Mark Windham - In Search of Conservatism

Veteran's Day

2009-11-11T21:35:00.003-05:00

Thank you to all veterans and all those still serving in our military. Your service and sacrifice are recognized and appreciated.

Please take some time to investigate the links to the right to find ways to support and honor our veterans and currently serving troops. They sacrificed more than most of us could ever comprehend to protect and promote freedom. The decision to give back should be easy.

Happy Birthday Marine Corps! Thank you!

2009-11-09T22:23:00.003-05:00

November 10th is the anniversary of the United States Marine Corps. Without a doubt, the most Honorable, Proud and Feared military organization in the world. Recognize a Marine today and thank them for their service.

I will never be able to comprehend what it means to be a Marine. But I know what it means to me that they are there protecting my Country and Family.

Thank you, Marine. You are appreciated, respected and loved.

Stolen Reading List

2009-11-09T20:58:00.002-05:00

OK. I cheated on doing any research, but there are some great articles linked to on Boortz's site. Right off the bat is a warning from a Libertarian about our country heading down a slippery slope. The gist of the article is this: where do we stop? When do we realize that we are giving the government too much power? Is there a point when we become uncomfortable with actions of the Executive and Legislative branches off the federal government that are in no way authorized by the constitution? Are we there yet? There have been too many actions of the last year, Bush and Obama and Congress, that are unconstitutional, reckless, irresponsible and detrimental to our freedom and the Country as a whole. Good article.

I am sure you have heard the quote "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it". Why is it that politicians tend to ignore historical facts? Time after time when government spending gets out of control, and they promise more than they can realistically deliver, they will try and solve the problem by increasing taxes. And it never works! This Washington Times editorial examines the differences in States that have high tax rates and those that do not. Invariably, the lower tax States are in a significantly better budget position. They are collecting less income taxes on individuals and businesses, yet they typically have a budget surplus. While the States with the highest tax rates, California and New York among them, have horrific budget deficits. The same thing is historically true with the Federal Government. What makes us think this time around it will be different? Do we really think this group can manage our money better than those that screwed it up before them?

George Will takes on Global Warming. More great stuff from Will. He makes some great points that are all to frequently overlooked, or just flat out ignored (talk about your "Inconvenient Truths"). Among the best are these two gems:

What will it do to the economy of the US if we agree to these insane, and useless, environmental restrictions if two of our greatest competitors, and most populous countries, do not participate? It will cripple us, that's what! Why would we even consider agreeing to voluntarily handcuff our economy in this way? Part of the plan? More on that another time.
Weak science! This is great stuff. Did you realize in the '70s that the "elite minds" of the time were predicting the eminent demise of the world due to ... wait for it ... Global COOLING! So, do we kill our economy now in the name of science that is already proving to be faulty?

This one is great.... It seems that the government fun mortgage giant, Freddie Mac, is in the process of losing it's shirt; mine and yours too. They posted a $5 Billion loss, and will expect you and I to continue to bail them out. Most of these loses are due, of course, to previous government intervention in the their operations. You do know that the current mortgage crisis is largely the result of the Fed's forcing lenders such as Freddy and Fannie to loan money to people that had no business buying a house. People with marginal credit, no money to put down and no income to support the loan. Now it is coming back to bite us as those people all go into foreclosure. Remember the other question about the ability of this government to improve out economy? I don't see it.

A couple of other goodies.... The Russians might be starting to see just how dangerous Iran is. There is a report that Iran has tested a new warhead (for their non-existent nuclear weapons program?). Oh, and Chavez is preparing his military for war... to deter us. And these are the people that our President is reaching out to....

War? What War?

2009-10-27T07:24:00.004-04:00

Last week an arrest was made. One of thousands, to be sure. This one was different though; it was the only one reported that was in direct response to a terrorist plot on US soil. Even more disturbing was the revelation that three other terrorist plots have been foiled in the last month alone. With just the information available to the public, there have been a total of 27 separate terrorist plots on Americans foiled since 9/11. On average, over three a year.

Now, if three a year does not sound like that much to you, let's play a game of "what if". What if... two-thirds of these attacks had been carried out successfully? What if... those successful attacks were only two thirds as effective (devastating) as the 9/11 attacks? Doing the math, that comes out to approximately 4,000 dead Americans, PER YEAR. The death toll for 2002 - 2009 would be 32,000. Not to mention the disastrous effects on our economy.

Obviously, with four plots foiled in the last month, our Country is still in danger. Not only is there the potential for an attack on the US, terrorist are working hard to make it happen. But the White House decided it did not like the sound of a "War on Terror"; so they stopped using the term. The White House decided that they might not approve of the methods being used to keep us safe; so they ordered an investigation into CIA personnel. Heroes of our country that were doing an unpleasant job to save American lives, and following orders.

Mr Obama has gone on a world tour bashing US policies and actions that were undertaken in order to keep Americans safe. Policies that have been a resounding success. There has not been an attack on American soil since 9/11; and with 27 known attempts in eight years, they are obviously still trying.

So far, Mr. Obama has chastised and tried to bully our allies in Israel; he has betrayed or allies in eastern Europe; he has refused to address a soon to be nuclear Iran, and refused to even voice support for dissidents in that country crying out for freedom; he has ignored North Korea as they test their new nuclear weapons. All the while, reaching out the hand of friendship and understanding to the dictators of the world.

Bottom line? The President is trying to negotiate with everyone without the will to back up his position with force. He is trying diplomacy from a position of weakness, with people that have no respect for weakness. They will walk all over you if you are not willing to defend yourself.

Now, the President is delaying a much needed decision to deploy more troops to Afghanistan. Further portraying an image of weakness and indecisiveness to the world. Yesterday, the President defended his actions by saying that he would not "rush" to a decision. It has already been weeks since the request was made for more troops and the Press Secretary announced yesterday that it would probably be weeks before a decision was made. Rush, Mr President? Do you think General McChrystal "rushed" into his recommendation? Do you not think he and his staff have been examining this issue for months before coming to you asking for more troops?

Mr. President, the first priority of your job above all others is to keep America safe. A job your predecessor, while far from perfect, did remarkably well. You are surrounded by people that are very good at keeping this Country safe; Generals, CIA, FBI, NSA. Let them do their job Mr. President and listen to their advice. Debate with them in private if necessary, but to the world Mr. President.... To the world,we need to appear unified in purpose, strong, able to make the hard decisions, and willing to defend this great Country at all costs.

An Amoral Country

2009-10-21T08:13:00.007-04:00

When this great Country was formed, the Founding Fathers placed a great deal of significance on the value, and necessity, of leadership and government based on virtue and morality. Specifically, since they were an overwhelmingly reverent, Christian group, virtue and morality based upon a religious code and value system. With few exceptions, these principles were adhered to by both Presidents and Congress for the first 150 years of the Great Experiment.

During the Great Depression, and more specifically with FDR, the Federal Government stopped adhering to a standard of morality and started imposing their will under the guise of "taking care of the needy". The historical reality of FDR's policies and public building projects and all the other things he tried to end the Depression, is that were largely massive failures. The only decision FDR made that helped our economy was when he finally entered the war; and the Japanese bullied him into that.

What FDR did achieve was establishing a mentality among Americans that the Government was there to take care of them. If I need food, I can go to the Government. If I need a place to live, I can go to the Government. If I do not want to take care of my retirement, the Government will do it. It started out slowly; just little incremental changes in how people saw their relationship with Government. What used to be a fall back position has turned into an expectation and a "right". I have the "right" to health care. I have the "right" to a job. It is my basic "right" to be fed. The list of "rights" that US citizens now claim is extensive and no where to be found in the Constitution.

I discussed the basic morality problem of this attitude in my previous post, and included a great segment from Walter Williams clarifying the point. The basic premise is that it is not possible for the government to provide a single service without taking something from someone else. The Government does not generate income; it's coffers are filled through only one method. Taxation. In order for them to provide Citizen B with food, shelter, health care, etc, they must confiscate the funds for this "right" from Citizen A. The Government is nothing more than an intermediary with a gun. The "provider" is the productive citizen that has been taxed. What would be theft in the private sector is acceptable for Government.

The rise of the entitlement attitude has been accompanied by the decline of religious influence in Government. Somewhere over this same 50-60 year period the Constitution has been reinterpreted as it pertains to religion. The prevailing opinion and belief is that the Founding Fathers put in an exclusion of religion from Government; a "Separation of Church and State." What it actually says is this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (Amendment I to the Constitution for the United States).

What it actually says is that Congress cannot establish a State Religion; they cannot say that the Country is now Christian, or Muslim, or whatever, and that as a citizen you are required to adhere to the established State religion. It actually promotes the principle of Religious practice by the Governed by refusing to limit the "free exercise" of religion.

Somehow this has turned into the banning of all religious activities on public property and a general animosity towards things "religious" by the Government. More specifically, anything Christian. For some reason there is an unwillingness to permit a demonstration of Christian values and beliefs in a Country that is still overwhelmingly Christian.

The reality is that most moral codes are a result of adherence to a religious principle. It is a factual statement to say that the laws of this Country and the values of its Founders were firmly grounded in a Judeo-Christian belief system. The scary part is that they seem to have foresaw, among other things, a time when we would lose our moral compass and start to exclude religion. Read these quotes, it is amazing how applicable they are to today's world:

Statesmen my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand....The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now, They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. John Adams

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness. George Washington

Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts...in which all religions agree. Thomas Jefferson

[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...? George Washington

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams

{All quotes obtained from The Patriot Post, where full credits are provided}

Powerful words from insightful men. The last one from Adams is particularly timely and somewhat frightening. Are we naive enough to think we have moved past this thinking? Are we truly ignorant to the effects of avarice and ambition on our current economy and Government? Do we honestly think we can move past that without a strong moral and religious code to guide us?

As he emerged from the Continental Congress Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of Government had been formed. His famous reply was " a Republic, if you can keep it." Can we keep it? If we are the virtues and morality, which I believe still exist, of the people are going to have to win out. We have to be heard by the politicians. We cannot allow them to set our moral compass for us, they have already taken us far off course.

By What Right?

