs through the roof. The banks were also being pushed to give other loans, and Americans went on a spending spree, emulating their government, and maxed out limits that were set way too high in the first place. As a result of the pressure put on the banks to make these loans, people's money was being taken up paying for the past with nothing left to spend in the now. Demand for products began to drop, meaning production went down, and the workforce was cut. And then the defaults started.

The credit crisis, the inflated housing market, and a cyclical slowing of the economy is what served to create the deficit. Much is made of the money spent on the war, but the truth is that if Congress had stayed the hell out of banking, and allowed the banks to operate the way they needed to instead of the way Congress thought they should, and had Congress focused on cutting the pork and payoffs in the bills they passed, then we would have been able to sustain the cost of the war.

The housing boom and bust is the center of our current troubles, and what has Obama and the 111th Congress done to address that? Not a damn thing!

Bend Over For The President

2009-07-10T18:18:00.000-07:00

While in Italy the President was captured checking out a backside reportedly attached to a 16 year old girl. This could be just a man appreciating a thing of beauty, after all, who hasn't looked at something that caught your eye just to find out it was something you really shouldn't be looking at? I'd give him the benefit of the doubt if it wasn't for the fact that, since he took office, he's been asking every American to bend over and grab their ankles.

But here we have a man who is trying to pass legislation, and pass it quickly, which will grow the federal government to the largest it's ever been. He's taking us further and further away from the government listed in our Constitution and the ideals set forth in our Declaration of Independence. He is single minded in his goal to turn us into Europe, the one thing our Constitution was supposed to protect us from. But maybe he only wants to be someplace where he can ogle a teenage girl's backside with impunity. But if that's the case, I wish he would have moved there on his own and left us the hell alone.

And why do you think it is so important to pass the healthcare legislation before the August break? Is it because the crisis that they've been talking about for 20 years just can't wait a day more? Will all of us be bankrupt from our medical bills by the time Congress comes back? Nope. But if the congressmen get back to their own districts and find out just how upset people are about the high cost and low return, his bill will really be in trouble. People may want a healthcare bill, but they also want a good one.

I for one am a little ticked at the idea of our healthcare reform bill including money for parks, walking paths and street lights. They may say it's an encouragement for people to exercise, but if you don't go out and walk now, streetlights aren't going to help.

So when it comes right down to it, I'd rather have our President looking at a teenage girls butt instead of him asking me to bend over and present him with mine.

If You Build It...

2009-07-09T08:15:00.000-07:00

I just watched the Nancy Pelosi weekly press conference (have I mentioned that I love working from home)and healthcare was addressed. The congress is looking mainly for a government run option which would follow their pattern of spending as much money as they can as fast as they can.

When asked about the cost of the public option that the majority support, Pelosi indicated that the Congressional Budget Office has not factored in the savings from prevention and early intervention, and that they need to look for every bit of savings they can find. Savings, savings, savings, is what she said. But that savings would be very difficult to calculate. Should we base the savings on the assumption that if you build it they will come? There are many people, like me, who just don't go to the doctor regularly. And I have preventative care as part of my insurance. How then can we calculate the cost of the savings when we don't know how many people would actually use their new preventative benefit? History has already shown us that their estimates on the costs of their programs is usually way off, and this could be why. If they are going to count on savings that won't actually ever come to pass, we should be concerned.

My other concern is their insistence that a bill, any bill, must be passed this summer. This continues their trend of being more concerned with doing something fast than doing it right. Look at how that worked out with the stimulus package. We had to pass it without reading it so the money could get into the system immediately. And 4 months later only 10% of the money has been spent. Shouldn't we instead take the time to ensure that a program which will impact the country for decades, if not forever, is the best possible bill that it can be? Shouldn't they be looking for a plan that delivers the best solution for the lowest cost instead of trying to cook the books to make the plan they want more palatable to the people? Shouldn't this fall under the old cliche of "if it's worth doing it's worth doing right"?

I am very concerned with the way Congress is spending our money. It appears, to me at least, that they are using our money to fund the growth of the government instead of the growth of the economy. And should we burden an already struggling economy with another $1 trillion in debt?

Delay is preferable to error. - Thomas Jefferson

Another Stimulus?

2009-07-08T06:04:00.000-07:00

So the white house admits that they had their collective heads up their asses when it came to the economy. Didn't know it was that bad, and didn't write the stimulus package right. So now they're saying, since we screwed this first stimulus package up so royally, we'd like a do over.

So they want us to let them try again and see if they do better this time. Problem is that the first stimulus has only had 10% of it's stimulus money spent. So if they pass another one, will THAT one get money into the economy now? Doubt it. After making an $800 billion dollar mistake we should just give them another try?

Maybe, just maybe, they should have taken the time to actually READ the first one. That might have helped. But they had to do it right now and get that money into the system. Uh huh. So here we are 4 months later, and 10% of that money that had to be spent so quickly that we couldn't read how, has actually been spent.

Of course they also claim the stimulus is working, even though unemployment is at 9.5% now and their green shoots have withered and died. But still they claim it would be worse without that stimulus. Of course there is no proof, no evidence, and no way to prove this.

Another stimulus package is the height of stupidity. But then again, isn't stupidity what Washington does best?

The Caribou Call to Arms

2009-07-07T14:44:00.001-07:00

Let me just start by saying that I don't want Sarah Palin to run for President. I think she would do a much better job of inspiring the people and holding the politicians accountable when she doesn't have other duties to distract her or compromise her. I think instead that she should play to her strengths, and say what you will about her, she does have some.

In a blog on The KOOK's Manifesto, I commented that I wanted her out there throwing a bucket of ice water in the faces of the complacent American populace to wake them up and make them see what's going on, while simultaneously delivering a series of bitch slaps to the Republican party and the old politics as usual rut we're stuck in.

Call her Caribou Barbie if you want, call her an idiot, call her a quitter, the woman still has the charisma to really reach out and speak to the American people. This is where her folksy charm, you betcha and a wink come in to play. She can speak TO the American people, not AT them. And what we need now is a wake-up call so WE can take back our country from the endless pursuit of ever growing government power. We don't need somebody in a single office anywhere near as much as we need the people to pay attention to those in EVERY office. We need somebody to remind us all of the great principles on which this country was founded and inspire the populace to stand up and fight for them all. Let's set all the distracting social issues aside and send them to the states where they belong, and instead focus on a federal government that is growing at a rate that makes cancer look sluggish. Focus on the irresponsible spending of OUR money with out even an attempt at efficiency. Focus on reminding our politicians that they actually work for us and we're not afraid to send them packing. This is what we really need.

So if it's going to be Caribou Barbie that can put the focus of the American people where it needs to be, well then, I'll have to learn how to do a caribou call. If I had the least idea what a caribou actually sounds like, I'd start practicing now.

Ellen Degeneres As Cover Girl Rep

2009-07-07T07:59:00.001-07:00

I just saw a commercial for Cover Girl make up with Ellen Degeneres as the spokeswoman. I think this is brilliant! Ellen has a huge following, mainly because she is a hoot, but she's also one hell of a talk show hostess. But in addition to that, she is a combination of being lovely, and being your everyday woman.

In the commercial she lends her humor to the product, while at the same time explaining why it's great, thereby speaking to most women on a level we understand and embrace. And she also makes fun of herself in that uniquely Ellen way.

What I love about how they did this advertising is that it targets more to the average, everyday woman, and using a woman that most of us love. Ellen makes a great spokesperson for any product, but I love seeing her used specifically for a make-up. Her American Express commercials are great as well, but seeing her talk about make-up, and particularly an age defying product, makes me want to try it.

By the way, if you've never seen Ellen's stand-up routine on procrastination, I highly recommend it. I've seen it several times and laugh myself silly with every viewing.

Selling Tickets to a Funeral?

2009-07-06T11:39:00.001-07:00

The fact that tickets are being sold or raffled in order to admit entrance to a memorial or a funeral I find morally repugnant. Enough with Michael Jackson already. Why on earth does the funeral have to be a media circus?

Did they raffle off "tickets" for Princess Diana? Did they raffle off tickets for Ronald Reagan? Have they ever before raffled off tickets for a funeral? Like the man wasn't enough of a freak in life, they have to make him a public spectacle in death as well?

I understand that millions mourn his passing, but why do they have to turn his memorial into a concert? And then of course the cost to the city for the added police force that will be required to deal with the crowds. Nice of the Jackson family to consider the strain on a city in a bankrupt state when they made their plans.

Personally, I am sick to death of the Michael Jackson hoopla. Just put the man in the ground and lay it to rest already.

God's Fireworks

2009-07-05T10:01:00.000-07:00

For the 4th of July celebration I got together with a few friends for beer and barbecue and had a great time. We even managed to set up a badminton net and played, badly, for a while. It was really humid here in the center of the country, but not too hot as storm clouds were rolling in. But playing was still fun.

No matter the direction we faced, fireworks displays could be seen. They started early as the dark clouds made a great backdrop for the colors of the fireworks. The great state of Missouri is not one of the states that protects it's people from themselves by outlawing the sale and display of fireworks, so in addition to the city display, which we could see from the yard, the neighbors were all having fun with fire. We had our own that we shot off as well. But as it got full dark, the sky was lit up with more than man made fire. God was making His own contribution to the show. Having fireworks with a backdrop of lightning made the display something really special. For nobody can put on a show like He can.

It also served to remind us that God should always be a part of our celebration. The freedom we celebrate we believe is a freedom given to us by Him. Being included in our Declaration of that Independence, He should also being included in our celebration of achieving and maintaining that Independence. For as with the fireworks display, God's contribution made it something more than it ever could have been alone.

So I thank God for his display last night, and for reminding me of who we should really thank.

God Bless America.

Promote the General Welfare

2009-07-03T09:55:00.000-07:00

A comment was made on my blog yesterday which brought up the fact that, though the preamble to the Constitution has no basis in law, it is used while interpreting the role of the federal government. One phrase in particular is used as an excuse for everything the federal government does to expand it's own power.

The preamble reads, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."

That general welfare clause has been used as a justification for many new programs and wasteful spending over the years. Isn't our current push for government run health care touted as "promoting the general welfare"? But what about another clause? What about that little thing about "ensure the blessings of liberty"? Have we decided that some of these clauses are more important than others? If so, how did the general welfare become the top dog in the prioritization process? So important that we can push liberty and justice aside for it? Considering that our pledge of allegiance says with liberty and justice for all, not for the general welfare of all, shouldn't liberty and justice be a little higher up on the totem pole?

Their legal interpretation of the preamble was this; "Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?''

The annotation uses the common defense as an example, but what about using the general welfare as an example. Doesn't the above interpretation mean that the federal government CANNOT use that phrase in order to expand it's own power, or to create power for itself. Yet isn't that exactly what it has been doing for years? The quote above says "no one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress.." But that doesn't appear to be true since many people, many, many people, believe that it DOES enlarge the powers of Congress. And Congress is way more interested in their power than our liberty. So now we are pushing liberty aside, and in some cases justice, in order to promote an incorrect interpretation of the general welfare. And we're using that incorrect interpretation to create power where it was not given, nor intended, in the Constitution.

The annotation also says that it should be used to see if some legislation is working against that statement more than if it's working towards it. Couldn't the argument be made that cap and trade is against the general welfare? Explain to me, if you can, how increasing everybody's energy costs, putting thousands out of work, and giving the government control over free enterprise is a promotion of the general welfare. Because, frankly, I don't get it.

The fact is that the pre-amble to the Constitution should not be used as a justification for any law or any new program. Those items listed there are already covered in the body of the Constitution in the powers delegated for each branch. And if the power is not designated, then it is not a power that exists. No matter what the preamble says.

The Textbook of Freedom

2009-07-03T08:32:00.001-07:00

Needing to be reminded, after all of the apologies for our arrogance, of what a great nation we truly are, I decided to read Reagan's speech where he referred to us as a shining city on a hill. I was just 14 years old when Reagan was elected to his first term in office, but I remember clearly going, as a nation, from demoralized and depressed as we dealt with the fall out from Vietnam, the economic problems and the energy crisis of the Carter years, into the hope and pride that Reagan instilled.

Whether you agree with his economic policies or anything else about him, Reagan, in his speeches, reminded us of why we should be proud and why our nation was great. I found a story that he tells regarding the signing of the Declaration of Independence that I would like to share.

You can call it mysticism if you want to, but I have always believed that there was some divine plan that placed this great continent between two oceans to be sought out by those who were possessed of an abiding love of freedom and a special kind of courage.

This was true of those who pioneered the great wilderness in the beginning of this country, as it is also true of those later immigrants who were willing to leave the land of their birth and come to a land where even the language was unknown to them. Call it chauvinistic, but our heritage does not set us apart. Some years ago a writer, who happened to be an avid student of history, told me a story about that day in the little hall in Philadelphia where honorable men, hard-pressed by a King who was flouting the very law they were willing to obey, debated whether they should take the fateful step of declaring their Independence from that king. I was told by this man that the story could be found in the writings of Jefferson. I confess, I never researched or made an effort to verify it. Perhaps it is only legend. But story, or legend, he described the atmosphere, the strain, the debate, and that as men for the first time faced the consequences of such an irretrievable act, the walls resounded with the dread word of treason and its price -- the gallows and the headman's axe. As the day wore on the issue hung in the balance, and then, according to the story, a man rose in the small gallery. He was not a young man and was obviously calling on all the energy he could muster. Citing the grievances that had brought them to this moment he said, “Sign that parchment. They may turn every tree into a gallows, every home into a grave and yet the words of that parchment can never die. For the mechanic in his workshop, they will be words of hope, to the slave in the mines -- freedom.” And he added, “If my hands were freezing in death, I would sign that parchment with my last ounce of strength. Sign, sign if the next moment the noose is around your neck, sign even if the hall is ringing with the sound of headman’s axe, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the bible of the rights of man forever.” And then it is said he fell back exhausted. But 56 delegates, swept by his eloquence, signed the Declaration of Independence, a document destined to be as immortal as any work of man can be. And according to the story, when they turned to thank him for his timely oratory, he could not be found nor were there any who knew who he was or how he had come in or gone out through the locked and guarded doors.

