The Lote Tree

Why Are Lefties So Thick-Headed?

2011-05-09T14:20:00.000-07:00

On November 18 of last year, under a post entitled, "High Speed Rail: Pros & Cons", I wrote the following:

- Security is impossible. First of all, nobody has brought up the ominous prospect of installing and operating TSA-like security at every train depot. Imagine airport TSA issues times a hundred in terms of cost and manpower and logistics and delays. And don’t forget unions!
- It will be a simple matter for terrorists to walk up to any length of track in the middle of nowhere Wisconsin and put a bomb on the track and detonate it from the comfort of a sunny hillside and watch the speeding train pile into the surrounding fields and kill hundreds or more. If I have thought of this, trust me, terrorists already have stretches of track in mind. They’re just waiting for Obama to supply them with human targets.

Obviously, security is a huge con, just like the con liberals are trying to pull with their rail initiatives.

Well, it didn't take long for all the libs to start calling for more security at train stations. Here's Chuck Schumer from New York: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/05/08/schumer-calls-for-do-not-ride-list-for-amtrak/

If you read that piece it references notes found at Bin Laden's compound detailing ways to attack trains. Sometimes I hate it when I'm right, but someone has to explain it to the thick-headed left.

The Battle For America's Future Is Being Fought Right Here In Wisconsin, Right Now

2011-03-21T19:18:00.000-07:00

If you haven’t noticed, lately there has been a dramatic shift in strategy from the far left. They have been backed into a corner as Americans in overwhelming majority have decried out of control government spending. This is an affront to the thing progressives hold most dear – their communist agenda. If you think that’s ridiculous rhetoric just ask yourself what happened to all that “stimulus” money, or look in the local paper and see what’s going on here in Wisconsin. The left sees 50 years of effort building the foundation of a worker’s paradise crumbling under its own unsustainable weight, and they’ve invested far too much energy to allow a simple thing like the will of the awakened American people to F--- it up now.

The chosen tactic is nothing new – it may be the oldest play they have: Class Warfare.

The rhetoric is in crescendo, with Michael Moore and other far-left whacko pundits trumpeting the call. If there are only two options to solving the country’s impending insolvency – cut spending or raise taxes – the left has clearly and proudly chosen their path. But of course they can’t raise everyone’s taxes – that wouldn’t be fair, so go after the rich. In a sense the left is smart about these things – they never miss an opportunity to highlight the spectacular oversights of wealthy people, especially when those people happen to be heads of large corporations, and since Obama took power there has been plenty of fodder. Can anyone say “conspiracy?” Obama has never had to answer the questions regarding his bailouts of the banks and the egregious bonuses paid out in the wake. Maybe he was just giving out rope, but his hands are as dirty as anyone else’s. I've heard several interviews on NPR with authors of new anti-capitalism books - you can't tell me this isn't a highly coordinated effort. The DNC is game-planning the whole charade, I guarantee it.

We’re fortunate in Wisconsin to be at ground zero for this battle. I’m optimistic that as a constituency we will eventually get tired of the drama and emotion play and come to our rational senses, which are clearly inclined toward reduced spending. But the far-left is nothing if not patient and tireless, and they are also not at all ashamed of lying or making up stories to invoke a desired response. My guess is this will be a long struggle, and I pray that we have the fortitude to see it through. Having Walker leading the charge is extremely helpful, but it’s the same reason the left is demonizing him so hard right now – they know he has both hands on the curtain and how dangerous that makes him to their grand design.

Fire Drills In Summer

2011-03-21T19:13:00.000-07:00

Today there were “organized” walk outs by students in the La Crosse county public schools in support of teachers. Does anyone buy that? Students standing up for teacher’s rights. I just can’t imagine this being a significant motivator, at least not beyond the typical emotional level that only serves to confuse the issue.

Anyone who was ever a student knows that at least 90% of these kids are just taking any excuse to get out of classes for an hour or a day, and could care less what the reason is. I would have been the same way. The fact that teachers are encouraging this behavior is truly troubling, and speaks to the high degree of institutional indoctrination to liberalism going on in public schools. More than ever Wisconsin schools are little more than converted sausage factories for grinding out liberals. Of course they are in desperation mode now that the writing is on the wall. It’s like when a dictator is about to be deposed and he fires every missile he has because he knows he can’t take them with him – the unions are going apeshit trying to collect as many dues as possible before the tide really does turn on them.