2009-10-18T22:01:00.008-04:00

By what right and authority does our government pursue it's current policy objectives? The laws, policies and expenditures of our current Congress raise some significant questions into the limits of their authority.
When a governing body undertakes a course of action, it must have a legal or moral authority to undertake said action. In a Monarchy, or Dictatorship, that authority exist solely at the whim of the leader, who holds absolute power. In a Communistic government, such as China, it resides primarily with the Politburo, backed by the military. Again, at their sole discretion without any input from the populace.
The Government of the United States was established by our Founders by the Constitution. This well constructed document clearly defines the structure of our Federal Government (as an aside: it is a Republic, not a Democracy). It established three distinct branches with separate powers and a system of checks and balances. Any legal authority for a course of action is defined by this Constitution for the United States of America.
The power to make law has been assigned to the Congress. The powers of the Congress are defined in Article I, Section 8. These powers are clearly and succinctly listed without leaving much room for interpretation. Based on this list of 18 powers granted to the Congress, there is absolutely no legal authority for actions taken this year by Congress. There is nothing about taking over banks or other businesses; nothing concerning providing health care at the taxpayer expense.
Actually there is very little that the Congress has done in the last fifty years that has any legal basis in the Constitution at all. When did legality stop being a criteria for lawmaking?
Now, when clearly lacking the legal authority to pass laws, many are arguing that Congress retains a Moral Obligation to pass certain laws fro the benefit of certain citizens. We must feed the hungry; we must provide housing for the homeless; everyone should have health care; every artist should have funding; and so on ad nauseam. The problem with this philosophy is that in order to meet this obligation to care for one group of people, it is necessary to take something from another.
Dr. Walter Williams is a Professor of Economics at George Mason University and a nationally syndicated columnist (read him every chance you get, fantastic stuff). He explains the concept of out of control government, the advantages of free markets, and the concept give and take noted above, in a recent speech he gave (transcript). His explanations are concise and easy to understand as well as being historically and factually accurate. His brilliant explanation of the problem with big government follows:

Again, the primary justification for increasing the size and scale of government at the expense of liberty is that government can achieve what it perceives as good. But government has no resources of its own with which to do so. Congressmen and senators don't reach into their own pockets to pay for a government program. They reach into yours and mine. Absent Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, the only way government can give one American a dollar in the name of this or that good thing is by taking it from some other American by force. If a private person did the same thing, no matter how admirable the motive, he would be arrested and tried as a thief. That is why I like to call what Congress does, more often than not, "legal theft." The question we have to ask ourselves is whether there is a moral basis for forcibly taking the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it does not belong. I cannot think of one. Charity is noble and good when it involves reaching into your own pocket. But reaching into someone else's pocket is wrong.

In a free society, we want the great majority, if not all, of our relationships to be voluntary. I like to explain a voluntary exchange as a kind of non-amorous seduction. Both parties to the exchange feel good in an economic sense. Economists call this a positive sum gain. For example, if I offer my local grocer three dollars for a gallon of milk, implicit in the offer is that we will both be winners. The grocer is better off because he values the three dollars more than the milk, and I am better off because I value the milk more than the three dollars. That is a positive sum gain. Involuntary exchange, by contrast, means that one party gains and the other loses. If I use a gun to steal a gallon of milk, I win and the grocer loses. Economists call this a zero sum gain. And we are like that grocer in most of what Congress does these days.

Some will respond that big government is what the majority of voters want, and that in a democracy the majority rules. But America's Founders didn't found a democracy, they founded a republic. The authors of The Federalist Papers, arguing for ratification of the Constitution, showed how pure democracy has led historically to tyranny. Instead, they set up a limited government, with checks and balances, to help ensure that the reason of the people, rather than the selfish passions of a majority, would hold sway. Unaware of the distinction between a democracy and a republic, many today believe that a majority consensus establishes morality. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Another common argument is that we need big government to protect the little guy from corporate giants. But a corporation can't pick a consumer's pocket. The consumer must voluntarily pay money for the corporation's product. It is big government, not corporations, that have the power to take our money by force. I should also point out that private business can force us to pay them by employing government. To see this happening, just look at the automobile industry or at most corporate farmers today. If General Motors or a corporate farm is having trouble, they can ask me for help, and I may or may not choose to help. But if they ask government to help and an IRS agent shows up at my door demanding money, I have no choice but to hand it over. It is big government that the little guy needs protection against, not big business. And the only protection available is in the Constitution and the ballot box. (Walter E Williams)

What many consider to be the moral obligations of our government are the very activities that used to be managed very well at the local level; and most times still are. Feeding the hungry and clothing the needy are tasks that are performed everyday around the country by local civic and religious organizations. They do it very well, and it is all voluntary with very little of the waste and corruption that accompanies a government program. Somewhere over the course of the last century (really since WWII) there has been a movement for the federal government to take over what has traditionally been a local government and charitable enterprise. Now, what was before voluntary and charitable has become forced.

Is that the Country our Founding Fathers envisioned? Is that the role of our Government? Have we become a nation so devoid of morality that we approve of the actions of this Congress? Unfortunately, it appears so.

It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

2009-10-11T16:05:00.003-04:00

What used to qualify as insanity has become normal. What the media used to abhor just last year they now fawn over. What used to be ridiculed is now overlooked and excused. Just an overview of the highlights of this year:

The Obama administration disregards the principles of the Constitution and the values of Capitalism by taking ownership of major banking establishments under the guise of "stimulating" the economy and saving the industry from failing. An industry, by the way, that was in such sorry condition due to previous government intervention.
Using the same logic as above, the Obama administration takes ownership, or gives it to the unions, of major auto manufacturers. Once again, there is no constitutional basis for this action, nothing legal; yet the media acts like the three monkeys.
Our President, the leader and voice of our Country, goes on a world tour and proceeds to tell the world that we are the bad guys. He clearly states his opinion that the prior actions and positions of the USA were wrong; that our foreign policy positions are changing to be more in line with those Countries we have opposed. Plain and simple, he announced a policy of a weaker America.
Along those lines, he betrays the trust of our Eastern European allies by canceling our commitment to a missile defense system.
Together with the Democratic leaders of Congress, the Obama Administration has put forth a tremendous initiative to take over another major portion of the US economy: Health care. What started as a campaign promise to insure all Americans turned into an effort to control the entire health care system: possibly the single largest portion of our economy. Seems to be a trend here....
The State of California is in a complete fiscal tailspin. This is important to the current comments for one very significant reason: California has long been the role model for a Liberal utopia. They have done everything in the liberal playbook: They have some of the highest taxes in the country on high income individuals and businesses; they cater to every minority from Hispanics to gays; they provide more "services" on the government dime than anyone; their environmental regulations are excessively restrictive and damaging to businesses; and on and on and on.... And it is all falling apart! The tax revenues have not been able to keep up with the promises made by the government, and collections are decreasing. Businesses are deserting the State for more favorable environments, individuals are moving out, services are not being delivered. It is a colossal mess and a perfect example of the unsustainable nature of liberal policies.
After announcing his foreign policy stance of Diplomacy through Weakness, Mr. Obama is rewarded by being made the head of the UN Security Council. Brilliant! What a statement. Since it;s inception the UN has been an anti-democracy, anti-capitalism organization. This announcement confirms their position of opposing freedom and strength.
Today we have the greatest Federal budget deficits in the history of our Country; by any standard you care to measure it. (And to be completely fair - The Bush Administration policies did lead to some of this. I did not like their domestic policies either). And it is getting worse, not better. This administration and Congress continue to push for more government services, more "stimulus packages", more takeovers (you did hear they wanted to take over all student loans, and thereby all Universities), more taxes. All of which follows the failed pattern of Socialism the world over; And right at home. See the diatribe on California above.
And as an aside.... Global Warming appears to be officially dead. All of the trends are showing lower temperatures across the board. Not to worry though: the Administration and Congress are still going to try and get Cap and Trade legislation though next year. Not that it will have any effect on the environment, it will just further restrict businesses ability to compete, therefore reducing profits, which reduce taxes paid, which increases the deficits, etc, etc, etc.
This list could go on for pages, but possibly the most ludicrous event so far since the election of this President.... They gave him a Nobel Peace Prize. I am not sure I even know how to respond to that. The only thing that comes to min is...WHY? What is the criteria for this reward? A deep, passionate belief in Socialism and national weakness? Even the international media could not believe it and recognize that the award has become nothing more than politics. You should know it is bad thing when Castro gives it an 'attaboy.

The sum total of all of this is extremely frightening. The results of the policies and decision of this President are a militarily, diplomatically and economically weaker United States of America. Is this the change you were expecting? It should have been.

Lawyers, Politicians or Media?

2009-09-10T21:45:00.002-04:00

I am really having a hard time deciding who is worse these days. This link was sent to me by a friend of mine who happens to be a Marine. To say that he was upset would be an understatement of colossal proportions. The story is about a reporter that was on patrol with Marines in Afghanistan. What happens on that patrol is a very sad and real part of war: Marines die. On this occasion it happened to be a young Marine, Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard who was killed by a rocket propelled grenade.

First and foremost; Thank You to Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard. Thank you for serving your country. Thank you for fighting for my freedom and the freedom of others. And thank you for protecting this county and defending us against all enemies so that I and my family may sleep safely each night. And my condolences to his family. May I never know the pain you are feeling.

This is when things start to fall apart and get really, really wrong. This reporter that has been assigned to this unit (a unit that has been charged with keeping this reporter alive, by the way), decides that it would be appropriate to photograph this wounded soldier as he died. And then have the nerve and complete lack of respect as to make these pictures public. Has she lost her ever loving mind? What possible good could come from publishing these pictures? What did she hope to accomplish? All she did was show a complete lack of respect and consideration for the Marine, his family, the military at large and our Country.

I understand that war is ugly. I know that people die; young people. Citizens and soldiers. But there is no excuse for this kind of sensational reporting with no regard for the consequences. Everyone knows bad things happen in war without having to show such incredible disrespect to a hero to prove a point. I firmly believe in the free press with no external censorship. But, some kind of self governance has to take place.

As far as I am concerned, Ms. Jacobson of the AP should apologize to the family and the Marines and just say thank you. Thank you to a young Marine who was doing his job, so that she was free to do hers.

Support our military. It is the least they deserve.

Lest We Forget....

2009-09-10T21:42:00.002-04:00

Never....Never....Never....Forget

Never.

Did You Miss This Little Gem?

2009-09-07T21:53:00.002-04:00

It did not get much press. But seems like there is a bill pending that will give the President "emergency control" of the Internet. The power to "disconnect private sector computers from the Internet." See anything wrong so far? Well, that was the version put forth back in the spring and it seems some Internet companies and civil liberties groups were somewhat concerned. Now they have revised the language, and I personally do not feel a whole lot better.

Read this article: George Orwell should readily come to mind....

Obama's Spending Spree

2009-09-07T20:45:00.002-04:00

Back to Mr. Davidowitz: In this interview I have no arguments with Davidowitz and his analysis of the current administration and their ridiculous spending. His comments are right in line with what most of the rational economist have been saying: the current path of our government is unsustainable. There is no way that we can keep on spending the way we are. There are not enough resources, not enough tax revenue and the economic side effects will be nothing short of a catastrophe.