Well, as I say, whether story or legend, the signing of the document that day in Independence Hall was miracle enough. Fifty-six men, a little band so unique -- we have never seen their like since -- pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Sixteen gave their lives, most gave their fortunes and all of them preserved their sacred honor. What manner of men were they? Certainly they were not an unwashed, revolutionary rebel, nor were then adventurers in a heroic mood. Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, 11 were merchants and tradesmen, nine were farmers. They were men who would achieve security but valued freedom more. "

For that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the bible of the rights of man forever. Is it? Or are we relegating it to a piece of interesting, but irrelevant, piece of American memorabilia?

We should all know the text of the declaration, and more importantly, what it really means and represents. Everything that is done by our government should be examined and compared against those truths laid out in the textbook for freedom. Do you, as an individual, hold these truths to be self-evident? Or do you believe they are up for negotiation based on what the government promises you in return?

America's Addiction - And Not To Oil

2009-07-01T19:30:00.000-07:00

We hear a lot about America's addiction to oil, but she has another addiction. One much more destructive to her. America has an addiction to government breast milk.

The breast milk is the drug that has been sweeping the nation since the 1960's when the war on poverty created welfare. Like many other drugs, this one is for a specific purpose and helps the individual when used as directed. However, when abused it has the same bad results as the other drugs on the market.

So what are the bad effects of this drug? For one, it is very, very addictive. The longer you suck on the government tit, the more palatable the milk becomes and the more difficult it is to give it up. That milk saps your ambition, your desire to work and keeps you in a continuing state of poverty. It propels people to violence as they seek more than what the milk can give them, and are driven to find something, anything, to fill their time and their days. It also causes children to be born into this addiction, thereby perpetuating generations of families addicted to the government tit and unable to break free. Many know nothing but this addiction and can't see what it is doing to them or how much better life without it would be.

There are those that manage to kick the habit and go on to live very productive lives. But as with any rehab, the percentage of addicts who recover is very small.

And yet, unlike an addiction to any other drug with such negative effects when misused, we do not arrest the dealers for this drug. Why? Because the dealers are the different levels of government. Instead of being encouraged to free themselves from this addiction, the government, the pusher, does their best to convince the addict that they will take care of them. That more will come and this time it will be better. And this drug is cheap, you get the fix every month and all you have to do for it is cast a vote. A very fair trade. This is how the pusher keeps the user addicted and keeps their power over the user.

This drug must only be used as directed. The failure to do so has such debilitating effects on individuals and all of society. And yet, instead of encouraging people to enter rehab to break the drug's hold, the government is always working to find more versions of the drug in order to get more people addicted. Just like any other drug dealer would do.

Disabled Debbie From the Town Hall

2009-07-01T16:27:00.000-07:00

I didn't watch much of the Health Care town hall meeting because I was actually working, but one thing has caught my attention. That is the woman, Debbie, who spoke about how she can't work, has no insurance, and a new tumor.

Let's set aside for a moment that this woman was placed there as an Obama supporter. She's actually a volunteer for one of the organizations working toward health care. I can see her being a volunteer due to her situation, but as somebody who deals with insurance, her situation raised some questions for me.

Obama answered her situation by saying a nation this rich should be able to take care of people in her situation. My question is, don't we already? If she is really unable to work isn't she on SSI Disability? And if she is, then guess what, she qualifies for Medicare if she has paid into it. If she hasn't, then she's eligible for Medicaid. So our current socialized health care programs actually cover her situation.

So why isn't she on Medicare or Medicaid then? Could it possibly be that SSI Disability has a policy of denying every claim on it's first submission and only reconsidering on appeal? But wait a minute, this is a government program. Isn't it only the evil private insurers who would do something so diabolical? And she did say that SSI has denied her claim saying renal failure is not a qualifier for disability. This is the government program folks. This is the people we plan on putting in charge.

She also said she doesn't qualify for Medicaid because she has to be on disability. And Medicare eligibility occurs for renal failure, but only once you've started dialysis.

This is why Debbie is disabled but not already covered under that umbrella? My deepest sympathies go out to her for the health issues she is going through, and I hope her issues are resolved soon, but sadly, this is more of a condemnation of our government insurance programs than our private ones.

Just Call Me Faust

2009-07-01T14:56:00.000-07:00

This should be the new flag created to replace "Don't Tread On Me". The American citizenry appears to have cast aside their Republic and embraced Tyranny. In effect, we are selling our soul to the devil.

Where Faust cast aside the eternal blessing of God to get the immediate satisfaction promised by the Devil, we are casting aside our liberty, our very freedom, for the instant gratification of a government handout.

Or wait, is our leadership Faust? Selling out to the biggest donors in order to grab power.

Either way, it appears that our country is becoming one giant Faustian Bargain. And the question I have is whether or not any government program is worth our liberty. I have to say no, but evidently many say yes. Or else they are unaware of the bargain they are making. You don't ever get something for nothing. By taking what is offered you are agreeing to their terms, and once caught, there is no escape.

Government Watchdogs Are Being Muzzled

2009-07-01T05:03:00.000-07:00

The Inspector General is supposed to be a watchdog, pure and simple. Their role is watch and inspect what is going on, and if they see anything questionable, start barking like crazy. They are there to ensure that the tax payers money is being spent the way it is supposed to be spent. In essence, they are there to keep the tax payer from getting robbed.

But it looks like there's a new trend to muzzle the old watchdog. And if they somehow get the muzzle off and manage to bark out a warning, then they're going to get put down.

The most recent watchdog to get put down is Inspector General Fred Weiderhold of Amtrack. To be clear, he was not fired for what he said, he was "retired". Amtrack is our government run train system that is heavily subsidized by government funds. It was IG Weiderhold's job to ensure that our money was spent wisely. And bark loud and long if it wasn't. But he had been pretty effectively muzzled. He was forbidden by the Amtrack leaders from communicating with Congress without their approval, and any written communication had to go through them. Um, OK. So the people robbing us blind demand the right to edit the documents that tell Congress that they're robbing us blind. That's a great way to ensure that things are working effectively. And keep in mind, Amtrack got $1.3 billion in stimulus money. The office of the inspector General got money in that stimulus package as well. On paper. The leadership of Amtrack actually appropriated the money for the IG. Weiderhold did manage to get the muzzle off long enough to get somebody's attention, and now he no longer has a job.

But Wiederhold was not the first, and he won't be the last. There was also Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of AmeriCorps. And why was Walpin fired? Because the powers that be didn't like his investigation into the misappropriations of AmericCorps funds. They fired him for doing his job. This is not an enviable job to have. The Inspectors General are whistle blowers as their main job function. They are there to protect us against waste in our government, but how can they protect us when the government retains the right to fire them. And how can our government work if the people designated to speak out are silenced.

Then there is EPA employee Alan Carlin who did his job but his conclusions weren't what the administration wanted to hear. As a result his report that CO2 emissions are not impacting climate change, and that the climate may not, in fact, be getting warmer, was suppressed and he was instructed to work on something else. The memo to him actually said that his report did not support their policy or legal stance. OK, silly me. I thought the EPA was there to report the conclusions dictated by the data, not by the President. To be fair, Carlin is still employed. For now. But he has been speaking out. He has slipped his muzzle and is sharing the findings of his report.

We need our watchdogs unmuzzled. The average American doesn't have access to the files of all of the government organizations so we have these watchdogs in place. How can we have any faith at all that our government is acting in our best interests when our watchdogs fear getting kicked if they bark. Our once vicious watchdogs protecting our interests will lay down and whimper as the thieves rob us blind.

The big question is whether or not we're going to let this happen, or if the American people have become a bunch of whimpering lap dogs as well.

Sex Scandals Different For Republicans

2009-06-29T12:09:00.000-07:00

Politicians from the two parties have different consequences for their actions as it involves sex scandals or marital infidelity. Arguments have been made that this is because the every day members of the two parties view these issues differently. However, one man on the news today said this was because Republicans talk about family values while they have a man in the white house who is living them. Uh, OK. And when the had Clinton in the white house and the Dems didn't care that he was a total horndog the reason was what?

I really do believe that the two parties look at infidelity differently. It has been said by some that they don't care who politicians are screwing as long as it's not the people. My problem with it is that if a person will break their oath, their vow, to their spouse, how can possibly trust them to keep their oath to us? If we can't trust them in one thing how can we trust them on anything?

So let's look at some of the big sex scandals of the past and how they've been handled.

Republicans

- Gov Sanford has affair in Venezuela possibly using government funds, run out of town on a rail
- Senator John Ensign - has affair with staffer, apologizes then shuts up about it, stays in office and plans to run for re-election in 2012.
- Sen David Vitter - shows up on phone records for prostitutes, apologizes then shuts up, stays in office and running for re-election.
- Sen Larry Craig - looking for sex in an airport men's room, apologizes but still too much press, run out of town on a rail.
- Rep Mark Foley - sends sexually explicit notes to a 16 year old page, no actual sex but notes are still bad enough, apologizes, run out of town on a rail.
- Candidate Gary Hart - announces affair, withdraws from campaign

So for the Republicans, 4 of 6 are pressured to resign.

Democrats
- Sen Ted Kennedy - has affair, gets woman killed, still in office.
- President Bill Clinton - has affair, commits purjery about it, stays in office because he only lied about sex. Also accused of affair like Gary Hart, does not withdraw, wins presidency.
- Sen Barney Frank - uses tax payer funds to hire male prostitute as "personal assistant"who ran prostitution ring form Frank's home, still in office.
- Sen Daniel Inouye - accused by numerous women of sexual harassment, ethics committee dropped investigation, stayed in office.
- Sen Brock Adams - accused of drugging and rape, stayed in office until more women came forward and he decided not to run for re-election
- Gov Jim McGreavy - announces affair with a man, resigns

Democrats, 2 of 6 pressured to resign.

Looking at this is does appear that there is a double standard when it comes to sex scandals. But what I found most interesting about this is how many of the badly behaved are in the senate.

So, is this really that Republicans talk family values while Democrats live them? Doesn't look so much like that to me.

California is Bankrupt - Again

2009-06-29T07:29:00.000-07:00

Years and years of spending and spending on government programs has resulted in the State of California being bankrupt. Again. The Governator's inability to stand up to the liberal congress and fight for cuts has kept the California economy in turmoil.

So what is their answer to this crisis? Are they going to cut spending? Nope. Not a bit.

The old adage when it comes to debt reduction, which is an old adage because it is true, is that you have to spend less or make more. This works for most of us in that we have to spend less because making more isn't all that easy. But, when it comes to the government, their options are spend less or TAKE more.

The government does not make money. Neither the federal government nor that of the states. The government simply takes money that the citizens make. They're not working harder for that money, they simply pass a bill that increases taxes. The spend less or make more works for individuals because neither is really an easy option. I know, I had to face that decision once and my choice was to get a roommate (spend less) or a second job (make more). I opted for the second job because I really prefer to live alone. My past experiences with roommates haven't been great. That meant that I was working 65 - 70 hours a week, and sometimes 7 days a week. Making more was not as easy as a stroke of a pen for me. I'm actually thinking of doing the same thing again so I can have money for travel.

But does our government have to work harder in order to "make more"? Nope, it's the citizens the money is taken from who are impacted. It's an easy option for the government itself. Instead of making the hard decisions and cutting spending, much of which is probably wasteful, California is instead planning to increase sales taxes to take more money. If they do this, I fully expect California to, later in the year, be bankrupt yet again.

And if you're thinking, well this is California it doesn't impact me, remember another adage. Where goes California so goes the country. Think about all of the government spending that has happened in 2009 so far and what is yet to come. If they're spending more, they only have 2 options. Continue to borrow money, and our main lender is getting leery of buying any more of our debt, or take more. And they will take more.

Remember this, there is no such thing as government money. They are nothing more than a 3rd party vendor spending the money they've taken from you!

Meanwhile, Obama is using CA as the example of why cap and trade works. Talking about how they passed similar legislation earlier and did it without impacting their economy. Uh huh. Good idea, hold a broke state up as an example of how this won't financially impact us. Smart move.

Are We Now an Oligarchy?

2009-06-28T12:34:00.000-07:00

Have we changed our basic political process from a Democratic Republic to an Oligarchy without bothering to amend the Constitution or even notifying the populace? It's starting to look that way.

If you're unfamiliar with what an Oligarchy is, think South Africa. An Oligarchy is where the country is run by the "elite" or by a specific class of people. These elite make the decisions that affect the rest of the nation. Is this sounding frighteningly familiar.

Our Congress, and many elitist political campaign contributors are making the decisions for the rest of us without regards to what we actually want. Cap and Trade is just the most recent example of this. So many calls were received on this issue that the switchboard actually crashed. Of the calls received 90% were against it. And yet the bill passed.

Illegal immigration is another example. The American public made it absolutely crystal clear that we do not want a path to citizenship for illegals and that we want the border secured and the current laws enforced before anything else is done. And yet this amnesty was supported by both of our Presidential candidates and is still being attempted to push through.

Next we have the health care debate. Although most Americans do support a plan that would cover the current uninsured, how to do it is still under debate. In a recent poll 77% of Americans said they are satisfied with their current coverage, and we are continually promised that we would be able to keep this coverage if the government created a program to "compete" with private insurers. But where is the competition when one player is making the rules and the other just has to follow them? And where is the competition when one player can operate at a loss while the other must make a profit. So even though those of us who are satisfied with our coverage would like to keep it, we won't have that option once the unfair, so called competition puts our insurer out of business. Support for this bill is losing support in the Congress as constituents speak up, so is the leadership re-looking at it? No, they are simply pushing harder to get through what THEY want to give us and not what we want to receive. Inflicting their will on the people instead of the having the will of the people inflicted on them.