That can’t be far off. According to a new Rasmussen poll, two-thirds of Wisco voters side with the unions on the CBA issue but also want teachers to take benefit or pay cuts. Read through the spin and it’s crystal clear that the overwhelming majority are actually on Walker’s side of the argument, they are just confused by the emotional subterfuge on performance. Susan Sarandon – are you f---ing kidding me?? Enough with the dog and pony show, people, figure it out already.

Everybody likes fire drills in summer – that’s all these kids are doing.

Obama's Whatever-It-Is

2011-03-21T19:09:00.000-07:00

Tuned in to NPR this morning to catch some progressive complaining about Obama’s decision to hit Libya with missiles over the weekend. He said the action was against the law, unconstitutional, and hypocritical, and reminiscent of the Bush “Neo-Con” approach to foreign policy.

I disagree – Bush would not have waited two weeks to see which European nation was willing to take the blame if things went wrong, almost guaranteeing that things will go wrong. The world is going to blame the US regardless. During those two weeks Qaddafi has basically destroyed the rebels ability to wage an effective resistance, reducing them to a handful of strongholds with limited influence. Had US strikes been initiated 2 weeks ago the rebels might have had a chance, but the Vacillator-In-Chief would not commit.

If anything this should remind us of Clinton-era actions: a lathering of Tomahawk cruise missiles with very little substantive effect except to deflect the media’s probing eyes away from his personal affairs at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In this case Obama is relatively scandal free – not for lack of material but rather that the media simply does not want to expose him for the outright awful leader he is. He pulled the same nonsense with Afghanistan – waiting 6 weeks to make a time-sensitive decision to put more boots on the ground in Afghanistan and then shorting McCrystal by 25% of his requested troops. The general did not just pull a number out of thin air – history is already proving he needed every man, but no, Obama knew better, and clearly this tactic of waiting for the rebels to be nearly wiped out before putting in a pittance of support is all part of Obama’s strategy for success, whatever that means, and we don’t know because Obama hasn’t told us. Bush at least had goals and we understood them. Obama, like Clinton, is just firing missiles at soft targets. Maybe he’s hoping – Yes We Can and all that.

If Qaddafi is deposed and the rebels topple the dictatorship it will be a lucky break for Obama and the US at this point. He’ll deserve some small praise for having made the decision at all. Don’t get me wrong – unlike many “progressives” I want our actions to have effect and a positive outcome. It will be very interesting to see how liberals respond to this whether it goes favorably or not. If the guest on NPR is an indicator they are at least starting out consistent.

*Edit - My wife has MSNBC on right now - that annoying Ed show, and he's all for this war. Figures.

What Wisconsin Liberals Are Really Rejecting

2011-03-04T19:21:00.000-08:00

Their own Rights!

It isn't about the benefits because the unions know they've lost that battle; now they fight for their very survival. At the heart of the issue is an honest question: Are unions relevant in today's economy? We're talking primarily about teachers now, because although other union workers are impacted the term "teacher" still strikes an emotional chord for a majority of Americans, even as quality of education in Wisconsin continues to decline. What's amazing about that is that while our state's student test scores sink from a once-lofty perch, a huge percentage of people side with teachers against their own self-interests, and an even split sides with unions.

Clearly this is another case where the Media-arm of the regressive Left in this country has once again successfully managed a campaign of malicious misinformation and character assassination. You don't have to look too far to see many of the notable liars, including CNN and Madison's own Capitol Times. They brazenly spout the most preposterous nonsense, and when called out they have the gall to claim they were misrepresented when they misrepresented on TV or print, as if they thought nobody bothered to fact check. Just go to politifact.com to read the list.

The most prominent example is the flagrant use of the word "right." As in, collective bargaining rights. Nowhere in the state or federal constitutions is collective bargaining granted as a right, and I doubt any good "progressive" would dare say she inherited the right to collectively bargain from God. What is a right? "Being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper." That could apply to just about anything, but in this case we must consider what the CBA actually accomplishes.