The US press are not the only ones noticing either. Even the UK press, the great bastion of socialized medicine, knows the President is taking us down the wrong path. This article from the Telegraph reports on a pamphlet from the Institute of Economic affairs says that there are striking similarities between the policies of Barak Obama and the actions of the government during the early 30's not only did not cause economic recovery, but served to prolong and worsen the Great Depression. Comforting isn't it.

Back to Davidowitz: there were some great lines in his interview. Coming right out and saying it, he called Obama's numbers "mad". In just six months his budget has been revised from leading to over a Seven Trillion deficit to Nine Trillion over the next decade. And this "positive" outlook is based on 4% growth in the economy and a health plan costing only $1 Trillion when it is more likely to cost upwards of $3 Trillion or more. Truly mad.

Perhaps the last line of the interview with Mr. Davidowitz says it as good as anything I have heard.

Always be loyal to your Country, never be loyal to the people in power. Because they are conning you every day.

Well said Mr. Davidowitz, well said.

So much to say....

2009-09-05T09:33:00.005-04:00

....so little time. I am apparently too busy to keep up with the President and Congress: which is precisely what they are counting on. Their plan is dependent on the public being so wrapped up in their daily lives, so busy, that they do not have time to pay attention to what is going on in Washington.
Lets start with the economy: I was sent these two links (In the tank forever and Obama's spending spree ) last week. Both of them are interviews with "Retail maven Howard Davidowitz", who is apparently an expert on retail trade and the economy (I must be showing my ignorance by not knowing who he is). He paints a pretty gloomy picture, and he has some great points, but lets look at each one:

In the Tank Forever - First of all, I think his analysis of the retail business is pretty much right on. There is no way in this environment that the volume of retailers can be maintained. There are way to many "Big Box" stores at the malls, too many specialty shops and neighborhood strip centers have been seriously overbuilt. All with a declining disposable income among consumers. We have been asking for years how all of the new shopping centers they were building in our area could be supported, and it turns out they can't be. Most of them are sitting close to empty.
What really struck me though was something else that he touched on. There are two primary causes that will lead to a collapse of many retailers: 1) the significant increase in unemployment and 2) the decrease in available credit. Both of these have significantly contributed to less spending in the retail sector; people are only buying what they need, not what they want and nothing frivolous. That all makes perfect sense. What bugged me about his comments was this: not only did he include available credit as "income" but he seemed appalled by what I considered to be pretty good news; people are starting to save money. His stats were that the consumer has gone from spending 6% more than they make (credit use and debt) to actually saving 7%.
A couple of things that come to mind based Davidowitz's comments. The first is that it is telling that our economy has been growing for years based on irresponsible spending and the misuse of credit. If you look at most of the industries that are in big trouble now, they are mostly dependent on, or providers of, credit: auto, retail, mortgage, banks. It is all fake, a manufactured economy with no basis on anything tangible. [The exception, of course is the mortgage industry; that disaster is the result of lending too much money to people that could not afford it on properties that were not worth it. A subject for another time and already well covered elsewhere.]There have been analyst and economist telling us for years that the over use of credit was going to cause problems some day. It looks that that day is today.
The other thing that occurred to me was something else I recall hearing, from some source I have forgotten, years ago: as a country we have gotten away from a production based economy. We do not produce anything. Industry has been forced overseas and our illusory economic growth has been the result of consumers buying products made in China, Taiwan, India and Mexico and paid for with money they have not actually earned yet.
Is it possible we have too much retail? Too many service based companies? It used to be that a community would grow up around the local factory and supporting businesses (retail, restaurants, doctors, etc) would open to provide for the factory workers. I understand that the nature of our economy has changed: there are not as many factory jobs, there is more automation, etc. But, should it not be a clear sign to the politicians that it is time to do away with burdensome tax policy that forces business to send their production facilities overseas in order to complete. Should we reward companies for employing Americans instead of punishing them for being profitable?
I know retail is a big part of our economy, and I know that more people will lose their jobs if that market segment continues to decline. But i just do not see how it is sustainable in it's current form. And Davidowitz did say that there are going to be some companies that come out of this just fine, possibly even stronger. It is not all bad, it just has to change.
Can that happen with our current government? That is a HUGE concern that I will cover next time. That is enough for one entry.

Did You Think We Had Won?

2009-08-22T12:23:00.003-04:00

Did you get all excited last weekend when the Obama administration announced that the public option was not necessary? Did you think it was over? How disappointing was it when they caved mid-week to the pressure from the Congress? Then they flipped again by mid-week. Do they know what they support? Is everyone at the White House on the same page? They appear to be running scared from the polls and backtracking all over the place. Changing their mind, twice, on health care, shutting down their "report on your neighbor" e-mail program, and let's don't forget about Cash for Clunkers. What a gem that has turned out to be.

Sean Hannity has been repeatedly asking a very good question this week: Why is there this faith out there that the government will be able to effectively run a health care plan? They have an abysmal track record! No matter where you look in the government the programs are a nightmare. Social Security is almost broke (actually it is broke, Congress has siphoned off all of the money to pay their bills. All that is left is a big IOU.), Medicare is full of corruption, waste and inefficiencies, Cash for Clunkers was a huge debacle, etc, etc, etc. How about the post office? The President actually used that as an example of how hideous government run options were when compared to the private sector. He was trying to make the point that we should not fear competition from the government in health insurance. What?!?!?

If all they were going to do was create a government program that would give you short term access to health coverage when you were unemployed or unable to get coverage for whatever reason, that would be one thing. But, that is not what they are doing. They are trying to completely change a system to where the private insurance companies would not be able to compete; there would be no way for the to make money.

At least Madame Speaker is being honest. She is quoted in an article from Bloomberg saying that “There’s no way I can pass a bill in the House of Representatives without a public option,”. She is not even going to consider other options.

Don't think this is over. The liberal Democrats are going to continue to fight this battle. If they do not win it now, they will fight another day. This is not new. It has been going on since after WWII. Listen to a speech Reagan did in the early 60's talking about the need to defeat socialized medicine.

We have to stay vigilant and pay attention. They are not going away.

INFURIATING

2009-08-20T15:15:00.002-04:00

Finally, there is proof that the libs really don't care what their constituents have to say. One of them has finally been caught on tape confirming what we have thought for years. The liberal politician mentality is that we, as the lowly public, are not capable of thinking for ourselves and deciding for ourselves what is best for us. They need to take care of us. They need to do what is in our best interest, whether we think so or not.

Well, it seems that Representative Massa of NY finally came right out and said it. The Washington Times reports that the good Congressman is caught on video succinctly stating that " I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful." He follows with "I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them."

At least he is honest, we can give him that. Are you clear on what he is saying? Do you understand his position? Regardless of what he hears in his district; regardless of what the people that voted for him tell him they want; he is going to do vote for the government run single payer option for health care.

They wonder why people are getting angry and yelling at the town hall meetings? This is the reason! It is the only way to get them to hear us. And they still are not listening, they will vote against the wishes of the people anyway. Does this sound like the government our Constitution established? For the People? By the People?

The Hypocrisy of Ms. Pelosi

2009-08-15T12:07:00.002-04:00

Last Monday Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer penned a joint op-ed in the USA Today. The gist of the article was an attack on those that would dare to stand up and make their voices heard to politicians that just are not listening. According to Madam Speaker and the House Majority leader it is "un-American" to drown out the voices of opposition and deny debate and "civil dialogue". Really? A couple of points for you Ms. Pelosi:

Are you going to start running the House by this same set of values? Are you going to open up the floor for all comers that may have an opposing view? Are you going to allow Republicans to have their voices heard in a "civil dialogue"?
You are not the opposition! Have you forgotten that you won the last election and are now in control of the Congress? You and your party are the ones that introduced this insane legislation. No one is drowning out the voices of opposition; the opposition is trying to be heard!

Remember your history Madame Speaker. America has a great tradition of the people standing up to be heard when their political leaders stop listening. That is where we are today: the constituents are trying to be heard, but their elected officials are not listening. We have tried calling our congressman's office, sending e-mails, writing letters, but we have been ignored. So, when there is an opportunity to speak to them face to face, we are going to be heard.

This great country started with free citizens standing up to their leaders that would not listen to them and it has continued throughout our history. How do you think the great reforms of our society came about? They were not thought up by politicians, they were demanded by the people! It was not a politician that fought for women's suffrage. It was not a politician that stood on a balcony and demanded his rights and declared "I have a dream". And I think it would be a pretty safe bet to say that you, Ms. Pelosi, were among the crowds that took to the streets and demanding that your elected officials end our involvement in the Vietnam war.

Do not forget your history Ms. Pelosi. The American people are slow to react and rarely moved to the point of anger. But, when they are... they are a powerful force and they will demand to be heard. Take a minute to actually listen to them instead of trying to justify your legislation. You will find that it is not that popular, you have gone to far.

The campaign promises of the Obama administration were to make sure that all Americans had Health insurance, not a complete overhaul and takeover of the entire health care industry. Your statements in the USA Today concerning the "facts" are in direct contrast to what you are actually trying to get passed. You are not advocating better care at lower cost or freedom of cost. All of the bills introduced thus far push everyone into the government option and punish those that choose something else. All at the expense of the taxpayers, because this is going to cost a fortune. Anyone that says otherwise is delusional, or flat out lying.

We are the voice of the opposition Ms. Pelosi, and you are the one trying to drown us out. Maybe it is time you listened.

Something Good Out of This?

2009-07-28T21:21:00.002-04:00

There is not much positive going on in government right now: rampant spending; reckless programs; America bashing from the Obama administration; health care; auto industry takeover; banking and finance industry takeovers; and so on and so on. It is really ugly all the way around. So what good could come out of all of this? Well, it looks like some conservatives are finally starting to emerge in the Republican party. Most notably are Governor Jindal of Louisiana and Senator DeMint of South Carolina. Read up on them and what they are saying. They are actually making sense, even for a politician. Maybe we will actually have some conservative leadership in the next elections. I just hope the Country can last that long....