The stimulus packages and bailouts were yet another example. The stimulus had less than 50% support with many concerns over how much money was being spent and on what. Yet this legislation was pushed through without being read against the wishes and the will of the people. Why? Because this is what the elite wanted so that's what we got. And when we voiced our objections, the elite mocked those who spoke out.

My final point is this, the current Congressional approval rating is at 29%. The last time it was above 50% was in October of 2001. The rating fluctuates going as low as 12% but usually hovering in the 20's and 30's. This means that, on average, 70% of the American public disapprove of what our leadership is doing. Our Congress sees themselves as above us, the average American. They have created an elite status for themselves, and in so doing, turned our once great system of government into an Oligarchy. No longer a government of the people, but now a government of a ruling class. They have made themselves an aristocracy and seek to bend us all to their will.

I have never been submissive. I have a very hard time bending my will even to compromise much less submit. This is probably the main reason that I am still single. And it is also the reason that I will continue to fight against having my voice, my vote and my say ignored by a bunch of elitist jackasses. I encourage you to do the same. Do not abdicate your role in the running of the country to this new ruling class. Reclaim our Democratic Republic from those who seek an Oligarchy.

Celebrities Drop Like Flies

2009-06-28T11:32:00.000-07:00

June has been pretty hard on celebrities, and if they really do come in threes we still have one more to go.

The month started out with the loss of David Carradine through what first appeared to be suicide but has since been questioned. Carradine was found hanging in his apartment in Bancock but the fact that his hands were tied above his head has resulted in the question of foul play in his death. Carradine, of Kill Bill fame, was 62 years old.

Next was the loss of Ed McMahon at the age of 86. An American icon and a household name. McMahon had been hospitalized for multiple health issues and was in the hospital when he passed away. But were we even able to come to terms with that loss before the death of Farrah Fawcett was announced? Farrah, dead at 62, as was Carradine, was known to be dying and had even done a documentary on the progression of her illness and impending death. Though not a shock, it was still sad.

Since it is said that these deaths come in 3's, Farrah appeared to be the third. But no sooner could the idea be cemented that this was it, just hours after the announcement of Farrah's death, we learn that Michael Jackson has died as well. That's 2 in one day. And Michael was only 50 years old. Much has been covered on his death so I'm not going to go into this further.

Now, just a matter of days later, we have Billy Mays, product promoter extraordinaire, also dead at age 50. Mays was found in his home by his wife and his death appears to be of natural causes.

With all of this to deal with, the loss of 5 of our famous, is there still yet one more left to go? I certainly hope not.

Congress Taxes Air

2009-06-27T19:43:00.000-07:00

Well they've finally done it. Congress has finally found a way to tax air. By taxing "carbon emissions" in the Waxman-Markey (cap and trade) bill they are taxing how much carbon dioxide is put into the air. Guess what you exhale when you breathe? Carbon dioxide.

Our leadership has made no secret that is just the first step in their plans to regulate everything we do it and call it climate change legislation. This is simply another example of Congress using punishment through taxation in order to modify the behavior of the American people. Where is our individual freedom when the government thinks they should have control over everything we do? Why don't they just come right out and make it illegal? After all, to most of them burning coal is on the same par with murder.

So why is the bill called cap and trade you ask? It's quite simple really. The government is going to put a cap on how much carbon can be emitted, and if you don't use all of your allotment you can trade it for something else. Well, actually you can sell it to somebody else. The Washington Post described it this way; "The government would set a cap on the amount of carbon dioxide that could be emitted and would issue allowances to polluting sectors that could buy and sell those rights." So if you are in an industry that necessarily emits carbon, you're going to have to pay off the government in order to stay in business.

People have been duped into believing that this is a bill to create jobs, it's just the opposite. By levying huge taxes on companies who emit carbon, those companies will risk closing their doors because they can't bear the cost of the new taxes. Not only that, but the companies in other areas of the world, making the same product, will be able to sell it cheaper because they won't be subject to the same legislation. And those other companies are probably already emitting more carbon that the companies here. So what are we actually going to end up doing? Increasing a demand and therefore productivity for the companies that are less clean by punishing our cleaner companies here.

This is nothing more than one giant pay to play bill. A bill that so many people opposed initially that most of the 1,500 page legislation is a pay off to get votes. The Washington Post said this as well; "The result is a 1,201-page measure filled with political compromises, directives, subsidies and selections of winners and losers that most members won't be able to analyze before the vote and that leaves us wondering how effective it will be. " And this was before the last minute 300 page amendment. Winners and losers have already been selected by our Government. How does that work in a free market system? It doesn't. This will be giving the government control over every product produced, how it's produced, and what options we as consumers have. This is step one in the process of the government eliminating our right to choose and the consumer's control of the market. Their plan is to have the government control the market. Does that sound like the USA that you know?

I am all for being environmentally responsible. And if this bill were actually an attempt to find alternative fuel sources and /or to make those already discovered more cost effective and financially competitive, I'd be all for it. But it's not. It's a behavior modification tax. The government is going with their simple logic that if they don't want us to do something make it so expensive we can't afford to do it. According to them we use too much energy so they are slapping a huge energy tax on us. And this is a tax. A tax on ALL Americans. And weren't we promised that 95% of Americans would not have a tax increase? That only those making over $250K would be impacted by a tax increase? Well this is a tax that is expected to cause your energy bill to increase by at least 40%. So for those already struggling, already living paycheck to paycheck, one of your bills is going to increase dramatically. My senator, in a response to an e-mail I sent her, has already acknowledged that this is going to drive costs up and put our businesses at a disadvantage, so if you don't believe me, just ask your Congressmen.

This bill passed the house by a narrow margin because 8 Republicans voted for it. Had they stood by the principles of the Republican party this would not have happened. If you want to know who the "Republican 8" as we now refer to them are, you can find out about them by clicking on the link to the left for Left Coast Rebel. He has written a blog with a list of who they are and where they are from.

Please contact your Senator and urge them to vote no on this legislation. We cannot have this bill which taxes air and encourages corruption become law.

And all of this is to address an issue that scientists are still debating. The climate is changing, as it always has and always will, but man's impact on the climate is still contested by many scientists, and yet we're levying a huge tax under the guise of mitigating a problem we're not even sure exists.

Obama Says Bush Was Right

2009-06-26T22:58:00.000-07:00

President Obama, realizing that you actually have to have a plan and not just a nebulous idea, has drafted legislation to allow himself to detain terror suspects indefinitely. Gee, imagine that.

Here we see the difference between the campaign and the actual problems of leadership. So after hammering away at President Bush throughout the entire campaign (even though Bush wasn't running) Obama now finds out that things ain't quite as easy as they seem.

Face it Mr President, you're not Dumbledore. You can't just wave your magic wand and have issues resolve themselves. And the truth is that Dumbledore would give you lines for even thinking that you could.

Here we see the main problem with President Obama. He is a great orator. He can charm a crowd and make you want to snuggle up under a warm blanket with your worst enemy. He has ideas that sound better than a hot toddy on a cold winter's night. Problem is that he has absolutely no idea how to implement them.

Isn't a key requirement for a President the ability to take something from theory into practical application. But our current President has no ideation process for figuring out how to get from point A to point B. Although I hear he has contacted J K Rowlings to find out what happened to Ollivander's wand shop.

An idea alone won't solve anything. There must be a way to put the idea into action and actually make it work. At a REASONABLE cost to the taxpayer. This is a recurring theme with our current leader. He can create those castles in the sky, but unfortunately he has to build them here on earth. And there are all those pesky zoning issues to contend with.

All I can say, and I can't believe I'm saying it, Kudos Obama for keeping them there instead of bringing them here.

Please leave comments. I live alone and work at home. I spend way too much time talking to myself already.

Claire McCaskill and Climate Change

2009-06-26T14:24:00.000-07:00

As you may have guessed, I am against the cap and trade climate change legislation. In an effort to prevent this useless, excessive tax increase which benefits nobody but GE and Al Gore, I wrote to my Senator. I advised her that should she vote for the Waxman- Markey bill (cap and trade) I would work tirelessly to ensure her defeat in her next bid for re-election. This is the response I received from Ms McCaskill. I have translated Ms McCaskill's words into their actual meaning. The real meaning is listed in red.

Thank you for contacting me regarding climate change legislation and "green jobs" in the 111th Congress. I appreciate your comments and welcome the opportunity to respond. (But don't think I actually give a shit what you think)

I believe global climate change threatens our health, environment, and national security. Congress needs to implement meaningful reform that addresses this issue as soon as possible. (We're just arrogant enough to believe we can control the weather). Drafting a responsible (responsible, from our congress? Now there's a laugh)measure that makes both significant reductions in carbon emissions and maintains a strong U.S. economy will be difficult, but it is a task my colleagues and I are committed to. (Regardless of your piss ant little opinion on the matter)

Regarding carbon emissions and potential “cap-and-trade” legislation, I agree that something must be done to protect and preserve our environment for future generations. However, as an elected representative for all Missourians, I will always seek to protect my constituents from undue hardship and ensure that the federal government will spend their hard-earned taxpayer dollars wisely. (of course that's wisely according to Congress and not wisely according to our constituency. We know better than you do.) That is why, as we continue the debate on climate change legislation, I will be working hard to include safeguards that minimize costs, keep government accountable and prevent harm to the U.S. economy. (But don't think for a minute that I won't be pushing this damaging bill through)

Working families will be significantly affected by climate change legislation, (as your electric bills goes through the roof and you risk freezing to death in your homes) so any bill addressing this issue should provide financial protection to avoid passing all costs on to consumers. (Forgetting for a moment that we're the ones slapping that cost on you.) There must be a cushion to offset rising energy costs and provisions that protect American jobs from international competitors that do not face the same environmental constraints. (We acknowledge that we are putting our own companies at a global disadvantage in the middle of an economic crisis by slapping this huge tax on them. So we'll work to mitigate the damage we insist on inflicting.) Strong climate change legislation must also spread the burden of rising energy costs evenly throughout the country, rather than disproportionately affecting one region over another. (But don't think for a minute that the costs won't rise for you) Additionally, the green jobs created by such legislation must be ones that are available to the already skilled workers of Missouri. (So as long as Missouri benefits then screw the rest of the country)

My colleagues and I have already taken a good first step on the way to curbing carbon emissions by passing comprehensive energy legislation into law in December 2007. This bill is expected to remove 500 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air through improved energy efficiency standards. (though it's been in effect for over a year and we're still talking about what's expected because it hasn't actually changed anything) However, we need to do more. (Because we aren't satisfied until we've meddled enough to completely destroy that which we set out to save.)Further investment in clean energy sources along with responsible climate change legislation will drastically reduce carbon emissions and start our country down a cleaner, economically stronger(and I'm so pleased I can say that with a straight face) path, including the path to green jobs for Missouri residents. (We'll just ignore the fact that in Spain, where this has already been tried, we lose 2.1 regular jobs for every green job created. I don't like that stat so I'll just ignore it. After all, just because it's already failed everywhere else it's been tried doesn't mean that I can't make it work)

My colleagues and I will continue to pursue legislation that will achieve real emissions reductions and still protect our nation's economy and Missouri jobs. Thank you again for contacting me about this very important issue and please do not hesitate to let me know if I can address any other issues that might be important to you. (And I will continue to totally disregard your opinions and concerns as I have every other time you have contacted me.)

All best,Senator Claire McCaskill

Racism in America

2009-06-26T11:53:00.000-07:00

Here we are, nearly 150 years from the abolition of slavery, 40 years from the civil rights movement, and is racism gone? No. In fact there are those doing there level best to keep it alive. No matter how many people in the country are striving to set the issue behind us, there are still those who define themselves by the color of their skin and do their best to force the rest of us to see it too.

I know many people will object to what I'm writing. And you are absolutely free to do so and I welcome your comments. But this is how I see it. These are the socially accepted organizations and ideals that I believe are contributing to the problem.

The ACLU - The IDEA of the ACLU is a great one. Uphold the civil liberties of all Americans. And if the ACLU was living up to that ideal they would not be on this list. It is absolutely right to stand up for anybody whose civil liberties are being violated no matter the color of their skin. However, the ACLU is quick to assume that any man or woman of any race other than white is being violated based on the color of their skin. Whether or not this is actually the case is totally irrelevant. I ask you this, in the case of the firefighters denied their promotion because not enough members of other ethnic groups qualified, where was the ACLU? Wouldn't this have been a perfect civil liberties case for them? But they weren't in the least bit interested. The ACLU will take up a case which includes all Americans against the government, but if it is a single white man, or a small group of them, whose rights are violated then it's not worth their time. This begs the question of whether the ACLU believes that the white man, because he's white, can't be discriminated against based on the color of his skin. If so, then the ACLU has a racist stance. One, unfortunately, shared by many.

The NAACP - Again, the idea and original ideals of the NAACP was excellent and desperately needed at the time. And they still do some really good work such as the fight to save Troy Davis from execution as the evidence that convicted him falls apart. However, the NAACP is also prone to cry racism where it doesn't actually exist. They tend to assume racism based on the color of the person's skin. Here is a clip from an NAACP blog - "But we must go beyond the civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution and advocate for the human rights that will assure that America’s promise is realized for all. While our Constitution mandates equality, for example, there is no constitutional guarantee for an education, let alone a good education. The fight for good schools is a struggle for our human rights." I'm not sure where they're going with this one. I know that the state of the schools in poor, and especially inner city areas is deplorable. But it affects every student, of every race and ethnic background that attends those schools. Is that really a "black" issue? And are they saying that the black students attending good schools in affluent areas don't have the same educational opportunities at the other kids in those schools? Before you start screaming at me I'll ask you to please read the whole blog because I will explain how this pertains.