The CBA creates a legally-binding framework for union workforce benefit increases. In this case we're talking about employees of the State of Wisconsin whose benefits are paid for by the taxpayers of Wisconsin. If these people are my "friends and neighbors," as the flaming pundits like to say, then they are effectively taking money out my pocket every week and there's not a damn thing I can do about it.

Furthermore, terrible teachers - and every one of us could name half a dozen off the tops of our heads - are rewarded the same as excellent teachers. How is that fair? What say do those represented by the CBA actually have? None. Union bosses dictate terms and take a heavy slice off the top. I don't understand how any educator could think that was a good thing, but that's probably why the public schools in this state are in decline.

When people are actually confronted by this reality, and Governor Walker has tried, they fail to see the reason anyway because they are worked into this emotional frenzy by the whips whose job it is to make sure the will of the people as dictated last November is circumvented.

Make no mistake, this is all about Democrat power, as their greatest cash provider is public and private unions.

The ridiculous thing is Walker isn't decertifying unions with this bill, all he's doing is empowering those affected by unions with the right to vote to continue under the union! So the protesters are actually protesting against their own voice in favor of the union! How does that make any sense to anyone?? Union bosses are terrified their own people won't want them, and so it goes in Madison.

This is truly a sad state of affairs. I just pray that Walker sticks to his principles and lets the Democrats continue to not have any.

Scott Walker: Legend In The Making

2011-02-18T11:27:00.000-08:00

What Governor Scott Walker is doing in Madison is nothing short of a stroke of genius. By eliminating the collective bargaining agreement, Walker endows all public employees with the right to determine their own success. Collective bargaining agreements shield employees from responsibility and make it impossible for a good teacher, for example, to be rewarded based on merit and instead treats good teachers the same as awful teachers; all are given benefits and pay increases based on the outdated system of seniority. They are paid based on a quantity of years and not on quality of performance.

It should be obvious to anyone who thinks objectively about it that CBAs are a horrible idea. Once the CBA is gone, teachers and other public employees can be evaluated the same way as employees in the private sector. That is, by the value they add to their organization. These employees can also now decide whether or not they want to contribute to their union and be represented, something they had no choice about under the CBA. If a union cannot convince enough people that it provides them with a useful service it will cease to exist and all those employees will be able to be judged on their merits. How great is that! Employees who perform poorly will be thusly rewarded/punished and can even be terminated, creating a position for someone else who is more likely to want to succeed.

There is nothing bad about any of this, of course, except that it will deprive Democrats of the power of unions to push votes for Democrat candidates at elections.

The other thing Scott Walker intends to accomplish is to force public employees to contribute up to 50% toward their retirements. God forbid! This will result in a net decrease in their pay, which is what all the fuss is about. Obama has stuck his skinny head into the matter, saying things like, “These are our friends and neighbors,” blah, blah, blah. He fails to complete his own argument, which is that these are our friends and neighbors and we pay their salary and benefits, and so far they have rarely had to foot the bill for their own lucrative retirement and health care benefits. Imagine if your neighbor went around the neighborhood every week and you had to cut him a check. Then years down the road he’s retired 10 years before you get to on money you gave him. That is exactly how it works only you don’t think that way because the money you pay your neighbor is first filtered though the State and local bureaucratic process.

The protests are a farce. Any teacher who uses a sick day to protest should be fired, but of course they are protected by the union, which has its own trivial survival at stake.

God bless Scott Walker and the Republicans who are showing great and necessary courage in the face of contrived opposition who protect an antiquated and self-destructive system.

The Train Gang

2011-02-09T15:04:00.000-08:00

Through the first two years of his term in office, Campaigner-In-Chief Obama has totally failed to spur job growth in this country. Nothing he’s tried has worked, and everything he’s tried has increased the national debt. The unemployment rate, which he promised would not go higher than 8%, in fact went to 10.1%, with real unemployment hovering around 17%.