Catching up on the Idiocy

2009-07-28T19:52:00.003-04:00

I have been too busy to write the last couple of weeks, but there are some things that just have to be addressed. In no particular order of insanity:

The Beer Summit - Is this really the most important task the President of the United States should be attending to? Why is this even a story? Aside from the fact that the idiot, excuse me, Harvard professor acted like an imbicile and the police officer was doing his job and arrested somebody that deserved it? Which is a story that really should be reported more often: 99.9% of the cops are the good guys and do the right thing, but the only ones that make the news are the ones that screw up. For a good review of the situation read this article from the WSJ. Why is it that the common Democrat voter thinks the liberal elite is on their side? Do they just listen to everything they are told? Do they actually ever check the facts
Could we please get Michael Jackson off the news? Arrest the doctor or give him a medal, but stop talking about it already.
Why exactly are we trying to reform health care? The quality of care in this country is consistently ranked among the best in the world. Most of the country is covered by some form of insurance, and those that are not are able to get medical treatment at any emergency room in the country. The last thing we need is more government involvement; that never makes anything better. Do we need some changes? Sure! But the opposite kind that they are talking about. We need less government regulation and tort reform. Let the doctors do their job without undue burden of regulation and frivolous lawsuits. Most of the problem solved. Unlike our elected officials that are going to vote on this insanity, Jamie Dupree is actually reading it. Take look at what he is finding.
Hillary vs Sarah - Now, I don't pretend to understand why Sarah Palin resigned as Governor of Alaska and I am not sold as to her future in national politics. However, compare her comments of the last week with the activities of Ms. Clinton. Our Secretary of State has spent her recent world tour condemning and insulting the United States: the country she is supposed to represent and recently wanted to be President of. Palin on the other hand has made statements that actually support, uplift and defend our country. Among the gems: "be wary of accepting government largess. It doesn't come free." ; "How about, in honor of the American soldier, you quit makin' things up?"; “Let us continue to love our country, be proud of our country, never apologize for our country.”; and this one is great! “I wish that some in the media would keep things like that in perspective, what is really important in our country. And what is important is our freedoms, America’s security, our liberty.”Compare that to some Hillary quotes; I'll let you look them up - I just had dinner.
No free speach at the mall - At a Simon owned mall in Charlotte, NC a Kiosk owner has been denied a renewal of his lease. The reason? Well, Simon has denied any comment, but the common belief is that he is being kicked out because of the conservative nature of products. Bumper stickers asking us to "Impeach Obama", bibs making statements against abortion, and many products promoting free market ideals and a conservative agenda. I firmly believe that Simon has the right to lease space, or not, to anyone they feel like. But, can you imagine the media storm if they were to do the same thing to someone selling pro-Obama products?

There is a lot more, way more than I can cover in a night. The point is... PAY ATTENTION. They are counting on your apathy and unwillingness to engage your Congressman. Watch, listen, read and act.

Which is it?

2009-07-14T14:54:00.003-04:00

There is an interview in the Financial Times with Larry Summers, the director of the US President's National Economic Council. The article as a a whole is interesting just in the context of learning a little more about how a member of the Administration really thinks. The key part of the interview that I want to point out though is when he was asked about the state of the economy. His response:

I don’t think the worst is over ... It’s very likely that more jobs will be lost. It would not be surprising if GDP has not yet reached its low. What does appear to be true is that the sense of panic in the markets and freefall in the economy has subsided and one does not have the sense of a situation as out of control as a few months ago.

Essentially, we have not solved the problems, we have just made everyone feel better about the situation. Basically the standard American reaction to most non-life threatening crisis; "that was no fun and I would like to fix it, but it wasn't so bad. I can live with this, just have to do things a little different."

The President, however, continues to sing a different tune. According to him, the "Stimulus" is working according to plan. Better yet, he goes on to define what some of that plan was, which is somewhat different than what was portrayed by the Democrats and the media. Here is how our President defines the success of his plan so far:

July 11 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said his $787 billion stimulus bill “has worked as intended” as he pushed back against Republican criticism that his recovery program has failed to rescue the economy.

“It has already extended unemployment insurance and health insurance to those who have lost their jobs in this recession,” Obama, who is traveling today in Ghana, said in his weekly Saturday radio and Web address. “It has delivered $43 billion in tax relief to American working families and business.”

Further:

Obama, in his speech, said the stimulus program is helping state governments save jobs. Were it not for the program, the president said, “state deficits would be nearly twice as large as they are now, resulting in tens of thousands of additional layoffs -- layoffs that would affect police officers, teachers, and firefighters.”

OK.... Looking at these points one a a time:

We were told that somehow the $787 billion was going to create jobs, yet unemployment continues to climb. now we are told that the stimulus money went to pay unemployment benefits and provide health insurance to the unemployed (how does that work? Medicaid?). This is "working as planned"?
$43 billion in tax relief? Again, I must be confused or uneducated. Where is this tax relief? I know my paycheck has not changed. Correct me if I am wrong, but if there is no change to the tax rates then you do not see a "relief" (someone define that for me Please!) until you file your return in the form of a credit of some kind. Of course, we could always use the logic that says that since you stayed unemployed you were not receiving an income, therefore paying no taxes. What a relief!
Now the good part: the stimulus has saved Jobs according to Obama. What kind of jobs? Why, government jobs, of course. This is insane!!!!! We took taxpayer's money and gave it other government entities so that they would not have to lay off government employees! Guess what? Those governments that we are bailing out collect their own taxes to pay their employees. If we provided true stimulus that encouraged jobs and income growth with less tax burden then these state and local bodies could collect enough from the local citizenry to pay their employees. WITHOUT FEDERAL HELP! How does it feel to know that your money has gone to keep some bureaucrat employed somewhere that you probably do not live?

The whole thing is completely bonkers, and they want to do it again. The first one did not do the job so lets do the same thing again! Someone look up the classic definition of insanity.

So my original premise that the stimulus is either working or its not is flawed. The reality is that, according to the administration's definitions, it is both. We have still not hit bottom economically and unemployment is going to continue to rise, but the stimulus is doing what we planned. It is just that what we had in mind is not what we told you.

Some "Change". Do you believe in it yet?

Morality? What's That?

2009-07-08T08:10:00.003-04:00

We really are a nation that has lost its way. We have become enslaved to our entertainment: our television, the computer, sports. By "enslaved", I mean that we are so infatuated by and so dedicated to the entertainment mediums that they have become what is most important in our lives. Heaven forbid that we miss the next episode of "24". But, that will be OK if we remember to set the DVR ahead of time (we can't plan our future beyond next week financially, but we will remember to set the DVR!). We are so embroiled in the escapism that is embodied in our entertainment that we have started to accept the soap opera morality portrayed by the story lines as our own. We now consider the absurd behavior of actors and athletes as something to be overlooked. "That is just how celebrities act". We excuse adultery, alcohol and drug use, criminal behavior; all because of their status.

Over the last week we have been inundated with a media deluge on the subject of Michael Jackson. It has been impossible to pick up a newspaper, turn on the radio of television or check a news website without stories about the death of Michael Jackson. I will be the first to admit that he was an icon in the music world. He was extremely talented and a great performer. However, has everyone forgotten the whole "touching kids inappropriately" thing? The only mention I heard (and I will grant that I did not hear much; I kept turning it off) was one reporter slipping in that "he did have his demons" into the midst of his fawning. But for Michael, that is OK. No one holds it against him, or even thinks it should be mentioned. Because he is a celebrity, and under the pressure of the public spotlight, irrational, immoral and criminal behavior is overlooked.

The biggest story from the sports world of the last week was the shooting death of Steve McNair; the former NFL quarterback of the Titans and Ravens. Once again, a tremendously talented individual and a real star in the NFL with great accomplishments. His death is a tragedy. But, amidst all the reminiscing about his feats and skill, everyone seems to be glossing over the circumstances of his death. He was killed along with (and possibly by) his girlfriend. The problem? He was Married! With four sons! He was in the middle of an adulterous affair with a women 14 years younger then himself that had apparently been going on for some time. He had purchased cars for her; paid for her condo; went on vacations together. But no one is willing to stand up and say "his actions and behavior were wrong and probably lead to his death". So far the only thing I have seen that criticizes him at all was Fox Sports columnist Jason Whitlock: and he refused to be a "sanctimonious moralizer". He sees nothing wrong with the affair (he does not know the state of their marriage or what "agreement" they may have), and seems to condone the chasing of younger women. His complaint against McNair, and a very valid one, is the obvious neglect of his children and the harm he has caused them.

Death at such young ages, 50 and 34, is always a tragedy. Especially when it comes as unexpectedly as these did. These men had families and children that I am sure grieve for them, and I mourn for their loss. But we cannot excuse their behavior because of their position. In fact, it should be the opposite. We used to hold these type of people to a higher standard. They were role models that we were happy to have our children look up to. Now we use them as an example of how not to act. At least, I hope we do....

What makes America Great?

2009-07-01T12:04:00.002-04:00

Quite simply, it's people. And not people in terms of groups; Individuals. The people that go out everyday and do extraordinary things with no expectation of recognition and no thought of reward beyond what they can produce for themselves. Look around you. Somewhere today you will run across someone that is a hero. You would never be able to guess it just by looking at them, and they would never tell you.

How about a construction worker in Iowa that harnessed himself to a crane and rescued a women drowning in a turbulent river. Or an Iraq war vet that refused to let the loss of his legs stop him; instead overcoming his challenges and motivating others. A couple risking their life to pull a stranger from a burning truck, or that driver himself that wrecked his rig instead of ramming the minivan full of kids that had stopped in front of him on an icy road. A young soldier returning from his tour and going out of his way to visit the classroom of my son. Just because they wrote him a letter as a class while he was deployed. For that matter, pick a Soldier, Marine, Sailor or Airman. All those that serve meet every definition of Hero.

These people do what they do for reasons we may never know. Some feel compelled to serve; some respond under pressure. Most just do the right thing, because it is the right thing.

Recognize the heroes you know. Do something for those that serve and protect our freedoms.

More George Will....

2009-07-01T11:31:00.002-04:00

Once again, read George Will every time you have the opportunity.

Reverse racism in Connecticut: As obvious a case as there has ever been. And the only reason I call it "reverse" is that the standard acceptable definition is white discriminating against black, Hispanic, Muslim, etc. The really sad thing though, as Will points out, is that there were still four liberal judges against it. They, liberal judges, are never going to issue a ruling that favors a white male, a Christian or big business. They will ignore the law, establish policy from the bench instead of interpreting the law as is their job, and continue to promote the liberal left's ideology. Elections matter: Presidents appoint judges, judges now make policy.

Health Care "Reform": This is an excellent primer on why health care cost what it does and why we should oppose the government plan.

Where is the outrage?

2009-07-01T09:34:00.002-04:00

Seriously, where is the media outrage? Anyone that does not think there is a serious left wing bias to media reporting is delusional. Remember a month or so back when the Federal Government threatened California with losing federal money if they did not cave in to the Service union demands? The State was trying to save money by cutting services; unfortunately, they dared to cut a program that employed union workers. Union workers that happen to belong to a union whose leader happens to be in really tight with President Obama. A Chicago Tribune article this week outlines an ongoing relationship between the White House and Andy Stern, who leads the Service Employees International Union. It seems that Mr Stern visits the White House at least weekly, and according to Stern, "We get heard".

Why would a union leader get such intimate access to the President? Just follow the money.

The Obama-Stern relationship has emerged as among the more curious within the young administration.