Awards Shows - Included in these are the NAACP Image awards, The Ebony awards and the Miss Black America pageant. These awards shows promote a separation between the races. Any person eligible in these contests and awards are also eligible in their non-race based counterpart. As long as we have awards and contests limited to people of a specific race or ethnic background the differences between the races are at the forefront. The same goes for the television channels dedicated to specific races.

African American Colleges - This is segregation. Period. I understand that students of other races can attend, but identifying a college as "traditionally black" is a segregationalist stance. How, for example, would the ACLU and the NAACP react if Harvard listed itself as "traditionally white"? It wouldn't look pretty.

Hyphenation - This is one of the worst possible things for race relations. An insistence that somebody describes you as a hyphenated American again only results in a focus of our differences. We are not African-American, Latin-American, Asian-American, Indian-American or European-American. We are American. I understand that there was an objection to being referred to as "black" but the problem is that the African-American description does not work for all black people. Not all are American so how can they be African-AMERICAN then? They can't. Making people focus on how to describe you, and therefore fear offending you, makes them treat you differently based on your race. As long as it's not a racial slur, should it really matter how our basic physical appearance is described?

Hyper-sensitivity - We appear to have become a people seeking offense where none is intended. We project discrimination where it doesn't exist and appear to actively seek it. It appears we can no longer be disliked by somebody based on our personality or our behavior. Instead it must be attributed to our race, gender or sexual orientation. This is an effort to avoid personal responsibility. It's so easy for me to say "It's not that I'm a big old bitch and all around asshole, they just don't like me because I'm a woman and I'm white." This lifts all personal responsibility from my shoulders for my own bad behavior. We have to stop looking for trouble.

Do I believe that racism no longer exists in this country. I absolutely do not. I know there are still many cases of it. My point in writing this (I know it took me forever to get to it) is that rushing to claim racism where it doesn't exist, diminishes the importance of the cases where it really does. After listening to claims from Reverend Wright that the AIDS virus was created by the government to wipe out the black community, is it any wonder that people roll their eyes a bit when racism or discrimination is claimed. How can we ever focus on the real issue and the real problem when the manufactured issue gets way more press?

Racism is a horrible and disgusting issue and we must all work together to eliminate it forever. In order to do this we must stop focusing on how we are different and focus instead on how we are alike. We must stop making decisions about issues based on race. We must stop assuming that if a member of one race attacks a member of another that race was the issue. Could it be, yes. Should we assume it is without any supporting evidence other than the race of the attacker vs the race of the attacked, no. The case that comes to mind for me on this one is the Duke Rape case. There were blogs and cries against "elitism and white skin privilege" because the accuser was black and the accused were white. It was generally accepted and expounded by some that those white boys thought they had a right to rape her because she was black. And let's not forget that the accused ended up being the victims in this case. So was that a case of racism as well? Did she accuse them because they were white? I don't think so.

We have varying degrees of real racism in this country and that's where we need to focus. On everything from the tragic and appalling murder of James Byrd, Jr by members of a white supremacist organization, down to my friend, Tony, who is pulled over by the police for "routine checks" at a severely disproportionate rate simply because he is a black man in a $40,000 car. So I guess in all of my rambling, what I am really trying to say is that when it comes to racism we've been crying wolf. The cry is given when no wolf is there which has resulted in us ignoring the wolf that is here lurking. How can we ever solve the real issues when we are constantly distracted by those that are invented?

Is Health Care More Important Than Education?

2009-06-25T13:27:00.001-07:00

I don't think so. I believe that the education of our youth is absolutely critical to the continued success of our nation. If our children are not educated, and educated well, we lose our ability to compete in the world. We rely on immigrants to do the research, design and engineering for our nation. How can we possibly succeed if we aren't teaching our children?

And yet what are we focusing on? Universal Health Care and taxation on our energy usage. Oh yes, by the way, they're sneaking that cap and trade thing in on a vote tomorrow so you might want to contact your congressmen about it.

They tell us that 47 million Americans don't have health care coverage. But 34 million ADULTS in America can't read. That 47 million uninsured included children, but the 34 million illiterate is just our adults. And what's a bigger emergency to our government? If somebody cannot read how are they ever going to reach any level of self-sufficiency? Maybe if they could read they'd have a job that offered them health insurance. Ever think of that Obama?

For their science scores, our youth are currently ranked 17th out of only 30 countries tested. We're in the BOTTOM 50%. In math it's even worse. We're 24th out of 30. That means we're in the BOTTOM 20%. How ugly is that. We are flat out not giving our children the tools they need in order to be competitive in the world. And what are we doing about it? Not a dad gum thing! The dumbing down of our youth is a far bigger emergency that health care but it's not even on the radar. What has the Obama administration done about education so far? They cancelled the voucher programs in DC. A program that sent kids to a school that was actually teaching them something.

So what is wrong with our educational system? Here are some of my theories. We're focused more on the teachers than the students. We teach our kids what to think instead of how to think. We throw money at it without ever analyzing the problem and identifying the causes. We spend more time and effort on the disabled than the gifted. (Now before you start screaming at me, I'm not saying we shouldn't put time and effort into the disabled, just that we should put as much if not more into the gifted). Bad teachers can't be fired because of tenure. There is no "pay per performance" in the teacher's union. We can't get rid of the disruptive and downright dangerous students in our schools. We write our curriculum for the lowest common denominator instead of trying to bring those kids up to a high standard. And finally, too many parents aren't involved in their child's education.

But what are we doing to fix this issue and ensure that our children can compete with the rest of the world? Nada, zip, zero. In all of the social programs we have out there to help the poor, giving them the education they need so that they WON'T be poor isn't even on the radar.

Obama talks a lot about how much health care is costing us and why it's yet another emergency, but how about what a bad educational system is costing us. How much more would we be collecting in taxes if our children were so well educated that we led the world in engineering, inventions, economics, etc?

We are currently not only saddling our children with a mountain of debt, we're denying them the education they'll need to actually make enough money to cover it.

If we continue with this trend, I wouldn't be at all surprised to have our current youth attempt to slap the wrinkles off our faces as they reach middle age.

Irrational Debate

2009-06-24T11:00:00.000-07:00

I'm fairly Conservative, if you hadn't already guessed, and in an attempt to find out what the other sides's views are on issues, I logged in to a Facebook forum for Democrats. I was hoping I could engage in some reasoned debates, have some discussions and learn a few things about how the liberals view issues. That is not at all what happened. To be completely honest, after 2 hours in that board I felt the need to shower with steel wool in order to get myself clean.

There was no reasoned debate. Not even the opportunity for it. I was immediately attacked in some of the most vial ways. Profanity was interspersed on every thread, and anything I did say was twisted until it had no resemblance at all to what I actually said. There were 2 men (I won't give them courtesy of calling them gentlemen) on the board who were the most guilty, and unfortunately covered the board with their hatred.

If you think I am exaggerating, when I realized that I had to leave the board for the good of my soul, this is what I said, I admit I wasn't very nice at this point either. "Honestly, I probably won't come back any more so you can admire yourselves for that. But the reason is because I feel dirty after being in this board. I feel like I am seeing the lowest level of society in the form of a few posters and I'm disgusted and sickened by the behavior here. You have served no purpose except to prove me right in my belief that Liberals are irrational, angry, hate filled bullies who's only plan to win an argument is to be the one shouting the loudest. Way to represent your party."

The response I received from Alex Mitchell on that board is the perfect illustration of why I feel dirty. Alex replied with "yea go back to your party, the party of love.....go back to where the pictures of Obama in a nuise, as Mao, or stalin.....go back to your racist party, you fit in well." No matter what I said, Alex Mitchell called me a racist. Or a moron. Or a MFing idiot.

Jacob Shiflett was nearly as bad. Although his accusations that I'm a racist were relatively rare, his nearly every response was that I was a troll. He would respond with a single word post that would simply say Troll. No matter the discussion, that was his response. He dominated the message boards with his flat out refusal to listen to a differing opinion. I'm sure he now prides himself on driving me off of what he consistently referred to as "his board".

Again, if you don't believe me or think I'm exaggerating, then I encourage read the board for yourself, but prepare to douse yourself with bleach afterwards. http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=9874&post=41857&uid=2204332151#/board.php?uid=2204332151

In order for the country to be the best that it can be we need the good ideas of each side. Ideas made great by the addition of another perspective. And yet the nation has become so divided that a Democrat and a Republican, or more likely a Liberal and a Conservative, cannot have a discussion on politics without it degenerating into a name calling shouting match. I have friends that are Democrats and we do manage to see each others side of an issue. We may not agree, but we can still acknowledge the other person's side. So why can't we do that as strangers? The flat refusal to acknowledge anything the other side comes up with as worthy of consideration is doing the entire country a disservice. We NEED both sides.

I'm beginning to believe that we will see peace in the middle east before we see reasoned political debate in the US.

Congress Could Benefit From Some Risk Management Classes

2009-06-24T08:54:00.000-07:00

I was watching the news (I don't know why I do that) and the Universal Health Care issue was raised. People from both sides presented and it was stressed that employees happy with their current coverage could keep it. The reporter asked what would keep a company from deciding not to offer benefits to their employees anymore, as there would be another option for them, and thereby eliminating the coverage that the person liked. A reasonable question as far as I was concerned and one that would need to be addressed. What was the response? That's a Republican talking point and not our intent.

Not our intent. How many times do we hear that from Congress. That is just a talking point from the other side and not the intent of our legislation. They even sometimes get hostile over the suggestion that their legislation could have unintended consequences. But risk management is a necessity for the design of any product. And that's what Congress is doing. Designing a product. And yet they do no risk management at all. They make no effort to determine how their legislation could go wrong, how often it would happen, and the impact if it did happen. These are necessary pieces of information to have so that you know what loopholes need to be closed and can figure out how to close them. This is a basic FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) a great tool for risk identification and mitigation. So why won't Congress use it?

Instead of using a simple tool to identify risks, they write legislation that is so long and convoluted that they can't even take the time to read it before voting on it. The stimulus bill for example. An important piece of legislation according to them. Had to be passed quickly. But they paid more attention to doing it fast than doing it right. So what has happened? The money is being misused because they didn't try to figure out how that might happen and how to stop it. And a lot of the money isn't being spent. It had to be passed so quickly so the money could get into the economy but that hasn't happened. That bill was 1,200 pages long. One giant opportunity for unmitigated risk.

To give you some perspective on the absurdity of the length of that bill, and it's just an example of many like it, I have a copy of the Constitution that is pamphlet sized. Pretty small cover and pretty small pages. And yet, that little book is still only 48 pages long. That is our Constitution and all of it's amendments. That's 48 pages to set the rules of our government, but it took 1,200 pages to spend money. And spend it badly.

Is it really so much to ask that our legislatures make an attempt to identify gaps in their legislation before they pass it? Oh, but I guess they'd have to actually read it in order to be able to do that.

If We're Already Paying For The Uninsured Then Where's The Crisis?

2009-06-23T07:20:00.000-07:00

The new plan for covering the cost of health care for the uninsured is to tax our employer paid benefits. Unless, that is, you work for a union. So even though our insurance premium rates are rising at a higher level than our salaries, we should pay more to cover those uninsured people. But the Congressional justification for this is that we're already paying for the uninsured in the high prices of care and, therefore, the high cost of our premiums.

So here's my question; if we're already paying for the uninsured why is this a crisis? Why do we have to pass something immediately if the American people are already paying the health care costs of those uninsured? If those 47 million uninsured, which includes illegal aliens, people who are offered insurance but decline it, and those uninsured for a matter of days through the year, are already getting their costs covered then what's the big deal?

Congress is now trying to tell us it will be a wash. OK. So as soon as they start taxing my employer paid benefits then my premiums will go down, right? Don't think so. It will take years for the premium amounts to change to reflect a lowering in health care costs, if it ever happens at all. Which I doubt. What will actually happen is that the health insurance premiums will continue to rise for years, but we'll just be paying taxes on those higher rates as well. Many of us have already forgone raises or taken pay cuts in order to keep our jobs and the jobs of others within our companies, but now our take home pay will decrease again due to yet another tax.

And what happened to the promise that 95% of the population would not have a tax increase under this administration? This will definitely be a tax increase on people of all levels of pay as long as they are responsible enough to take the coverage offered by their employer. And what will the new tax rate on our coverage be? Too dang high is my guess.

So maybe we just all just opt out of our employer offered coverage so we not only don't get a tax increase, but we get more take home pay and somebody else to pay for our health care. Sounds like a plan to me.

But When A Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations ...

2009-06-22T08:57:00.001-07:00

...Evince a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provider new guards to their future security. Isn't this all that the Iranians are trying to do?

That statement from the Declaration of Independence reflects the belief that led our own revolution. Something we hold to be unquestionably true. And yet, is our government supporting the Iranian people as they try to do the same? The people are, the government appears to be doing a pretty piss poor job of it.

Obama doesn't want to "meddle". What a fabulous foreign policy. We'll meddle in the affairs of our allies (Israel anyone?) but not meddle in the affairs of those we really need to influence. I'm not calling for a military overthrow of Iran's government. Far from that. But I would have really liked for us to lead the outcry against the violence perpetrated against the protesters. Instead, we came in at least fourth on that cry. Not much of a world leader are we?