Obama has no idea what to do. He continues to think that 5 million “green jobs” can still be created by 2013, but everyone know that’s a fantasy. Billionaire T. Boone Pickens, who drafted the obnoxious “Pickens Plan” for green energy, which was his idea to erect thousands of giant wind turbines in the Texas wastes, failed miserably when he discovered the infrastructure did not exist to do anything with such a resource, and no plan to build such infrastructure was being seriously considered. Last June he abruptly scrapped the windmill idea in favor of natural gas pump stations. Do those qualify as “green” jobs? Even now he’s getting little support for his plan that would cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars during Bama’s depressed economy. Meanwhile, closer to home, lefties are worried about Governor Scott Walker’s proposal to increase the distance a gigantic wind turbine can be built from private property by a mere 600 feet. The environmental crowd operate as if money were no object. Get a clue! If we could invest a quarter of the money necessary into clean coal and shale oil, of which we have among the world’s largest supplies, we could accomplish many of the spoken objectives of the Left – reduce dependency on foreign oil while creating a cleaner burning fuel, and without the need for a complete do-over on the nation’s power grid!

So he still thinks 5 million green jobs will materialize out of zero demand. He has the same expectation for high speed rail. Unbelievably, the First Goon is going back to that old well, probably because the Vice Moron Joe Biden thinks it’s such a great idea. Obama just proposed a $53 Billion plan to enhance rail along major corridors. Talk about “R is for Reverse”, more like “D is for deaf and dumb.” And whenever a Lefty wants to challenge their many, many critics over higher speed rail the argument that always comes up is that Europe has it. And now China is getting it. Big F---ing Deal! Maybe they wish they were part of the socialist utopias in Europe or the Communist wonderland that is China, but neither of those places have infrastructure requirements that are in any way similar to America.

For one, we have cars and roads. Almost nobody in China drives – most of it is still a third world country. And it’s existing train system is horrid by all accounts. Once you get out of the major cities in China you might as well be on the Moon. The tourism shows work hard to meet Western expectations, but the people of China live very differently. We are not the same. We are not even similar. Our societies almost could not be more different, so any comparison of transportation systems is absurd. Likewise, Europe is in a very different boat. The places where people live there are so old that cars are impractical. People walk. They walk the short distances to neighborhood shops and places of work or take the train to the next city and then walk from there. While this may solve our obesity problem, the amount of public transportation needed to cover the relatively vast expanses of North America and operate the way other countries do it, is obviously prohibitively expense. The only way it could work, and Republicans have been quick to say it, is by private enterprise. The big problem there is that no private company is interested in operating at a loss in perpetuity, ala Amtrak.

So when Obama says jobs he can only mean more government jobs. Are there any doubters left that this guy is a Communist?

More Weak-Kneed Foreign Policy From Bama

2011-02-07T19:25:00.000-08:00

It's hard to look at the situation in Egypt right now and not see the stunning failure of the Obama International Apology Tour. Wasn't that supposed to make the rest of the world not hate us? And yet Egyptians - mostly young, radicalized Muslim men - are gathering by the tens of thousands in the streets of Cairo shouting down their own dictator while at the same time decrying the United States. Even American "journalists" working for CNN and other outlets are being mugged in the streets; evidence that Egyptians are not at all in tune with the "Free Press" in this country, which would otherwise have been sympathetic to the cause of the revolutionaries.

So that's what Bama gets for telling the people who hate us how awful we are - a few bloodied talking heads and a likely return of Egypt to a decidedly less West-friendly nation. Egypt in the last 50 years has teetered on the brink of fundamentalism more severely than most people realize, with only the strong leadership of military-backed despots to keep the Arabs in line. An argument could be made that Sadat was the last rational leader Egypt had, and Islamic fundamentalists assassinated him. At best Sadat was to Israel what Nixon was to China, and at worst he was a similarly corrupt leader who created a quasi-capitalist economy to enrich himself.