The SEIU spent $60 million to help elect Obama, according to the union. Stern says the group deployed 100,000 volunteers during the campaign, including 3,000 who worked on the election full-time, and made 15 million phone calls. Chicago Tribune

More, this is not a new relationship:

But Stern notes that SEIU's political loyalties are solid, reaching back to the 2004 race for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, when Obama was a long shot but earned the union's endorsement. "Our relationship was built in an earlier era," Stern said. CT

So, what happens when you spend $60+ million to get a Senator elected and then get that Senator into the White House? Perks! Favors! Benefits! You can threaten the state of California and be backed by the President; you can be instrumental in forming public policy on health care and immigration (big time issues for the unions); and jobs for the cronies!

Stern, for his part, can boast that union officials are scattered in jobs throughout the Obama administration. White House political director Patrick Gaspard is a former executive at an SEIU local based in New York. No other union has placed anyone at such a high level in the White House. Anna Burger, secretary-treasurer of SEIU, was appointed to Obama's economic recovery board. And union associate counsel John Sullivan was named to the six-member Federal Election Commission. CT

Imagine, just for a minute, if President Bush had appointed employees of Haliburton and Exxon to positions of power and influence over energy policy. The media firestorm would have been off the charts! We would not have heard the end of it until those people were removed from their positions.

I am starting to think that there is not anything that the mainstream media will not give Obama a pass on. After all, they probably helped get him elected more than the unions did; can't make him look bad now.

More Lost Conservatives

2009-06-30T16:23:00.002-04:00

It looks like Thomas Sowell saw the same poll that I did. He is another that you always need to take the time to read. He spends more time focusing on the in-fighting in the party than the lack of true conservatism, but it is an excellent read.

One quote from the article that was really disturbing:

Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II. It is hard to believe that it would take much more than that for the United States of America to surrender--especially with people in control of both the White House and the Congress who were for turning tail and running in Iraq just a couple of years ago.

Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their grand-daughters to live under sharia law.

Think about that very carefully.

Where are the Conservatives?

2009-06-18T21:50:00.007-04:00

While on vacation I read an article in the USA Today (only thing available in print) concerning the fact that there was no real voice for the Republican party. No one recognized as the leader of the party. When a poll was conducted asking who spoke for the party the top responses were, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney , John McCain and Newt Gingrich. After the obligatory deriding comments concerning old, white, male conservatives, the article actually has a good point: where is the leader of the party? Who is it? What do they stand for? What does the party really stand for? They point out that of the top four mentioned in the poll, only one actually now holds office, McCain, and he just lost the Presidential election.

No real surprise that there is a lack of leadership amongst the Republicans. What was somewhat surprising to me though, was a Gallup Poll also released last week. The poll was on political ideology, what did people think they were? The result:

Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. Gallup

Not only that, but unbeknown to me, these have been fairly consistent results since at least 1992. It regularly shows results of 40% or better conservative and 20% or less liberal. That being the case, how do we explain the fact that we now have elected the most liberal government, Executive and Legislative, in the history or our country? To answer that I think you have to look at a couple issues:

First, the USA Today is pretty much right: there is no true leader stepping up and representing the beliefs and values of the traditional Republican voter. John McCain became the face of the party during the Presidential election, and lost. I think one of the main reasons he lost was because he did not truly represent what his party considers to be important. My opinion is that he added Sarah Palin to the ticket so that he could have a true conservative voice. Dick Cheney and former President Bush do a good job of articulating conservative thought and ideals, but they have no vested interest in the future and no direct input in to current policy decision making. The same can be said for Newt Gingrich: he is perhaps the most seen conservative activist lately and does a good job of voicing the conservative line. I do, however, wonder about his motivations. Is he considering running for office again, or is he just selling books and website subscriptions. But who, that is currently in office, is standing up and taking the high ground?
Are their any true conservatives with the will to fight for their beliefs left in elected office? My belief is that the reason John McCain became the Presidential nominee for the party is that the conservative vote was split between Romney and Huckabee: McCain got the fallout. Similar to the reason that Clinton was able to get into office. Given a clear choice between moderate and conservative, a large number of the conservative vote ended up going to Ross Perot. Remember, Clinton never received a majority of the votes in either of his elections, just more than second place. The point is, the current Republican leadership are politicians first and conservatives second. They are more concerned about keeping their jobs by saying what they think people want to hear (and looking good for the media) than standing on principle.
We also have to look at how people define liberal and moderate. My feeling is that a large percentage of those that say they are moderate are really liberal at heart. If you breakdown the issues and find out where they stand the pattern will start to become clear. They do not want to be stereotyped as a "liberal", so they call themselves moderate. But when it comes time to vote they are going to vote for more government and less freedom.
Lastly, you have to consider the overwhelming media (especially television) bias against conservatives. The only place a Republican (much less a conservative) is going to get a fair shot at air time is on Fox News. So, we really do not get a chance to hear from the Republicans on what they are doing, what fights they are taking on, what positions and beliefs they might be standing up for. The only real time they get air time is when they have either compromised their beliefs and sided with the Democrats, or when they have screwed up. Then they are either hailed for their courageous break from their party, or excessively demonized.

The point I am trying to make is that there is apparently a true conservative majority among US citizens. But, they are obviously not voting Republicans into office. In my mind, this means that the Republicans are no longer representative of conservatism. If someone would be brave and stand up and clearly articulate conservative values, and fight for them, they would be elected.

Just do some research on Ronald Reagan: Openly conservative; clearly stated vision; elected in two landslides. Reagan carried more than 90% of the electorate in both 1980 and 1984. There has been only one other candidate to come close to Reagan's impressive 1984 margin of 97.6% of the electorate; the also staunchly conservative Richard Nixon with 96.7% in 1972.

In case you are curious: there has been only one Democrat elected with over 90% of the electorate since Roosevelt was elected in '36 - Lyndon Johnson with 90.6% over Barry Goldwater in '64 after Kennedy's assassination.

Contradictory?

2009-06-18T11:39:00.003-04:00

Today the President issued an executive order authorizing domestic partners of federal employees to receive the same benefits as married partners. There are a whole slew of moral and ethical questions concerning the implications behind this decision: included in those is the devaluing of the traditional family structure; how do you define a "domestic partner" and how do you prove it (do you have to be a couple, or is every roommate of a federal employee going to get benefits? And their children, etc); how do you reconcile this with the stated opinion of most courts as to the definition of marriage? Or is this just an end run to avoid the courts and bypass the majority of American's opinions?

There are a lot more issues at play here and discussions for another time. My main question right now is this.

How do you reconcile the stated goal of this administration to reduce the government expenditures on health care and reduce the federal deficit with this decision to add millions of people on to the government payroll?

And that is essentially what you are doing; they are now part of the expenditures related to the massive federal HR department. The amount of corruption that is going to be related to this measure is going to be staggering! Every single person on the US payroll is going to have a "partner" within 30 days. Wait and see.

Enrollments in private industry insurance are about to drop too as all of these "partners" that had insurance with their employer (that they had to pay a part of) are going to drop that in favor of the cheaper government coverage.

The costs related to this one executive order will be outrageous. The American taxpayer just took another major hit.

Wow! That's gotta hurt!

2009-06-17T17:03:00.004-04:00

This week the congressional budget office released three reports that either directly contradicted statements from the Obama administration on health care, or essentially told him "good luck with that".

MSNBC (can't believe I am using them for a source) reported today that the CBO reports were a "Major Buzz Kill" for health care overhaul. Keep in mind a couple of things: this is the CBO, the government accountants, that produced these reports; two of the key points of the Obama plan is that it will save the government (taxpayers) money and that everyone (meaning the 40 some million they say are without insurance) would be able to have health care.

What does the CBO have to say about those goals:

The CBO estimated that if the bill becomes a law, it would cause “a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion” from 2010 to 2019. But according to the agency, the bill would still leave 37 million Americans uninsured by 2019. MSNBC

A $1 TRILLION INCREASE in the deficit! And there are still 37 million uninsured!?!?!?! Help me make sense of this. It gets better. The article goes on to say:

It was a reminder from CBO that if Obama and Congress intend to redesign health insurance in a way that doesn't add to the federal deficit, they can’t rely primarily on the private sector.
Instead, they will have to do it themselves by curbing the spending that the federal government can control, such as Medicare, which costs $500 billion a year and is growing at a rate of 7 percent annually.

So, according to the government accountants, the only real chance they have of providing health care without adding to deficits and increasing taxes is to cut spending in other areas. There is not a politician in Washington right now with any power that has the will or desire to cut spending.

They even go on to point out that some of the measures that would actually work to reduce overall health care spending would in reality cost the government tax revenue. Primarily through tax incentives for companies to cover more preventive care.

And that $2 trillion in savings proposed by the health care / insurance industry. According to the CBO, while it may be a good thing if they can do it, the reality is it will not save the government any money. Those are all unproven, theoretical savings for the private sector.

How do you create government managed health care reform without adding to the Federal deficit?

Obama’s hope is that an overhaul of health care would reduce federal spending on health care, while improving people’s health. The CBO is reminding Congress of the gap between that hope and actual accomplishment; a deficit-neutral bill may require a lot of revenue through tax increases. MSNBC

Like I keep saying, you have to raise taxes. Go back to the Anyn Rand quote: the government cannot give a benefit to one person with first taking something from someone else.

Vacation Recap

2009-06-17T08:28:00.003-04:00

I was on vacation last week and did not spend any of it writing here. But, there were a few items of idiocy that need to be noted. Random Headlines in no order of importance:

California near meltdown as revenues fall - Isn't it strange how revenues are falling? CA has a history of continuing to raise taxes, and yet revenues are falling. It is going to be more and more difficult to maintain the "nanny state" services with no revenue.
Lumping a couple together: Russia Military: no nuclear cuts below 1500.... Taliban Militants attack in Pakistan, 11 dead.... Iran denies nuke agency camera request.... China warns against Use of force in carrying out N. Korea sanctions.... N. Korea views attempts to impose sanctions as 'act of war'. So tell me, how is that diplomacy from a position of weakness working out.
Health care bill to include $600 billion in new taxes - When are they going to run out of people to tax? And this is based on the fairy tale numbers of what this is really going to cost
Privacy may be a victim in cyber-defense plan - refresh my memory; wasn't it the Dems that lost their minds over privacy rights being violated by the Bush administration position on wire taps after 9/11? How is this any different?
Stimulus Apologies: Biden says 'everyone guessed wrong' - So, we are guessing now? He goes on meet the press and tells the worked that they guessed wrong. The economy was in much worse shape than anyone thought and we will not be able to meet that projection of 3.5 million new jobs. Could it be that 1) the stimulus bill never had a chance of succeeding anyway and 2) it was never intended to. The whole point of the bill was to reward campaign donors and fulfill the promises made to get elected. At least they are going to be 'stimulated'.
June's chill in Chicago 'coldest since records began" - global warming activist strangely silent.