I'm sure you've heard about Neda by now. The woman who was killed during the protest. Killed because she dared to voice a dissenting opinion. Killed by her government for her disagreement. There is a video of Neda being killed but I do not include that. Instead, I have included a video of a tribute to her. Although people are being killed, Neda being the face of it, Obama is still pretty timid in his condemnation. He started out saying, you should be nicer to your protesters. He advanced to saying, you probably shouldn't kill them like that. And he has finally reached the point of saying, you really need to stop it. Wow. Such strong words. Way to go Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMJ48Oe3nRw

But after a long train of abuses and usurpations, the Iranian people are trying to exercise their right to throw off the government, and I hope they get what the want and what they need. They are certainly paying a price for it. I saw an expert on the news today, I didn't catch his name but I did notice he was good looking, and he said that the protest, which started with the youth, is bringing the elders from their homes. These elders are now acting as human shields to protect the protesting youth from the violence. He also said that he expects an economic protest that may effectively shut the country down. If the people, and especially the unions, stop working in protest there will be no choice but to listen. As the gentleman put it, you can't fire bullets at an empty economy.

The stance taken against the protest is standard operating procedure for any tyrannical government. And yet, their attempts to violently suppress a peaceful protest does not make the protest go away. It does not frighten the people more than it motivates them. To display the very behavior that the protesters are out there to change, is not going to work.

I will be praying for the people of Iran. Their safety and realization of the dreams of Democracy. May God be with them all.

What Do Liberal Economics and Diet Pills Have In Common?

2009-06-21T02:42:00.000-07:00

What do Liberal economic policies and miracle diet pills have in common? They both promise the world and deliver nothing.

The similarities between the 2 products is amazing. Each promise you success with little to no effort on your part. Just take advantage of their offer, then sit back and wait for the results. And keep waiting. The poor have been waiting for the results of the product they repeatedly purchase for over 50 years, and still nothing. And yet the American people keep buying that product.

Millions of dollars are spent each year on the dream of achieving weight loss without effort. It is a major industry within the US, and it is a scam. Yet many hopeful people keep trying the new pills, praying that the rip off they experienced last time won't happen again. Just the idea that I could lose weight without exercise or dieting as made me fall for a scam or 2. But the bottom line is that they don't work. We have these pills and these promises even though the formula for losing weight is really quite simple. Eat less and move more. There are some who are disabled for whom the "moving more" is problematic, but even then it could be done. If they choose to do it. My big problem is that knowing what I need to do and actually WANTING to do it are two entirely different things. But I really have only 2 choices. I can stay fat, or I can exercise. Period. My choice changes periodically, but I know those are the only 2 choices I really have.

The same can be said for those in poverty. It's not that they CAN'T succeed, but that they're waiting for that miracle pill. Buying in to the recurring and empty promises of the government that the poor can be made wealthy with no effort on their part. Just take advantage of our offer and we'll make sure you're set for life. The difference here is that the American people keep buying the same product that has been proven to not work instead of, as with the diet pills, trying new products promising the same thing. The message of the liberal economic policy has not changed. It still promises results without effort. A promise that cannot possibly be kept. There are only 2 choices when it comes to your personal economics. You either stay poor, or you work hard and advance. That's it. There are no results without effort. There are those who can make millions with a small effort, but an effort is still being made. If you sit back and wait for the results of that particular product, the only thing that will happen is that the poor will stay poor.

Advertising for the 2 products is becoming laughably similar as well. Infomercials have been a tried and true method of selling bogus diet pills for years. A method that the current administration has decided to emulate. During the campaign, Obama held an infomercial to sell his product, and it worked. He has continued that into his administration. Although now he is using news organizations as free advertising instead of paying for his product advertisement like everybody else. And the people fall for the scam.

So what is different about the two products? With all of the similarities they have, there is only one glaring difference. If you fall for the miracle diet pill and purchase that product you are wasting only your own money. If you fall for the miracle wealth pill you are wasting other people's money, and more importantly, your entire life.

There is no miracle cure for poverty just as there is no miracle cure for obesity. Both require effort on the part of the individual to be overcome. Both require hard work and anybody promising you anything else is attempting to scam you for their own financial benefit. Have no illusions about that. The makers of the diet pill just want your money, but the makers of the liberal financial policy want your vote so they can take everybody's money and ensure their own power.

Don't fall for the liberal economic scam.

Whatever Happened to the Little Engine That Could

2009-06-20T06:58:00.000-07:00

We all know the story of the Little Engine That Could. I think I can, I think I can, I think I can. I knew I could, I knew I could, I knew I could. There's also the story of the 2 frogs in the hole trying to jump out with other frogs shouting down at them. One frog heard them all shouting that he couldn't do it, but the other frog was deaf and thought they were encouraging him. And which frog made it out of the hole? The one being encouraged of course.

Do we encourage people and tell them they can succeed? Do we tell them to believe they can, and to be that little engine? Nope. Our government and our society have become those frogs around the hole telling others they can't do it. Very unproductive. By telling our citizens they need the government we are telling them that they can't, not that they can. All I really want is a movement from somebody in power, anybody in power, to start encouraging our citizenry.

Why do abused women stay with their abusers? Because they have been convinced that they deserve it and they can't do anything or be anything on their own. Our leadership has begun to take on the role of an abusive husband. But we need to break free. But even though our leadership seems determined to keep us in the hole and keep us from trying, we are still free to encourage each other. And we should do so.

I saw both sides of this issue as I was growing up. I had one grandfather who thought I was worthless because I was a girl and because I was my mother's daughter. According to him I could never do anything, and he even went so far as to ask me in my adulthood when one of my cousins and I were going to make something of ourselves. We were both in management positions making a good living, self-sufficient, happy, and the only 2 in our generation that were still unmarried. The implication being of course that the only way to make something of ourselves was to marry. On the other side of the coin was my other Grandfather who never told me I couldn't do something. He never even hesitated. His belief in me encouraged my belief in myself. If he thought I could do it then I could. I'm sure there were some things my mother would have preferred I not do, like sitting at the peak of the roof on the house my grandparents were building and snapping a chalk line. Especially since the other side of the roof was still bare beams. But Grandpa thought I could do it, and by God I did. It's amazing the levels we can achieve when we know we must, so why can't we achieve those levels just when we know we can? This, I believe, is that too many people are taught that they can't.

I have a nephew who is just 5 years old. His mother is disabled and unable to work so they don't have much money. He is in the environment where so many turn to crime as they grow up because they believe they have no other option. But that little boy has decided he wants to be a chef. He watches all of the cooking shows and follows their instructions. And what does his mother do? She cooks with him. She encourages him to believe that he can be a chef when he grows up. At the same time she's trying to get out of the area she's in and to a better environment for her child. She's planning to move where she has more family, more support for both herself and her child. People who will also encourage him to believe that whatever he wants to do, he can.

Our government is so obsessed with controlling our behavior, through taxation and legislation, but the one behavior they don't concern themselves with is our beliefs in our own abilities. It is in their best interest to have us believe we can't succeed without them. Just listen to what they say. All of these government programs that are handouts. Every time they talk about economic unfairness, John Edwards infamous 2 Americas, all that said was that you can't do it on your own. the message is simple "You can't".

When will a leader emerge who truly believes in the American spirit which I fear will be lost? When will a leader emerge who will encourage the people to be the very best that they can be? When will a leader emerge who changes the message from - you know you can't - to - I know you can? I only pray he comes soon.

Redistribution of Wealth - A New Government Subsidy?

2009-06-19T10:55:00.000-07:00

We hear a lot about redistribution of wealth, but what does it really mean? Is it anything more than a new government subsidy? I don't think so. I believe a subsidy is exactly what it is, but for all of the wrong reasons. The government seems to believe that there is a finite amount of money to be made (even though they keep printing more willy nilly) and that if Tom is making tons then Dick and Harry can't make any. They couldn't be more wrong. Big surprise there. There is infinite opportunity for wealth. Even though Tom is making tons of money, Dick and Harry can make even more. Even Jane, Sally and Mary can make money while Tom is.

Wherever we are in life, whether rich, poor or firmly middle class, it is where we have chosen to be. It may not be a conscious choice. We may not have desired that choice. We may not have known we were making that choice, but make it we did. The circumstances we were born into plays a part, but mostly we are where we are because of the decisions we've made. Our choices. Our choices led us to our current situation and, therefore, we've chosen where we are. Some people have made great decisions, others have made bad ones. Some choose to work hard with a goal in mind, some choose to do enough to get by. Some choose to not work at all. Some choose a job they love that doesn't make much money, others choose the money, while some choose Nintendo and a couch. Some choose to save and invest, some choose to live off their credit cards. And some make a combination of all of the above decisions plus more.

So what does the redistribution of wealth really mean? It means that we're subsidizing the bad decisions of some with the proceeds of the good decisions of others. And this is referred to as "fairness". And yet, if people are prone to making bad decisions, if they are given the money earned by another, won't they make the same bad decisions?

I believe that people should have the same opportunities. Education is a big thing for me. I find it appalling that we have to have police officers in our schools, but it's the decisions of the students that lead to that need. Unfortunately, in this situation those decisions impact so many others as well. But if a child chooses to get a good education, even in the worst circumstances, they can. It's a choice they have to make. Having said that, it is what we do with our opportunities that determine where we will go. Shouldn't we be equally distributing opportunity and not the proceeds of opportunities utilized to their best advantage by others?

By redistributing the results of the work of another, where is the encouragement of others to exceed that? Why aren't we telling people, "You don't need HIS money, you can make more on your own." If we really want to "spread the wealth" why aren't we teaching our poor youth how to become entrepreneurs? We seem to be telling them they'll never succeed so they must be supported instead of encouraging them to be the rich of the next generation. We have gone from teaching that with hard work and perseverance anything is possible, to teaching that you'll never make it so there's no point in trying.

The core of the redistribution of wealth is that you can't succeed on your own so the government must subsidize you. How sad is that. This is truly what keeps the poor in poverty. Where is the message of hope. The worst possible thing that we can do to the poor is to tell them they need the government to save them. A crime that the Democrats have been committing on our poor for decades. Instead of being given a handout, they should be encouraged and informed that they can do a far better job of improving their lives than the government could ever do for them. Yet where is this message? Who is saying it? Nobody as far as I can tell. And somebody definitely should. There will always be the rich and the poor because some will still make bad decisions. Some will make horrible mistakes. But why should those decisions and mistakes be subsidized? Oh, I know, the poor are too big to fail.

A Universal Belief in Free Speech?

2009-06-18T10:14:00.000-07:00

I've been out of the country for a few weeks so am late in posting my response to President Obama stating that there is a Universal Belief in free speech as he responded to the protests in Iran over their elections.

Free speech may be a truth we hold to be self-evident, but it is not a universal belief. It is what separates us from so many other countries. Iran doesn't believe in the freedom of the people. Pretty much everybody except Obama is aware of this. Iran will deal with these protests very differently than we would, mainly because they don't believe in freedom of speech or the right of the people to protests. This is, I'm convinced, exactly why they are now forbidding foreign press from covering the protests.

The freedom of the people to worship as they choose, speak out against their government, and peaceably assemble in protest is a right of people in a free nation where the government is run by the people. It is not a right in a Theocracy and it is not a right in a Dictatorship. Just ask anybody speaking out against Hugo Chavez what kind of rights of free speech they have.

Stating the freedom of speech and the ability to protest is a universal belief was naive at best and downright stupid at worst. Does Obama really believe that? Does he really believe that all countries agree that the people have a right to speak out? Did he believe that Saddam Hussein felt that way? If so, I guess it would explain why he thinks we're so arrogant for trying to intervene. We do believe that everybody has the right to speak, but not everybody is allowed that right. Some are imprisoned. Some are executed. Some are bankrupted. The whole tragedy of so many countries is that it is not a universal belief.

With legislation regarding hate speech, and the increasing prominence of political correctness, we don't even have the full rights of free speech here anymore. And who is a great component of limiting what we can say and to whom? Obama. Not offending somebody has become more important than our right to say what we like. It's kind of strange because though our Constitution does say we have the right to free speech, it does not say anywhere that I can find that we have a right to not be offended. If what I say offends you, well then, you have the right to say something that offends me but you do not have the right to silence me because you are offended. And you may have the right to speak, but you do not have a right to be heard. Basically, nobody has to listen. And Congress and the White House prove that quite well by not listening to a word we say. So how then, can Obama say that the right of the people to speak is a Universal Belief? Is it because he sees the world as he thinks it should be instead of how it actually is? Possibly.

And I won't even get started on how Achmadinijad was polling behind and ended up winning 2 to 1.

Congress To Legislate TP Usage

2009-06-02T16:26:00.000-07:00

In the new green environment of Congress and the Obama Administration, legislation is being passed to control how we use products that impact the planet. When the Cap and Trade was proposed, Republican Roy Blunt said, "Taxes on air my ass!" This gave the Democratic leadership in congress what they believe is a brilliant idea.

"Americans use too much toilet paper," said Harry Reid. "They don't consider how these big wads of paper clog up our sewer systems and put strain on our water treatment systems. They also don't consider how many trees have to be cut down in order to wipe their asses. This selfish lack of consideration for our environment is partially responsible for the global warming / climate change crisis."

New regulations are being put on the toilet paper industry so that 2 ply toilet paper will be banned, and biodegradability will be more important than softness. It has also been proposed to put a per sheet tax on the toilet paper to ensure that Americans are not using more than they need. Questions arose on how to manage this in public restrooms and the suggestion was made to install automatic, coin operated dispensers. These will not be installed in the Capital building or in any other restroom utilized by Government officials and their staff. However, Lindsey Graham (R) offered an alternative stating that we use the numerous copies of the stimulus package as a toilet paper alternative. He said, "all that bill was good for was wiping our asses anyway."

The toilet paper industry is just the first in many publicly owned companies that the Congress will now attempt to design products for. They have decided that they can't get us to buy what they want us to so they will ensure that any undesirable products are no longer created. Enjoy that 2 ply soft toilet paper while you can. If Congress didn't chap your ass before, the certainly will soon.