There were several others to note: the fed continuing their war on cigarette manufacturers; the whole Iran election debacle; support suddenly sliding for the government health care monstrosity. One bit of good news though - at least the NBA season is over.

Just In on HealthCare

2009-06-03T10:38:00.004-04:00

Here We Go!
This came in to my e-mail right after the last post. Lots of information on the health care debate (Keep in mind it is the Washington Post; they don't grovel before Obama like NBC or pander like the NY times. But they are not exactly unbiased either). The latest? They are already considering elimination the current income tax deduction for health insurance in order to pay for their plan. Increased burden on business and individual tax payers. Somebody has to pay for all of this. Something tells me I am going to start racking up some "I told you so's" real quick.

Here is an ad from a group that pretty much covers it. It really is life or death.

I'm Not Buying It

2009-06-03T07:45:00.004-04:00

A Washington Post article this week starts with the grand headline that Economic Advisers Extol Benefits of Cutting Health Care Spending. The opening paragraphs indicate that the President's council of economic advisers have reported that cutting health care spending across the US by 1.5% would create 500,000 new jobs and "improve the nations overall well being by 'roughly' $100 billion a year."

Here is the part that the article tries very hard not to say: the whole premise behind this "savings" is that the President's nationalized health care plan is already approved and in place. These "savings" (and yes, I think that word needs to be in quotations every time it is used in this context) are what we could reduce the proposed budget by if we reduced health care cost.

First of all, they don't even have a health care program in place yet and they are looking for ways to reduce costs - read, "benefits".

Second, there is no clear plan in place that actually improves the status of our health care system:

This report is nothing more than smoke and mirrors," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. "Everyone agrees that reducing the cost of health care would benefit our economy, but the administration hasn't offered a credible plan to do so without raising taxes or rationing care. WP

Third, they don't even really think that the 1.5% savings are achievable!

The report contains few details about how those ambitious goals would be achieved, however, and does not address any increased federal spending needed to implement health reform. And the White House economists acknowledge that shaving 1.5 percentage points off the rate of growth in health spending would be extraordinarily difficult -- "probably near the upper bound of what is feasible." WP

The bottom line is there is no possible way to create a nationalized health care program without the economy suffering, the quality of care suffering, taxes increasing and the size of government increasing. Can you even imagine the size of the organization that would be required to run such a program. It could easily exceed the size of the IRS and in my mind could rival the US military.

These are the people you want responding to your claims questions and managing your care? And don't be misled; the government will be running the program. They will insist on it. When have they ever proven that can do anything better or cheaper than the private sector?
Here is my preview of how it will work out:

After running the numbers the administration will figure out that there is no possible way that they can foot the bill for their health care dreams
However, this is one of the key issues that got them elected so they have to figure out a way to make it work
So, they pass the bill to start the nationalized health care movement and start signing people up.
In order to pay for this they include in this law that all employers will have to contribute $x per employee to cover their health care (they have already made the first step in this direction by requiring that employers cover the cost of the 1st 90 days of cobra)
Well, contrary to popular opinion, companies are in business to make money: Without the profit motive I have discussed before, there is no point in having a business. So in order to maintain their profit margins (which are generally pretty slim by the way - average after tax profits for most businesses are under 5%) they are going to start laying people off. They will figure out how to get by with less people in order the bear the additional burden placed on them by the government.
Think unemployment is rising now? Wait until every company in the nation starts laying people off because of mandatory health care premiums. Try double digits nationally.

From there it just starts to snowball. Unemployment goes up, but those people are still going to need health care. So, we have to raise the rate per employee that the employers are paying as well as raising taxes and asking employees to pay a larger share of their own coverage. Some employers will lay off more people; some will move their business out of the country; some will just close the doors. No profit, no business.

In the meantime: with tax revenues dropping (more unemployment = fewer taxpayers, less business profits = less tax revenue) the national health care system is going to have to figure out a way to cut costs. Now comes the rationing of services and medications. It takes longer to see a doctor; the government decides if you need a test, or treatment for an illness; the government decides if you really need the medicine that will make you more comfortable while you are going through cancer treatment (which you will not get if they decide it was discovered too late and your chances of recovery are slim). This is not exaggeration; it is happening this way right now in countries with socialized medicine. Look it up. Read the stories about the health care systems in the UK and Canada.

While all of this is going on, enrollment in medical schools declines to almost nothing (at least among US citizens), quality doctors are closing their practices and no new ones are being opened. Why? Because there is no longer any incentive to become a doctor. The bottom line is that while many people going into medicine may claim that they are doing it to "help people", their real motivation is that doctors generally make pretty good money. Not under nationalized health care they don't! It will begin with the government mandating what they can charge for services (guaranteed to be less than what they are currently charging) and will end with them either being government employees or finding a new line of work.

There is no possible way that the government can effectively and efficiently implement and manage nationalized health care. Period. Not that will stop them, but is going to be a disaster for our economy and our quality of care.

Are We Learning Anything?

2009-05-25T22:45:00.004-04:00

The Diplomacy of the Obama Administration
During his campaign our President spent a considerable amount of time denouncing the foreign policy of the Bush Administration. He made bold statements about how we needed to talk more, listen more, and compromise. After his election, inside of three months, he went on an international tour in which he not only criticized the the former President, but essentially revoked decades of foreign policy. His plan was to establish a dialogue with countries such as Iran and North Korea, and to find some common ground with organizations such as the Palestinians, Hamas, the Taliban and Al Queda. This "new tone" and admission of "mistakes" that had been made on the past was supposed to endear us to these nations and reasonable leaders that just wanted someone to understand them; just wanted us to see their side of the issue.

So, how is that working out so far?

Lets look at just the last few weeks to really get a feel for which direction the world is going. Lets see if the world is a safer place when the the USA negotiates from a position of weakness.
First, Israel. President Obama has a meeting with Netanyahu, and "lays down the law". Telling Israel and Palestine how things are going to go and what they need to do to fix their problems. What is his plan? Appeasement of terrorist and more negotiations. The response: Hamas came out with statements that essentially negated the whole meeting. From the Jeruselum Post:

Hamas reacted with pessimism on Tuesday to the meeting between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama, saying that while the comments made by the two leaders professed hope, they were really just meant to deceive the world.

"Obama's remarks and expressions of hope were intended to deceive the international community regarding everything connected to the continuing behavior and existence of the racist and radical Zionist entity," a spokesperson for the group said in a statement published early Tuesday morning.
The spokesperson added that Obama's remarks were nothing but an "ensemble of wishes" on which the group hangs little hope.

In other words - all your talking is useless until you do exactly what we want you to do. Which is essentially to get out of our way and let us destroy Israel. Who, by the way, was not exactly blown away by the charm and grand ideas of our President. They made it very clear that they will not bow down to the demands of the Obama administration:

"The demand for a total stop to building is not something that can be justified and I don't think that anyone here at this table accepts it," Netanyahu told his cabinet, referring to Jewish settlements in the West Bank, according to an official.

Netanyahu said Israel had no plans to set up any new West Bank settlements. But he told Obama, according to the official, that his government "does not accept limitations on building" within what Israel defines as its capital, the Jerusalem municipality, an area that includes Arab East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank captured in a 1967 Middle East war. Reuters

Then, during the same week, Iran (another country that Obama thinks we can negotiate with) not only test fires a missile capable of reaching Israel and US military bases, but it decides to send naval vessels out into international waters is a "show of force". While at the same time continuing to tell the rest of world that they are going to complete the development of their nuclear program.

Oh, and did you miss the story back in March where the Russians are moving their military back into this part of the world. They are working with Cuba and Venezuela on establishing bases for their bombers. Now, who would they be thinking about bombing in this part of the world? And don't forget how tight Chavez is getting with China and Iran. He is working with China on building oil rigs and the latest report is that he is the one supplying Iran with Uranium.

And last, but surely not least, North Korea goes ahead and detonates a NUCLEAR BOMB, then proceeds to test fire missiles capable of strikes within South Korea and Japan. Now they have announced that they are no longer going to be bound by the terms of the armistice that ended the Korean War and they will respond militarily to any attempts to prevent nuclear bomb making materials into their country.

Why is all of this happening now? What made all of these countries and dictators decide now was a good time for defiance? Because they know there is no one with the will to stand up to them. And it is not just conservative Americans that know this; the international community has figured it out too.

What will it take for President Obama to take a stand? Will he have the nerve and will to protect and defend this country and our allies? How many American deaths will it take? As has been said before: If you are not scared, you are not paying attention.

Remember...And Give Thanks

2009-05-25T14:07:00.002-04:00

It is the very least we could do. Today is the day we as a Country have set aside to honor the fallen heroes of our armed services. It is a shame, really, that it usually takes an established holiday for us to truly acknowledge what our military does for us. It is even more shameful that the majority of us will not take the time to think about the importance of this day. It is the kickoff of the Summer, a day off from work, the end of the school year: It is so much more and should be honored as such. Take the time to thank a serviceman, visit a memorial or military cemetery, explain to your children what today is about, and pray for those that serve our country. Again, it is the least we could do.
Read the words of Ronald Reagan:

When our Allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy, they came not as conquerors, but as liberators... when our forces marched into Germany, they came not to prey on a brave and defeated people, but to nurture the seeds of democracy among those who yearned to be free again.

Today, in their memory, we celebrate the triumph of democracy... our alliance, forged in the crucible of war, tempered and shaped by the realities of the post-war world, has succeeded. The threat has been contained, the peace has been kept. We are free. These things are worth fighting and dying for. It is enough to say about all the men of honor and courage who fought for us decades ago: We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.

Watch the video:

For more great comments and memorials to our heroes, please see Michelle Malkin's web site.

Whether you are Conservative or Liberal, Democrat or Republican, or anything in between, today be thankful to a soldier that you are free to think as you do, act as you please and be whomever or whatever you want. Those freedoms do not come without a cost.

To all of those who proudly serve: Thank You! Today we remember your sacrifices. It is the least we can do.

Like I Said Before...

2009-05-21T21:31:00.004-04:00

...Read George Will. This editorial really nails the situation in California. It perfectly outlines the facts and motives behind California's ongoing financial collapse and impending bailout; places blame precisely where it belongs; and clearly defines the dangers of where this is all leading. What happens when the Obama administration bails out the State of California and tries to take over it's management? Just as it is doing with some of the largest businesses in the country? That is going to go well. The insanity is spreading.