Sotomayor - Good Story - Bad Judge

2009-05-26T07:04:00.000-07:00

Sonia Sotomayor is being officially announced as the Obama appointee for the supreme court. Ms Sotomayor is the example of the American dream. Starting out poor with a father who didn't go to high school and then died young, she was raised by her mother with little money. She worked hard and changed her circumstances in life through that hard work. She worked her way up through the legal hierarchy to become a judge on the court of appeals. I respect her for that, but her appointment as a Judge should not be based on her personal stories but on her job performance.

Ms Sotomayor has what Obama wants and that is empathy. The one thing that our legal system is NOT supposed to have. Justice is blind. This means that the rule of law is applied without consideration of the ethnic, religious or financial background of the parties involved. Look at the rule of law not the individuals involved. But Obama wants the blindfold removed from justice, and Ms Sotomayor has a history of stripping that blindfold and making decisions based on the background of the people.

The most glaring example of this "empathy" is in the New Haven fire department case. The fire department told the firemen that promotions would be given based on the results of a test. However, they turned around and changed the guidelines when the test results didn't show them what they wanted. Unfortunately, the people who did the best on the test were white men and a Hispanic man. The New Haven fire dept decided they couldn't promote those people because of the color of their skin. An obvious and glaring example of racism and discrimination. When the firemen sued, Ms Sotomayor threw the case out with no explanation as to why. No legal standing for the dismissal. No constitutional basis for the dismissal. Based on other things she has said, it becomes apparent that she dismissed it because it was a bunch of white men bringing the case.

This same case is now going to the Supreme Court. How awful for the men suing to then have to present the case again to the same person who summarily dismissed it.

If she were to give her opinions based on the law with equal protection for all, I'd be all for her. But that's not what she'll do. She will do in the future what she has done in the past, and that is to favor some demographic groups over others in spite of the law. Not a good place to be.

Society Vs Government

2009-05-23T10:27:00.000-07:00

In Common Sense, Thomas Paine lists out the difference between society and government. These are two very, very different things, and yet instead of our society dictating our government, we have switched to our government dictating our society.

Paine said "SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher."

He also said, "Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."

What Paine is really saying here is that if we behaved the way we should, the best we could be as a society, that we would not need government at all. This is the antithesis of what our government keeps telling us. Our government tells us, you don't need to take care of your neighbor, we'll do that for you. You don't need to worry about your mistakes, we'll take care of those for you. You don't need concern yourself with others, we'll take care of them for you. In essence, they are encouraging us to be our worst so that we need them more. If we stopped allowing government to usurp our best behaviors as a society, we would be much better off. This is not something government wants. By taking over the role of society, they ensure their own existence, and that's all they want to do. Government's first concern is the continuation of it's own power.

What would it be like to have a leader who inspired us to be better as individuals so we needed government less? What would it be like to have a leader who didn't focus us on our worst qualities but inspired us to show only our best? What would it be like to have a leader who didn't apologize for our past but embraced the accountability we used to have as a society? Does a leader like that even exist?

We are a great country and a great people. We pull together in tragedies and are among the most generous people in the world. We have incredible qualities that have become dormant and now only show in a crisis. Why is this? Because government has taken the need for our everyday expression of these qualities from us to increase their own power. Take it back from them. We long to be inspired. So where is the person to do it? I pray he or she appears soon.

Let's Focus On The Past - About 230 Years In The Past

2009-05-22T07:59:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot of talk about letting go of the past and focusing on the future. I disagree with this. We need to look back. All the way back to our origins. We have already moved too far away from who and what we were supposed to be, and when leaders tell us not to focus on the past, they're telling us they don't want us to pay attention to how much further from our original purpose we're moving.

Obama doesn't want us to look back because he doesn't want us to really know these "principles and values on which we were founded" that he keeps quoting. This is due to the fact that he is violating almost every one of our true principles. Thomas Jefferson said to educate the people on their past, so that's what I am going to do today.

We talk a lot about common sense. That it's just common sense that a 50% tax rate is absurd. It's just common sense that government telling us what to do is bad. Well let's look at Common Sense, the pamphlet written by Thomas Paine and distributed in January of 1776. The Common Sense that rallied the colonists to revolution. The Common Sense that was the precursor to our Declaration of Independence. If' you've never read Common Sense, I highly recommend it.

Thomas Paine's pamphlet was incredibly powerful, and a past we should definitely focus on. All I will post today is part of the introduction, but that alone is a strong condemnation on where the colonies were at the time, and where the new nation has gone again.

"PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.

As a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of calling the right of it in question, (and in matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry,) and as the king of England hath undertaken in his own right, to support the parliament in what he calls theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpations of either."

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right. How very true that statement is. We have accepted the growth and increasing power of our government as not being wrong, and as a result, current leadership is pushing the appearance that it is right. It is not right.

We have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of our government and to equally reject the usurpations of either. I don't think there's any question that our leaders have become pretentious, and that they are usurping our rights. But are we exercising our privilege of inquiry? Are we holding our leaders accountable for the usurpations of our liberty and independence? Or are we accepting the superficial appearance of it's rightness. That's a question that only you yourself can answer.

Look back. Focus on our nation's past. Know where we started and he principles on which we were built. Educate yourself and others. And most importantly, take a long hard look at where we are and compare that to where we were supposed to be.

Obama Says - It's All Bush's Fault

2009-05-21T07:48:00.000-07:00

During the Obama press conference, which I'm still watching while I type, Obama states that he has no plan to close Guantanamo, but it's all Bush's fault. He says he doesn't want to constantly relive the last 8 years, but it's all Bush's fault.

The denial of the funds for closing Guantanamo was not because people don't want to see it closed, but because they're silly enough to actually want a plan of how that's going to happen. So what does Obama do, he holds a press conference. How many has he held now? Isn't he averaging one press conference every 1.36 days in office?

The president holds up the constitution as the shining light for doing what he's doing, but on the other hand he's singlemindedly deconstructing the principles on which it was written. He's pushing an agenda that quadruples our deficit and expands the role of government in our day to day lives, and does it all with the justification that it's all Bush's fault. When will he start taking responsibility for his own situation? Ever? I doubt it. He'll continue to say that it's all Bush's fault. If it rains on your wedding day, it's all Bush's fault. If we are attacked again, it will be all Bush's fault. If you lose your job, it's all Bush's fault. Oil prices are rising again, and I'm guessing that's all Bush's fault.

And he says we must uphold the rule of law. Except of course for those pesky bakruptcy laws that interfere with his plans. He says we can't say the ends justify the means in national security, yet he himself was accused by strong armed debt holders for Chrysler as being the most frighteningly ends justify the means person they had ever encountered. The inconsistency between what he says, and what he does is glaring and frightening to anybody who pays attention. Unfortunately most of the press does not pay attention.

Even if it is Bush's fault, it is in very bad taste to constantly say so. That would be like Bush constantly saying that 9/11 and what followed was all Clinton's fault. There was logic and justification for saying that. The argument could have been made. The argument was made by many political pundits, but not by George W Bush.

For somebody who constantly says that he doesn't want to look back, he spends an awful lot of time looking back and blaming somebody else. It may be Bush's fault that we have Gitmo, but it is not Bush's fault that Obama doesn't have a plan for what to do with it now. So when his funding is denied what does he do? He goes on the campaign trail again.

Watching this and the blame game that goes on, I'm reminded of a quote by George Orwell. "He who controls the present controls the past. And he who controls the past controls the future." Obama is saying he doesn't want to look back, doesn't want to be stuck in the past, but he's using the present to control the past in order to control our futures.

Another Government Agency - Oh Goodie

2009-05-20T15:56:00.001-07:00

There was talk today about the possibility of a new government agency as the result of the banking crisis and credit card issues. What would this agency do that no other agency is already responsible for? Who knows. Probably nothing.

Being told that we need yet another government bureaucracy made me wonder just how many we already have. I couldn't find an actual count, but I found a listing of the agencies here, http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/index.html. When I went through and counted them up, aside from blood shooting from my eyes, I found that we have 1,278 governmental agencies. These range from NASA to the office of the first lady. Then I started wondering how many people work for the federal government. More blood shot from my eyes. According to the Bureau of Labor And Statistics, the US government is the largest employer in the nation. Doesn't that give you a warm tingly feeling inside. The US government, not counting the postal service, employs 1.8 MILLION people. This is larger than the population of Philadelphia. And these are only the CIVILIAN employees. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the number is that big because of our fighting men and women because that's not the case. These are non-military personnel. If we add the postal service into the mix, then we exceed the entire population of Dallas. Reassuring isn't it.

So although we already have nearly 1,300 agencies and over 2 million employees, nobody can take on the additional burden of looking over credit cards. Hmmmm. How about we get some Industrial Engineers or Six Sigma specialists in there to see what it would take to get the existing staff to be able to take on these additional responsibilities. Unlike the private sector, the government just takes it's money so has not incentive to improve efficiency, and the bureaucracy just keeps getting bigger.

Is this the small federal government that our founding fathers envisioned? Somehow I just don't think so. And what is Obama's plan for creating jobs? Well, the federal government is hiring.

Looking at these numbers it's obvious that what this country really needs is one more government bureaucracy.

Change Obama's Name to Abami

2009-05-20T09:34:00.000-07:00

The nation that Barack Obama is trying to create, the nation that we were never supposed to be, is being called the Obama nation. It already sounds like what it really is, so why don't we just change his name and make it official. Let's change the Obamanation into the Abomination that it is. If we're going to cut through the crap and translate the rhetoric, why not do it right?

Wouldn't it be fun to start referring to him as President Barack Abomi. I think I will.

Is There Only One Way to Fight For Your Country

2009-05-19T08:59:00.000-07:00

During a pretty heated discussion on Fox and Friends this morning, Jesse Ventura told Brian Killmead that because Brian did not serve in the military he is not fighting for his country. Brian objected to that indicating that there are other ways to fight. This raised an interesting question for me. Is there only one way to fight for your country?

I in no way diminish the service of those in the Armed Forces. I respect, honor and appreciate the service they do to our country. We would not be a country without those men and women out there fighting for our freedom and our sovereignty. There is no doubt at all that these men and women are fighting for our country. The question is whether or not those of us who have not served, can still fight for our country and what we believe our country should be?

Different people have different talents and approach the fight in different ways. Is the person who pays attention to what's going on, writes their congressmen and speaks out, is that person not fighting for their country? Are people who organize grassroots campaigns to advance a cause they believe in not fighting for their country? Are the people who take to the streets with signs and passion to make themselves heard not fighting for their country? Are bloggers, such as myself and many others, who seek to inform and educate and persuade involvement in the political process not fighting for our country? I like to believe that we are.

Different people approach the fight on different planes. I know that as I sit safely behind my laptop computer in the comfort of my own home that my fight is not the same as the men and women in the military. It cannot compare to the sacrifices that those in the armed services make for our country. I could not be in the military and I know that. I do not have the qualities required to make those sacrifices. Mainly, I can' keep my mouth shut and I don't run unless I'm being chased by something that plans to eat me. I admire and thank God for those who do have the necessary qualities. But does this mean that I do not fight for my country?

I would really like to know the thoughts and opinions of others on this issue. What do we consider fighting for our country. If you consider yourself a fighter, please let me know what your fight is and how you approach it.

Fat People - Acceptable Descrimination

2009-05-18T10:10:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot of talk about the impact of the overweight people on our health care system and even on global warming. Don't you know fat people are to blame for everything? It has been said by some that the obese are putting undue stress on our health care system because of their "lifestyle choices". I say butt out of my lifestyle choices.

As a perpetually pudgy person, I object to these statements. They make is sound like being thin is an easy thing and obesity is just a matter of being lazy. Different body types deal with food and exercise differently and it's not always easy to be thin. For some people it's very difficult to be thin. It takes incredible sacrifice. So if you're thin, good for you, but don't assume it's that easy for everybody.

My mother was very thin when she was younger, but 3 kids in 3 years changed her metabolism and the weight kept piling on. Now in her 60's she's doing a real battle to get her weight under control. She's making progress but it's not coming easily. Her diet is very, very strict and includes foods that I don't want to eat. Not only that, but the weight loss is causing her to lose her hair as well. And she didn't have much to start with. She says that giving up fast food helped her the most but sometimes she just really craves a hamburger.

I've tried changing my eating habits and have not lost weight. I've tried exercising, something I despise, and have not lost weight. Even if I lose some, if my routine gets interrupted, I gain it right back. So according to critics, my lifestyle choice is to blame, and to satisfy them I need to choose a lifestyle I don't enjoy. By the way, I rarely go to the doctor and my biggest health care issue is insomnia, totally unrelated to my weight. So these general statements about the burden fat people put on our health care system is a stereotype and pretty offensive to some of us pudgeballs.

For many overweight people, the lifestyle choice they must make in order to lose weight is to make their whole life about their weight. Nearly every decision my mother makes now is based on her weight loss plan. I don't want my life to revolve around my calorie intake to usage ratio. If I want to read a book from cover to cover, I don't want to have to think about the exercise I'm not getting. If I go out to dinner with friends I don't want to have to analyze the menu to determine what's the safest vs the tastiest option. I don't want my every thought and my every action to center around the size of my body. Would I like to be thin? Of course I would. But just because I'd like to be doesn't mean that getting there is easy.

Losing weight is very, very difficult for many people and to say we are obese due to our "lifestyle choice" trivializes the battles many of us go through daily. And yet, even though our difficulties may be genetic and not something we can control, we are stigmatized, ridiculed and discriminated against. So what will they do with us if we go to nationalized health care? Will we be denied coverage if we don't get to an acceptable weight? Will our choice about what we eat and the activities we engage in be taken from us? I'm afraid that's where we're going.