Is anyone paying attention? California is in the beginning stages of what will inevitably happen to the country as a whole if we continue down this path to quasi-socialism and the era of the nanny-state. The process is fairly easy to follow:

The politicians figure out that there is a large voting block that is, or wishes to be, dependent on the government for some portion of their life
Said politicians instigate programs that further enable dependency
Those who are dependent on the government programs begin to feel that it is their right to be supported by the government
The dependents begin to demand more and more of their support be provided for, and politicians listen, because the dependents vote and are becoming more numerous
Meanwhile, these programs have to be paid for; so the politicians have to raise revenues, and the only way they have to do that is through taxes.
It goes pretty well at first: the voting block is happy, their numbers continue to increase and they outnumber the ones paying the taxes. So the politicians continue to get elected, which is all they are really interested in anyway.
Then a curious thing starts to happen: the demands of the dependents start to overwhelm the resources of the government.
About this time the government discovers that the rolls of the taxable are starting to decrease; or at least the amount of the revenue has reached its maximum.
At this point the government has to make a decision: It cannot raise anymore money, so it has to start cutting services.
Who suffers? Who gets to do without? And what do they get to do without? Well, the dependents have turned this choice over to the government, and the government has to start deciding what is important in their life.
The starting point will be "tough decisions" that include the rationing of services. Some of the initial phases will include withholding medical care for non-essential treatments and prescriptions from those that might not really need them. And the government gets to decide who gets rationed. Don't think that is possible: just take a look at what is happening currently in the UK and Canada. Ask someone who lives there how long they have to wait to have a test performed; or which terminal patient has to do without meds that may make them comfortable. It is happening. NOW. In the great realms of socialized medicine, it is happening now, because there is not enough revenue to take care of everyone dependent on the system.
It will have to continue, just cutting the medical will not be enough. It will continue. How far does it go? Does anyone remember bread lines in the Soviet Union? They were all dependent on the government, too; led to believe they would be provided for by the politicians they trusted.

Do we see the pattern? Can we not tell that California has reached capacity. It can no longer maintain services it has promised to provide it's citizens, and it can no longer raise taxes. The providers have had enough; the achievers have been bled dry.

What do they do now?

SAY WHAT?!?!?!?

2009-05-21T20:38:00.002-04:00

I am very confused:

Wednesday the House passed a bill that had already been approved by the Senate that would make it legal to carry concealed and loaded weapons in National Parks. How did that get through the Democrat led Congress? A victory for the Second Amendment! Applause and accolades to those that voted to pass this bill.

Not only does it turn out that this is a positive statement for the 2nd, but also for State's rights. The wording of the bill respects the laws of the States, stating that the law would apply in States where State law allows it. Perhaps the most bizarre statement in the whole thing came from the office of Harry Reid:

A spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), one of the Democratic backers of the bill, said Reid viewed the bill as defending the Second Amendment. (WP)

Harry Reid? HARRY REID?!?!?!? The lord high King Liberal himself (co-King with our President, of course) backing a bill defending the Second Amendment. I am very confused. Glad, but confused. There are still plenty unhappy about this of course.

"We have a Democratic president, a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, and we're passing more gun legislation than when there was a Republican in the White House," said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), a gun-control advocate. "It's disappointing."

Don't get comfortable; don't think they are going to go away and let this lie. I am waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Disturbing

2009-05-19T08:03:00.002-04:00

There are couple of items out there that deserve some attention and some "big picture" thinking. Fox News reported Sunday about a bill that has been introduced for the stated purpose of keeping guns out of the hands of known or suspected terrorist. Now, there are several problems with this proposal, some of which are outlined in the article. Among the potential pitfalls is the simple definition of terms: what is a terrorist? Just last week the Department of Homeland Security released the list of "extremist" organizations. Are they going to be on the list of those denied their rights under the Second Amendment? Will I be told I cannot purchase a legal firearm because I belong to a religious organization the government considers extreme, or because I do not believe in abortion? And don't think the liberals are immune; they got there own version of the extremist watch list. How long before Greenpeace is denied a zodiac?

I think my biggest arguments against this bill are these:

How will this really effect the "terrorist". Don't get me wrong: I do not want someone just released from Guantanamo (you do remember the people they keep there are terrorist, right) to walk into the local gun show and leave with an AK-47. However, there are already laws in place to prevent that: required background checks, waiting periods, etc. In addition to that, when was the last time a terrorist used a gun as their weapon of choice? Munich? Look at the list: September 11th, box cutters and airplanes; USS Cole, explosives on a boat; US Embassies in Africa, explosives; Oklahoma City, explosives built with fertilizer. It goes on and on, no guns used. Especially in the US. Why? Because citizens have guns to fight back with! Once again, this is real clear: If you make it illegal for law abiding citizens to acquire a gun, the only people who will have guns will be the criminals. Do you really think that a terrorist is going to purchase a gun from your local gun dealer where it can be registered and traced? If they wanted one it be acquired underground; new laws on this subject just will not work. Odds are they will do more harm than good.
Possibly one of the most disturbing aspects of this is that we are continuing down a path of punishing people for what they think and believe rather than for anything they have done. Think about this real carefully: they are trying to pass a law that will deny an individual their rights guaranteed under the Constitution because of who they are, what they think or believe, what they say, or what group they might belong to. But not for anything they have actually done. This concept began with the passing of the "hate crime" laws. I have heard Neal Boortz speak many times on how dangerous these laws are. It is one thing to punish someone for their crime, but now they are increasing the punishment because of what you may have been thinking.

Where do we draw the line? They (read as "government", "establishment", "Democrats", "Liberals". Though I do have to say that the gun control measure was introduced by a Republican. But he could no more be a conservative then Specter was) keep trying to impose more and more restrictions on freedom. I learned from another blog site about a law proposed by a California Democrat that would jail bloggers for "hostile speech"; defined as speech that is meant to " coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person." Can you get any more blatant in your attempts to suppress free speech that may not agree with your point of view? Does it get any more unconstitutional than this?

I am not one that believes that our rights are guaranteed unconditionally. They come with an equal measure of personal responsibility in order to keep them; and, yes, they can be taken away if abused. I have the right to free speech, i can say anything I please. But, I am not free from the consequences of what I say. If I threaten you, or slander you, there are legal consequences to my words. Ask the Dixie Chicks about consequences. They had every right to say what they wished about our country and President, but they were not immune to the consequences of their words. Eight years later, you still cannot find them on a country radio station in the US.

I believe that I have the right to own firearms. But, if I use that weapon in a reckless manner or in the commission of a crime, that right can be taken away from me. And while I do not believe that any American needs to own a fifty caliber machine gun or a rocket launcher (and no, you do not hunt with them, the dinosaurs are dead), I think we are treading on very dangerous ground when we start making distinctions.

The same goes for the free speech issues. When you start drawing lines as to what is appropriate to say or write you start down the road of eliminating freedom. Our laws are designed to protect freedoms, not restrict them. The new laws that are being introduced over the last decade are intended to limit freedom; often at the expense of one group for the benefit of another. The Fairness Doctrine is a glaring example of this. It was not intended to be fair, it was intended to get conservative viewpoints off the airwaves; to eliminate the voices of opposition. Why? Because liberal views cannot be defended in a public debate with free exchange of information and ideas. Therefore, it does not sell in a talk radio format, which was really the target of the law in the first place. How long before that law is extended past the traditional mediums? Think they wont try and shut down political blogs? Read the context of the law mentioned above.

We are treading on very thin ice. Our basic freedoms are under attack. Read through the Bill of Rights. It is all about individual rights; the right of the citizen separate from a group or the government. How do the liberals feel about individual rights. Their Queen (Hillary Clinton) stated it best: "...We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively...". Care to know where you might find similar statements: "The Central Committee... vigorously condemns the cult of the individual as being alien to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism." (N. S. Khrushchev: Report to the Central Committee, 20th Congress of the CPSU, February 1956; London; 1956; p. 80-81).

Where do you think we are heading?

Oh..., This Will Get Them Going

2009-05-18T16:48:00.003-04:00

Be sure and send this to your angry liberal friends:

I have heard Boortz and Hannity speak before about how angry and unhappy liberals tend to be. They are overwhelmingly vindictive and personal in their attacks on conservatives and completely irrational in their approach to most arguments. When logic fails they will result to personal attacks on their opponent. Just look at the current barrage of attacks on Rush and Sarah Palin. They don't debate them on issues; they don't attack their opinions on policy; they go after their personal life. And they hold nothing back.

What's the point? Well, it turns out that liberal's are just generally unhappy people. A recent study reports that only about 30% of Democrats consider themselves to be happy, versus 45% percent of Republicans. There were some other "happiness" indicators that are sure to steam the Liberal groups: People who worship are happier than those who do not; rich are happier than poor; married happier than unmarried.

Some of the best parts of the article are the comments: Roc, Gabby 100 and nepher had some great remarks, especially roc. One of the best though just went to prove the whole point! Read the comments from Haoleman: how angry and unhappy does that person sound? taigsmum's rebuttal is right on point also. Logical, well thought out, not attacking; just a nice reasonable statement of position.

Better Than Me

2009-05-15T11:01:00.002-04:00

I was going to comment on the mess that is the Chrysler bankruptcy and insane handover to the unions (see "profit motive" section of prior post). But, it seems George Will has beat me to the punch, and he is much more eloquent and skillful than I (he also comments on the CA debacle I referenced previously). Read his editorial; there is nothing I can add to it. For future reference: If George Will writes it, you should probably read it.

Follow Up - State's rights

2009-05-09T20:02:00.003-04:00

Another Federal Power Grab
Friday the all powerful imperial federal government notified the sovereign State of California that they were going to play by the fed's rules, or else. Now, the short version of this infuriating story is that once again this administration is trampling all over State's rights and the 10th Amendment. The part that really gets my blood pressure up though is the details:

What is the nature of the threat? What are the feds going to do if CA doesn't shape up and do things the federal way? They are going to withhold "Stimulus" money from the state. To the tune of BILLION$ of DOLLAR$. OF OUR MONEY! Just for a refresher; the feds cannot give something to anyone that it has not first taken from someone else.
What was the great offense CA committed that brought down the ire of the almighty? They had the nerve to cut the portion of pay the state contributed to home health care workers. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot a really important word from the previous sentence: "unionized" health care workers. According to the LA Times article this group of workers contributes millions monthly in dues to two very influential unions. Do we need to discuss who the unions supported in the last election?

Now follow the progression here: the federal government passes an illegal stimulus plan; they need trillions of dollars to cover the commitments of this bill; the only way they can acquire the money is through taxation (their only way to generate revenue) or debt - which will have to be paid back later with ... taxes; they are going to insist that these taxes they have confiscated for this illegal bill be used to pay union wages. My head just might explode. Welcome to payback time. Our President is wasting no time returning the favors of those that helped to get him elected.

By any other name....

2009-05-04T16:24:00.000-04:00

So, you don't like the sound of "Global Warming"? Not to worry; we will just change the name of one of the most politically charged issues of our time in mid stride. That way you might not notice that we are changing the rules in mid stream. A N.Y. times article yesterday reports that the environmentalist have decided that the reason they are losing the battle has to do with terminology instead of flawed ideology. Their focus groups have informed them that people do not like the term "Global Warming", so they are going to call it something different like "Climate Change". Yea, that sounds better.

The problem they ran into is that the temperatures stopped going up. We got through a warming trend in the 80's and 90's and suddenly temperatures started dropping again and returned to what was considered normal. Amazing! Seeing as how warming and cooling trends have occurred throughout the earth's history, even before man had the capability of having any influence on the climate. So now they are taking the tactic of toning down the language; making it sound less confrontational. Add the dropping temps to the fact that people now have other things to worry about and they are really losing ground. It seems that when the economy was booming and we were not real concerned about terrorist or our jobs, that the environment starting scoring as important in the polls. Why not? I have nothing else to be concerned about, lets save the planet! Now we get to 2009: the world is an unstable place, the economy is taking a beating, people are losing jobs. And what do the latest polls show? Global warming ranked last in a list of 20 concerns people were asked about.

So, what do we do now? Well, lets change the game plan. We are no longer concerned about the environment or global warming. We are concerned about you and your well being.

The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”
“Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study.
Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington. (NY Times)

Does anyone see anything wrong with this? What happened to the great principles of Saving the Planet? Here is another goody:

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

Don't "confuse people with cap and trade"? Let's just not talk about one of the most economically damaging policies introduced in 60 years. Scare people instead and talk about "refunds". Where do these refunds come from? Those of us paying taxes, that's who.
So the pollsters and advertisers have decided that "climate change" is easier to sell than "global warming." The real problem is that none of them are really interested in saving anything. They are only concerned about bringing about destruction; specifically, the destruction of capitalism. Any perceived damage to the environment is placed directly at the feat of "greedy, evil big business." If they were really concerned with change for the better, they would get out of the way of nuclear power. It is clean and efficient and SAFE. The left are always wanting to follow their socialist brethren in France. Why not follow their lead on this issue? France converted 80% of their power grid in 3 years. No meltdowns.

Sorry folks; I have to agree with Boortz on this one. The environmental movement is nothing more than defeated communist with a new platform. Their cause is the same, the defeat of capitalism. Just the names are changed.

Seriously.........?

2009-05-02T14:23:00.000-04:00

There was an article in the Washington Post this week titled "U.S. in Control: Its goal to fix, not run firms." Seriously? Does someone actually believe this? I find it very difficult to to believe that at any time during this process of Nationalizing some of the largest industries in the country that there has ever been any intention of reversing what they started. The intention all along has been to take over these companies and make them a government run enterprise. There are several problems with this concept:

It is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional and against every principle established for this countries' government and economy. We are the greatest economy in the world because we are capitalist, not socialist.
If, and that is a really big "IF", the goal is actually to fix these companies, the wrong people are in charge. You cannot put a bureaucrat in charge of a business. They are not compatible endeavors. These are lifelong politicians and government employees that have no concept how to run an efficient and profitable organization. Which brings us to ...
There has to be a profit motive to have a successful business. A government employee, bureaucrat or politician has no understanding of the concept of profit, and profit is what these business have to have in order to be turned around.

Sticking with point number 3 for a moment: As the largest shareholder in the companies that the Obama administration is taking over, they are starting to implement the policies they think are appropriate for the task at hand. The problem, as pointed out in the WP article, is that the administration is trying to use these companies to achieve their political agenda. They are "in the awkward position of balancing public policy goals with the financial interests of taxpayers as investors in these ailing corporations." The overriding problem that everyone seems to overlook is that it is essentially impossible to accomplish these task simultaneously. A couple of examples:

Affordable housing and the Mortgage industry - look at what the administration has in mind for Freddie and Fannie. Again from the WP:

Having committed $400 billion to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government is directing them to carry out big parts of the Obama administration's Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, a $75 billion effort launched last month. The program aims to restructure mortgages that borrowers cannot afford, bolster the sagging housing market and bring down interest rates on home loans.

Does this not sound familiar to anyone? No sense of deja vu? This is how the mortgage industry got in trouble in the first place! If you manipulate the housing market by giving mortgages to people that cannot afford them you are asking for disaster. The Clinton administration encouraged (forced) the same practice resulting in the current problems with the banking and mortgage industry. Giving someone a mortgage they cannot afford will result in foreclosure; bad for the bank, bad for the housing industry, bad for the consumer. Oh, and the mortgage companies that are supposedly being "fixed"? They make money on interest received from loan payments being made. How does a policy of giving away bad mortgages help the mortgage company? The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. There is no sound business reason to offer these mortgages, only government intervention with no profit motive.

But the choices the government is making for the companies potentially stand in the way of returning them to profitability, the companies have said. Executives must choose between making decisions that benefit the housing market or save taxpayer dollars. "These initiatives are likely to have a significant adverse effect on our financial results or condition," Freddie Mac warned in its regulatory disclosure.(WP)

The auto industry has the potential to be an even bigger disaster. With cap and trade on the horizon and the environmentalist running the asylum, there is a realistic possibility that the new bosses are going to insist on increasing production of low profit electric and hybrid vehicles. Combine that with being connected at the hip with the UAW and the government controlled auto companies don't stand a chance.

The only real chance these business that have been taken over by the government have is the fact that they can continue to count on Big Brother to take money from taxpayers that have actually earned it and pumping it into their company. What happens when that well runs dry? What if Atlas were to Shrug? Read the book by Ayn Rand. It will frighten you to your core.

More Right Wing Extemism....

2009-04-25T14:22:00.000-04:00

One of the other criteria that home land security has used to define a Right Wing Extremist is a belief in State's Rights; another blatant attack against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment states:

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

The framers of the Constitution always considered that the powers of the federal government should be strictly limited and defined. And any power that was not included in those definitions as outlined in the Constitution would fall under the authority of the individual States or the People themselves (that is a novel idea; people actually being responsible for Governing themselves without aid from the Federal Government. We will get back to that later).
The powers given to the Congress in the Constitution are very will defined in Article 1, section 8. Read it carefully. Read it again. Now tell me where in this list the government finds the authority for some of its recent actions. I don't see anything about bailing out corporations, owning stock in private corporations, providing health care for the masses, etc, etc. Now, it may seem that this is a bit off point on the whole States Rights issue. But look at it this way: every time Congress, or the President, exerts a power that is not delegated to them by the Constitution they have effectively circumvented the rights of the States. Or, more importantly, the rights of the individual, also referenced in the 1oth. There is a great quote on the subject from Ayn Rand:

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

For those of you who are not a fan of Ayn Rand; sorry, she is right. The government cannot give a benefit, bail out a company, construct a road, pay a salary, or even buy a paperclip without taking money from someone else. It is not their money! Nor in most cases is it their right to spend it in the first place, based on Constitutionally defined powers.
Think States rights are not important in today's age of the ever increasing massive Federal Government. Just look at what some state Governments have to say about it: Texas;
New Hampshire
Arizona

These are just 3 of 20 states that are considering legislation of this type. Have they been told that they are right wing extremist? Do they know that Home Land Security has now labeled them and considers them a potential threat to this country. Read the Founding Father's thoughts on the dangers and consequences of a Federal Government run amok. It looks surprising like where we are headed right now.

A final thought on the recent Home Land Security release: how despicable is it that they attack our veterans? To single them out as potential threats to our security and label them as anything other than Heroes? Outrageous! I heard a quote from a returning soldier that pretty much sums it up: " I have risked my life for my Country fighting terrorist. And now that same country thinks I am going to become one." It is shameful, to say the least, that any government official or agency should release such a statement.

Right Wing Extremist

2009-04-23T09:24:00.000-04:00

Apparently, I am one. At least according to the recently released Homeland Security document. I am not part of any "organization" or militia group, but I strongly believe in most of what they label as being right wing extremist. What is interesting to me is that most of things that are outlined in this document are some of the basic rights and laws that are outlined in the Constitution. How is it that a belief in the founding laws and structure of our government can now be considered extremist? Right of left wing? My understanding of this position is that the current administration is directly opposed to the 2nd and the 10th amendment (they are opposed to much more of the Constitution than that, but I will get to that later):

The Second Amendment - The Right to Bear Arms. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The current "liberal" argument (as I understand it) is that the 2nd amendment is intended solely for the purpose of maintaining a state (federally) controlled military and does not apply to an individuals right to own a firearm. And while the language can be interpreted in many ways, I think it is important to consider the intentions of those that initially voted it into law. When James Madison initially proposed this amendment it was worded differently: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country...." The right of the "People" clearly comes first. A reading of Federalist #46 written by Madison states fairly clearly that one of the main reasons for citizens to own arms is for their protection from the possibility of an OPPRESSIVE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. If you think that is not important in modern times, here are a few facts cited by Paul Harvey in September of 2000:

Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?

CONSIDER THIS:

· In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. (My note: they were unable to repel Japanese invaders, who piled them up like cordwood! My Dad took the pictures in 1937.)

· Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide: Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8%, and Armed Robberies are up 44%. In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%. Over the previous 25 years, figures were showing a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such a monumental effort and expense was expended in "ridding society of guns." It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.

Keep in mind that I do not currently own a firearm; primarily because I have small children that I have not educated in the proper respect, use and handling of a gun. I also live in what I would consider a fairly "safe" neighborhood. That being said, it bothers me a great deal that I do not own a gun with which I could protect my family. When I have better educated myself, and can in turn educated my household, I plan to rectify this situation.

Next I am on to the 10th amendment.....

Uncommon

2009-03-15T17:15:00.000-04:00

I am currently reading Uncommon by Tony Dungy (Indianapolis Colts coach for those that may not follow football). It was an unexpected gift and I really had not intended to read it, but now I cannot put it down.
It is not a book about football, it is a book about how to be Uncommon in today's world. It is sad what we now consider to be uncommon. He touches on subjects that used to be expected and that are considered impolite or politically incorrect to bring up. Things like Character, Honesty, Humility and respect for authority. He delves into subjects such as how to be a good father, how to treat a women, how to reach your full potential, how to be a role model to others, and how to live a life of faith.
A lot of positive has been said about Tony Dungy; the way he coaches, how he treats people and how he lives. This book is an extremely courageous statement on how men should be, not what is now considered acceptable.
Read this book! If you have sons, make them read it (or save it for them until they are old enough), and talk to them about it. If you have daughters, Make them read it, and explain to them that this is the kind of man they should be waiting for.