Don't Let Your Faith Keep You From Reason

2009-05-17T18:04:00.001-07:00

Towards the end of President Obama's indoctrination speech at Notre Dame, he actually told the students not to let their faith cloud their judgement.

"But remember, too, that you can be a crossroads. Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It's the belief in things not seen. It's beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.
And this doubt should not push us away our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds."

So what Obama is really saying here is that doubting your faith is good and natural. And that if you don't have a reason for for stance on an issue other than your faith, that you have no reason for your stance at all. According to our president, any belief that you have which is founded in your faith is an illegitimate stance and you should be "open minded" to the opinions and stances of others. So basically, your a right wing nut job if you make your issue decisions based on your religious and moral beliefs. This is the speech at a Catholic college.

My other blog is about how the rest of this speech was all about him, but the one thing that needed it's own blog was how he more or less told the graduating students at a catholic college that their religious beliefs were irrational. Nice!

Be Judgemental

2009-05-16T09:30:00.001-07:00

Mitch Daniels, Indiana Governor, gave a commencement speech at Butler University in which he advised the students to be judgemental. While taking responsibility for the mistakes of his generation, he encouraged the next generation to undo the damage his own has done. Personal responsibility and accountability, and holding yourself and others to a standard of conduct. Wow! What a concept.

In calling for them to be judgemental he was not calling for them to be intolerant. Instead, he was calling for them to let others know that there are standards of behavior, and some behaviors are unacceptable. We have to stand up and speak out against racist or bigoted comments. We have to stand up against hateful tirades. We have to hold ourselves to a high standard and let those with low standards of behavior know that we disapprove. A civilized society has standards for acceptable conduct. Some of these standards are set with laws, but others by the disapproval of the masses.

Over the last 2 decades people have become more self-centered, ruder, and more hateful in their speech. I'm often frustrated in public but the rudeness of the masses and their total lack of consideration for others. Common courtesy is becoming increasingly UNcommon and we must be judgemental about that.

Part of the problem we've run into is that any criticism of some behaviors is seen as racist or bigoted speech itself. We allow ourselves to be silenced with their unfounded accusations. This must stop. If a behavior, such as excessive profanity in public, and especially in front of small children, is committed by a black man and we condemn it, we may be called a racist. If this happens, we have to push back and condemn that behavior as well. Assuming racism because of the color of the skin of the person whose BEHAVIOR is being criticized is not acceptable either.

Some of what we can do is to set an example ourselves as well as calling out others. Hold a door open for someone else. Be courteous in traffic. Say please, thank you and excuse me. And, for the love of God, control your children. Be aware of how your behavior impacts others, and the example it sets. Sit in judgement of yourself first, and then hold others accountable for their behaviors as well.

For coverage of Governor Daniels' speech see Peter Robinson's article in Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/14/obama-republican-party-baby-boomer-opinions-columnists-mitch-daniels.html

I Don't Need A Nanny

2009-05-15T14:40:00.000-07:00

The Declaration of Independence says that "history hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provider new guards for their future security." My question is, does becoming my unwanted Nanny count as an abuse and usurpation? Does is count as Despotism?

I've suffered about all I've suffered at this point, and the idea of bailing out other states really chaps my ass. Being middle aged and fully self-sufficient, and at the same time being treated by my government as if I were a drooling infant incapable of running my own life, looks like an abuse and a usurpation to me. I don't need a nanny and the Democratic Nanny party needs to back off, butt out and let me be an adult. They're not even a good nanny. One of the main things a nanny should teach is that there are consequences to your actions. Our nanny government is spending millions and billions of dollars paid by responsible citizens to protect irresponsible citizens from the consequences of their actions.

Thomas Jefferson said, "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Well, we didn't prevent that. Too many people thought they DID need a nanny. And our Nanny has gone on a major power trip expanding her power to cover every aspect of our lives. Sounds like a Despot to me. And if we start squalling? What happens then? Well the Nanny party offers us a pacifier in the form of a new entitlement program. Wasting the fruit of our labors yet again. And we buy it. But you know the problem with a pacifier don't you? No matter how hard you pull on it, no milk will come out. So while they offer us sustenance and satisfaction, what they give us is empty air.

So I urge you to spit out the pacifier, kick the nanny to the curb, and stop the abuse and the usurpation of our Constitutional rights. They claim to be taking care of us, but all they're doing is taking our money to take care of themselves. Decide whether or not these evils are still sufferable, and if they are, then ask yourself how much farther you'll let them go before you can suffer them no longer.

But Don't You Remember Bush Lied

2009-05-14T08:37:00.001-07:00

Nancy Pelosi in her briefing today, in her attempts to explain what she didn't know and why she didn't know it, kept reminding the press that it was Bush that lied. Her comments had common themes, and she repeatedly stated that Bush was misleading them and it was "her job" to change the leadership in congress and the white house which she did. The change in leadership, to her, seemed to be the end of the story. Why question HER when the leadership has now changed and it was all Bush's fault anyway.

So what she's really saying is that this was an excuse for partisanship and none of it is her fault. Again, no personal responsibility or accountability. On one hand she accuses the Republicans of misdirection, and on the other hand she engages in misdirection. A clever and effective practice of the Democrats. Accuse you're opposition of what you're doing yourself.

The press was actually doing their job and Nancy's demeanor started to crack. She was getting more and more pissed off that they would dare suggest that she was misleading or lying when she keeps making it clear that it was Bush who lied. I particularly loved her throwing in the WMD discussion. Misdirection yet again.

And she was briefed on the second briefing because she wasn't at the actual briefing. So why wasn't she there. If she was so concerned about it that she saw it as her job to change the leadership. Oh, and by the why, by the time they changed the leadership these tools were no longer being used. So that change was so critical at that point. Yeah right.

Watching that briefing, I was reminded of the politician from The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. Ooooooooh I love to dance a little sidestep.....

Soda Hits the Fizz

2009-05-13T08:30:00.000-07:00

Congress is studying a proposal to tax soda pop. What in the world is happening to us? They believe these sugary drinks are bad for us and should be discouraged. Sounds like behavior modification to me. Does anybody remember "Demolition Man"? There's a line from that movie that comes to mind. "Salt has been deemed bad for you, hence it is illegal." Sounded silly at the time didn't it?

What Congress is really saying is that if they're going to have to pay your medical bills then they're going to make it difficult for you to have anything unhealthy. When did taxation become a punishment or behavior modification tool? Aren't our taxes supposed to be used to support our defense and infrastructure? How did this progress to using taxes to control us? Well, they've been doing it for years.

It started with taxes on alcohol and tobacco but people thought this was OK. After all, people really shouldn't drink and smoke. Punishing those people with higher taxes is fine. But now it's creeping farther out. Taxes on soda will be just a start. And are they looking at what will happen to our soda companies? Will we then need bailouts for Coke and Pepsi because they're too big to fail?

This is one of the most glaring violations of our rights as individuals. When we decide that the government should pay for our health care (which means you're actually paying for it) then they think they have the right to control your behavior in the name of "controlling costs". This is a frightening development. What rights do we really have when the government is trying to control what we drink with our pizza? Oh, and pizza is probably the next thing on the list to tax.

Well If The Taliban Says So

2009-05-12T12:46:00.000-07:00

The Taliban made an announcement that US Troops had killed civilians and President Obama and Sec of State Hillary Clinton apologized to the Afghanistan President for the tragedy. An investigation, standard procedure in the loss of civilian life, shows that it was the Taliban themselves who killed civilians just so they could accuse the US. Most intelligent Americans would have told the President and Sec of State that this was a a likely possibility, but instead they took the word of the Taliban. What's up with that?

So what they're really saying is that they trust the word and the behavior of the Taliban, an organization known for it's lies and propaganda, over the honor and integrity of our military. But is this really surprising? Going back to the punish the innocent and protect the guilty mentality that I've mentioned before, this is just another example. The President doesn't want to offend the terrorists so he throws the troops under the bus. It is well known that the Taliban uses just these kinds of situations to recruit people and prove that America is really the evil one, but still we took their word. How hard would it have been for the President to say, "An investigation is underway and I am secure that the findings will show that the loss of civilian life was not due to the US air strikes. However, the loss of civilian life, no matter by who, is always a tragedy and you have our deepest sympathies." Not hard at all. But the President simply blamed the US and apologized. Yet another stop on the apology tour.

After giving terrorists that ammunition by all but admitting our culpability, he's going to release photos of interrogation methods. Way to go Prez. Why do I feel like my president has pushed me aside to embrace terrorists instead? Because I he has. Political correctness can be taken too far, and changing the war on terror to an overseas contingency operation, and taking the word of the Taliban over that of our troops, is going way too far.

Overspending Used To Justify Overspending

2009-05-11T10:28:00.000-07:00

President Obama held a press conference today (imagine that) to announce that the growing gap between the revenue and the spending shows just how necessary it is to get health care reform. Siting costs for entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, he stated that the amount of money that the government spends on these programs shows just why his Health Care Reform bill needs to be passed.

Working with Lobbyists to address health care costs, he will of course be able to close that gap. Yeah right. What he's really saying is that he needs to get the existing entitlement programs under control so that he can create new ones. What I find so funny is that on the one hand he is admitting just how much these entitlement programs cost the taxpayer, and on the other hand he's talking about creating so many more. He already knows we can't afford the government health care programs we have, but is using that to justify expanding it.

At no time will he admit that the gap between spending and revenue could mean that he shouldn't push his new programs through yet. Instead, that gap will be used to create yet another crisis that they can take advantage of. The overspending will be used to show that health care is a crisis that must be addressed now, with no time to read the proposal.

Of all of the justifications I've ever heard this has got to be the most bizarre.

Wanda Sykes Sums Up The Administration

2009-05-10T13:35:00.000-07:00

In the midst of her racially based jokes and tasteless jabs at Rush Limbaugh, at the White House Correspondence Dinner Wanda Sykes actually made a perfect analogy for the administration.

While attempting to poke fun at Dick Cheney for wanting to show the information we received through the enhanced interrogation techniques, Ms Sykes said that was like robbing a bank and saying "But look at the bills I paid." But isn't that exactly what the current administration is doing? Whenever they are questioned or criticized for the amount of money they are spending and the debt they are creating they respond with "but look at the great stuff we're doing." Very similar to justifying paying your bills with stolen money. The only difference is that instead of robbing a bank (they're taking those over instead) they're robbing the American people. And all to say "but look what I did with the money I stole from you."

The problem is that Ms Sykes, and too many others at the dinner, didn't see the reality in her joke. And what is happening is not funny. If the spending spree and the robbing of the American people continue, we may end up following Iceland's lead and be forced to declare the country bankrupt.

Obama Compares Himself to God

2009-05-10T11:51:00.000-07:00

At the White House Correspondence Dinner President Obama, while cracking jokes, compared himself to God. Unfortunately this is a comparison that, to him, isn't really a joke.

Patting himself on the back for what he accomplished in his first hundred days, he said he would do so much better in the next hundred that he would complete it in 72 days. And on the 73rd day he'd rest. Like God on the 7th day. So is Obama saying he is God? I think he believes that he is all powerful and all seeing. After all, he believes that he is the only one with the answer to the World's problems. Sounds like a God complex to me.

At a correspondence dinner packed with as many Hollywood celebrities as reporters, Obama thanked them all for voting for him, apologizing only to the Fox News table. So now we see why the President stated that we are not a Christian country. This is because he believes we worship him, or at least because he believes we should.

What I found the most entertaining though, was the joke that he would learn to go off the teleprompter. This was entertaining because he was reading the joke off of the teleprompter.

So what's next? Will he condemn so evil "hedge funds" who forced Chrysler into bankruptcy to wander the desert for the next 40 years?

Is Being Wanted What Makes Us Human?

2009-05-09T15:00:00.001-07:00

The right to abortion reared it's ugly head the other day and the age old argument that what a woman does with her own body was used. Also the argument that the decision should be between a woman and her doctor, not the government. People talk about it like it's an elective surgery to get rid of a tumor. Is that how they see a fetus? As a tumor growing inside the woman that she needs to get rid of?

I've heard it said that a fetus is not person, that it's just a mass of flesh until it is born. But then why, when a woman who wants the child is carrying , does she refers to it as a baby? And if she miscarries we say she lost the "baby". In that case it's not just a mass of flesh but it is a baby. Would you ever dare tell a woman who just miscarried that it was nothing but a mass of flesh anyway? Not if you value your life.

So why is a fetus referred to as a baby in some situations and as not yet a human in others? The only difference is whether or not the fetus, the baby, is wanted. This lends the question of whether or not what really makes us human is being wanted. And isn't that a dangerous place to go.

Can we use that same justification elsewhere? If a woman or a man no longer wants their child and they kill it we call it murder. Why is it different before the child is born? Because it's not yet human? I don't think so. Conception to birth is a stage of human development just like childhood, adolescents and adulthood. It would be very easy to prove me wrong on this. All it would take would be to present me with one person who was never a fetus. Never an embryo. I don't think you can. So people tell themselves that the fetus isn't human in order to justify it's murder. But it's a poor justification.

People say that what a woman does with her own body is her business, and I agree. She can pierce it, tattoo it, nip it, tuck it, wax and pluck it, paint it blue and march it down the street. But there is more than one body involved in an abortion and it's not what the woman is doing to her own that I have a problem with.

In the end, what makes one fetus disposable while another has it's sonogram picture posted on refrigerators? It's whether or not that fetus is wanted. So to a point, we define our humanity by whether or not we're wanted and not our genetic make-up. How terribly sad is that.

No ACORN Investigation

2009-05-08T15:17:00.000-07:00

Today Senator Conyers decided not to launch an investigation into ACORN. Great move senator. Way to cave to pressure. ACORN is facing charges of voter fraud in 14 different states and they have a history of embezlement. But why would we want to investigate them? Instead of that let's give them more money. Yes, that sounds like a brilliant idea.

When Conyers announced that he would not be investigating ACORN what he was really saying was that he could be bought and that ACORN and the other senators on the committee had paid his price. There is no excuse for not investigation this organization.

If ACORN were a publicly traded company instead of a supposedly not for profit group, then they would be all over this in a heartbeat. They'd already have fired the CEO and started congressional hearings and an independent council for review. And the federal government would also own at least 51% of the stock. But instead, it's an organization that gives big campaign contributions and works to get out the vote for them. So does the integrity, or even the legality, of their process really matter? I guess not. We've already heard from strong armed debt holders in the Chrysler mess that Obama is the most "ends justify the means" person ever. Well, this is definitely a case of the ends justifying the means, at least as far as congress is concerned.

This display of congressional corruption is shocking in it's total lack of discretion. Not only are they not going to investigate, but they are pushing hard to give them more of our money.

Write your congressmen and demand the investigation into ACORN and to stop any possible funding.

The Banks Are Off The Treadmill

2009-05-07T14:19:00.000-07:00

So the banks have jumped down off the treadmill and the stress test is completed. But oh my, my, my the government doesn't like what it sees. Was there ever any doubt that the government would identify problems?

The funny thing is that on the one hand they're telling us that their stimulus package was great and the downturn is bottoming out, and on the other hand they're telling us that we have to test the banks to see if they can survive if things get worse. So which is it? Are things getting better or worse?

What they're really saying is that they have to show that the banks need even more help so that the government can take even more control. So in the event of a catastrophe the banks would need more money so we better give it now, with all of our strings attached of course. The goal is to turn the banks into marionettes who move only to the government strings to which they're tethered. It's all about control of an industry that the government should not control.

I have an image in my head of the White House staff behind a curtin moving their puppets like Julie Andrews in The Sound Of Music. Oh said the Czar to the lonely banker, lae-de o-de-lae-de 0-de-lay-e-hoo, I'll give your job to Barny Frank o lae-de-o-de-lae-de-o-de-loo.

Nobody Will Abuse This Legislation

2009-05-06T15:05:00.000-07:00

A hate crime bill was drafted in Congress yesterday which could potentially give protection to pedophiles. This is not the intent of the bill, but the current wording can be misinterpreted to cover pedophiles. When this potential misinterpretation was brought up, and an amendment to exclude pedophiles was proposed, the drafter became quite angry. She said it was offensive, and I can understand her point, but not her stance.

The potential pedophile protection (say that 3 times fast) would fall under the protection for crimes based on sexual orientation. This is what she found offensive. That both homosexuality and pedophilia are grouped together under sexual orientation. The problem with that is that heterosexuality falls under that same categorical umbrella. She was quite adamant about her offense and waved off the objection by stating that nobody would interpret the bill that way. But who ever would have thought that somebody would argue we have a constitutional right to be naked in public under the 1st amendment? But the ACLU did.

Here's my problem with what happened; a possible ambiguity in the bill was identified and brought up, and instead of changing the wording of the bill to either define sexual orientation or to exclude pedophilia, they left the ambiguous language and just got huffy that anybody would dare find a problem with their wording. So the ambiguous language is still there. A fairly systematic problem with the legislation coming out of congress. When any possibly ambiguity is identified it should be addressed in the wording and the ambiguity eliminated. Our laws should be left open to broad or erroneous interpretations resulting in outcomes the legislation did not intend.

I don't agree with hate crime legislation anyway. I believe that the crimes are already covered under standing legislation. I have a philosophical disagreement with making crimes against certain groups more important than crimes against others. It flies in the face of our "all men are created equal" belief system. Also, I believe it encourages the culture of victimology that we have been descending into for the last 2 decades. But primarily, it encourages us to look first at what makes us different from each other instead of what makes us the same. We are all Americans and in so very many ways we are alike. Over the last few years we have become more and more divided into demographic groups and too many see themselves that way first and as an American second.

We are Americans and we should stand together and see each other as Americans first. Why is it that we can come together with so much tolerance, acceptance and patriotism in a crisis and bicker like ill behaved siblings at other times? And how can we stand united, as one people, one nation, when we pass legislation that separates certain groups from others?

I am an American and I am proud to share my country with other Americans of all races, religions, ethic backgrounds and sexual orientations - excluding pedophiles.

Ecouraging Companies to Stay By Raising Corporate Taxes

2009-05-05T16:24:00.000-07:00

On Monday President Obama said that he was going to crack down on companies and individuals who abuse the overseas tax shelters. Good for him. The abuses he is referring to are already illegal but I'm all for enforcing the law. I'm a little leery about paying for the 800 new auditors in the IRS this is going to require, but enforcing the law is still a good thing.

However, and this is a really big however, in addition to enforcing those laws he's also going to increase corporate taxes. He talked about taxing corporations on the money they make overseas and aren't currently paying taxes on. He made this sound like it was criminal and that they were avoiding paying taxes, but the truth is that they are paying taxes in the other country and paying the taxes here too would be double taxing. And we are the ONLY country who would be doing that. So what he was really saying was that he intends to raise corporate taxes. Obama states that this would encourage companies to keep jobs here, but what about retail stores that have to have employees in stores overseas in order to sell their products? What about companies that need to manufacture in a country in order to be competitive there due to high tariffs and import charges?

If you think this sounds perfectly reasonable, that if they're an American company then the money they make globally should be taxed here, let's put it in perspective of individuals instead of companies. Sales tax is based on where you buy the product not where you live, and sales tax is deferred if the product is shipped elsewhere. But what if this wasn't the case? And what if in addition to paying the sales tax for the area where you bought it or where it was manufactured, you also had to pay the sales tax for where you live? This is the basic principle of Obama's corporate tax plan.

I recently went on vacation to Florida and did quite a bit of shopping while I was there. I paid only the FL sales tax and not the MO sales tax. If we applied Obama's corporate tax plan to me, then I would have paid both sales taxes on everything I purchased there. So let's say that you buy something on-line from an area that has an 8% sales tax and the area you live in has a 6.5% sales tax. Under Obama's proposed plan it would be the equivalent of corporations paying 14.5% tax instead of 8%. And according to Obama, paying double taxes on the same profits is only paying their fair share.

We already have the second highest corporate tax rates in the world. And when the state taxes are added on to the federal, some of our states have the highest corporates taxes in the world. For example, our federal tax rate is 25% and Ireland's tax rate is 13%. Which would you rather pay? This, and labor costs, are the reasons that our corporations are moving overseas. But instead of decreasing our tax rate in order to be more competitive, the current administration is raising it.

Instead of encouraging companies to stay by offering a competitive tax rate, they punish corporations for wanting to sell their products in other countries through double taxation. Once again, where is Obama's touted fairness?

How Dare You Expect To Be Paid Back!

2009-05-04T17:42:00.000-07:00

The other day, President Obama spoke out against those debt holders who would not accept pennies on the dollar for the Chrysler debt they held. He spoke very harshly about their insistance that they could get a better deal in bankruptcy court and held them (and of course not the company itself) responsible for Chrysler's bankruptcy.

Well first, these debt holders were supposed to be first in line to get repaid and they were getting the worst deal. Where's his touted fairness in that? Second, they are responsible for 401Ks (possibly yours) and they were doing the right thing by their customers. But when Obama said he didn't stand with them what he was really saying was that he was incensed that they would expect to be paid for the debt they bought.

This is really interesting considering that at the same time Obama is spending money we don't have and relying on other countries to buy our debt in order to do that. So on the one hand he's asking for countries to buy our debt and on the other hand admonishing debt holders for expecting to be paid. What message do you think this sent to China? I believe what China heard was "Don't ever expect to get paid back for this debt you're buying." Paradoxically, China is no longer all that interested in buying our debt. So now we've spent trillions of dollars we don't have and our credit has dried up. This could get really interesting.

But this is just another example of President Obama having one set of standards for himself and another for everybody else.

Educate yourself and speak out.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. - Thomas Jefferson

Justice Was Blind But Now She Sees

2009-05-01T12:11:00.000-07:00

Justice is blind. This is the cornerstone of the American Judicial system. The non-negotiable belief that the law should be applied the same way to all people. That no matter who you are, the law applies and it applies the same way regardless of race, religion, gender, etc. This is who we are as a nation. This is about to change.

President Obama announced that he will be seeking a new Supreme Court Justice who will bring "empathy" to the bench. Somebody who can understand what it means to be black, to be poor or to be gay in America. What he's really saying is that he is looking for somebody who will apply the law differently based on an individuals personal situation in life. Justice will no longer be blind. The law will no longer apply the same way to all. Special considerations will be given to different demographics. Lady Justice's blindfold will be removed.

He has also stated that he is looking for a Justice who will take a "broader view" of interpreting the Constitution. This means that he is looking for somebody who sees our Constitution as a suggestion. Somebody who will, in effect, legislate from the bench. Somebody who will take us farther away from the core of who we are.

What will happen to the truth that is held to be self-evident when our Supreme Court makes their decisions based on the idea that all men are NOT created equal? This is one Supreme Court Justice, but we have at least 2 more who could retire during Obama's first term. What will our Justice system look like with one third of our bench deciding cases based on the antithesis of what this country was built on? I shudder to think.

Remaking America - Into What It Was Never Supposed To Be

2009-04-29T08:52:00.001-07:00

I just finished watching a speech from President Obama which has pretty much scared the crap out of me. We know from the campaign that he wants to redistribute the wealth of our nation, and in his speech he re-iterated that.

He said that he's working to eliminate inequality and restore fairness to our economy. So what he's really saying is that capitalism is bad and socialism is good. As long as we have capitalism there will be inequality, most of it deserved. People are not all the same and they have different talents, different dreams, different work ethics and different priorities. A person who works 60 hrs a week SHOULD make more than somebody who works 30 hrs a week. But according to Obama, paying people who are great at their job more than somebody who is mediocre is unfair and unequal. By saying he is going to restore fairness to our economy what he's really saying is that he's going to take money from one person and give it to another. Redistribution of wealth (AKA socialism).

What scared me the most though was when he said he was beginning to "remake America". Cold chills went down my spine when he said that. What he was really saying was that he intends to throw out all of the principles the country was built on and turn us into Europe. America does not have to be remade, but it does need to be restored. We have moved too far from our basic principles and Obama's plan is to toss them aside all together and start over. Absolutely frightening.

Winning is More Important Than Being Right

2009-04-28T09:43:00.000-07:00

Arlen Specter is announcing that after 30 years with the Republican party he is switching to the Democratic party and will run as a Dem in the next election. Is this due to ideological changes? Is this due to changes in the Republican party? Nope. This is due to him being in serious danger of losing his Republican primary. So he's changing parties not for support of his principles, but for support of his career. A far too common issue in our Congress.

According to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette Mr. Specter calls Republicans who seek to eliminate him in the primary "cannibals," who insist on being "right" rather than winning.

OK. So what he's really saying is that it is more important to win than to stand up for what you believe. He says that they insist on being "right", which is probably a comment on the right wing of the political party, at the expense of winning, and he says it like it's a bad thing. So if there was any question at all on why Sen Specter switched sides, he's made it pretty clear. According to Sen Specter, winning re-election is the more important than any pesky principles.

Have we seen a clearer expression of politician priorities. I have long argued that Congressional priorities put their re-election campaign fund raising first, re-election second, the party third and the country a far distant last. Sen Specter has just illustrated this with a crystal clarity that can not be denied.

Shame on Sen Specter. Not for switching parties, but for the reasons behind it.

Swine Flu - Don't travel to Mexico (But they can come here)

2009-04-27T11:41:00.000-07:00

We have he outbreak of the swine flu in Mexico and there are lots of communications about not traveling to Mexico if you can at all avoid it. We don't want it brought from Mexico here. But in this case it's what they're NOT saying that's the issue.

Outbreaks of swine flu are occurring in TX towns on the Mexican boarder. Hmmmmm. So here's the translation of the no travel communications - "We know that illegal immigrants crossing the boarder are probably bringing this flu over. But if we say anything about tightening up the boarder it will bring way too much attention to our open immigration policy."

And the press, oddly enough isn't mentioning this gap and the absence of any mention of it. Gotta love it.

I'm Not Willing To Fight

2009-04-27T10:11:00.000-07:00

I am here for you to cut through the political language and get to the heart of the message. Wade through the 5 min answer to a simple question to get to the simple answer. Today's translation has to do with the release of the water boarding information. We have several translations for that.

I'm just a simple Hillbilly so I have to break down the bull to figure out what's really being said. I've never understood why the truth has to be cloaked in crap and 100 words have to be used to give an answer when 5 words tell the whole story. I'll give you my perspective on what's being said and you can agree or disagree as you see fit. I won't tell you what to think, but I will tell you what I hear.

The Obama administration has stated that they released the information on the advanced interrogation techniques because the ACLU filed a suit and they were probably going to win anyway so we may as well release it now. Translation of this - "Our national security is not worth a fight with the ACLU and whenever they file a suit we'll cave." Isn't that reassuring.

Then we have Nancy Pelosi talking about what she new about those same techniques. She says that she was told that they were determined to be legal and that they might be used but not that they would be used. There are several different translations of this. The most likely is Translation 1 - "I knew what was going on and I thought it was a good idea at the time. I've since changed my mind and am attempting to cover my ass. I also think the American people are too stupid to figure out what I'm doing." However, we also have Translation 2 - "I'm a total dumb ass with no deductive reasoning skills. With my limited brain function I knew I couldn't' get a job in the private sector so I've stayed in Congress where full brain function is not required."

If only our politicians spoke in the straightforward terms of the so called hillbillies and rednecks. If they would only say what the really mean. But then, you wouldn't need me to translate.