It is a sad state of affairs that led the U.S. to support Mubarak for the last three decades. Mubarak was like a dam, holding back the growing sea of fundamentalism and siphoning billions of dollars from the economy for his own gain at the people's expense. He is in the worst category of dictators - no better than Saddam except that he has been more than willing to rule while on the U.S. payroll. He has played it both ways and gotten away with it, for the most part, his $100 Billion in personal wealth stashed among the banks of Europe. I don't blame Egyptians for finally getting fed up with this guy and at the same time cursing the U.S for our meddling.

But we already know how this is going to turn out. For some reason Obama actually seems unwilling to intervene in any meaningful fashion. Once again he is putting more faith in people that openly hate us than he does American citizens. Israel has the most to lose. If fundamentalists seize power from the chaos of the collapse of the Mubarak regime then if we'll end up with another Iran or Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

And it will happen on Obama's watch, not because of what he did but because of what he will not do. Don't think influence cannot still be bought - that is exactly what is already at work, and if the United States is not in that game we lose by default. Mubarak is corrupt and is hurting his country, but what will replace is not likely to be much better. Egypt is a resource-poor country relative to its population, much like Afghanistan. In such a place, with the world as globally invested as it is, money equals power. The question is how much are we willing to spend to have things break our way?

As a fiscal conservative, I same F--- 'em. Let's pull out of the whole region for a decade and see what happens. It's time to ask our allies, "What have you done for me lately?" and pull foreign aid accordingly. Will the region destabilize? Absolutely. But they are more than likely to to form pocket regimes and kill their own for a while. It's been happening in the rest of Africa for a century. It's Egypt's time now. I hope when it all plays out these revolutionaries realize they reaped what they sowed, but they'll probably just blame us.

My point is that Obama has the ability to change the outcome for the better. For everyone. Only he's not that kind of leader. He's not Reagan, not even in the same universe. But Reagan is exactly what we need right now.

2012 can't come fast enough.

Obama Campaign Stop: Tucson

2011-01-12T17:24:00.000-08:00

The event in Tucson was absolutely terrible. The killer is obviously a disturbed psychopath, but was he also a Republican? There's the real story, or so the "Free Press" would want us to believe. It's all Sarah Palin's fault, and don't forget it.

Right now, on national television, the Tucson Memorial is the singular event of the new year. But why? How many other multiple homicides have garnered so much national attention? Not many. This brings to mind the Wellstone Memorial of eight years ago, a political event if there ever was one. This is much the same flavor, without as much of the hate, but seriously, the President of the United States is there. This has obviously been carefully magnified for the express purpose of trying to make Democrats look like the everyman, on our side, the party that cares. While Republicans are the cause of this horrific tragedy.

I'm positive that if a Democrat congresswoman wasn't a target this would have been a tragedy but not a national call to political action. Oh, and the congresswoman's not dead. But yes, we're all "deeply affected."

Not that any of this justifies the criminal act. Just don't get caught up in the Democrat campaign ad Obama's handlers hope it can be.

You don't think the political movers don't actually think that way? I bet any money that they're happily counting an influx of campaign contributions right now. And how much would you bet that Bama brings this up again in his SOTU address? Democrats are desperate - they will milk this for all its worth.

What's with all these Democrats reading from the Bible? That seems a bit off. Scripture just doesn't have the same effect coming from politicians. Oh, and what is Nancy Pelosi doing there? That should tell us everything.

Hmm, Obama gets a standing ovation and uncomfortably long applause. He loves it. No redirection to the tragedy, just soaking up that adoration. Come on - the crowd is there for him, not for any of the victims. His hair is gray again. That's funny, it was just straight black when he was on vacation a week ago...

I don't believe Obama can remember ever meeting the congresswoman, but he's a Democrat, so he tells a story like they were best friends.

And there it is, the quintessential moment: When Obama entered Gabby Gifford's hospital room she opened her eyes for the first time. For the first time - he said it himself! The Messiah is returned!

You know what's really striking is how Obama sounds like he's working an angle; he's just so obviously trying too hard to sound like he cares. Compare that to President Bush's many moments of genuine compassion immediately following tragedies.

Oh, and all the heroes who stopped the killer when he was reloading got really bad seats in the middles of rows way back on the floor. Figures - all the "important" people like Pelosi and several other Democrat congressmen are sitting in the front rows. Assholes.

The point is, shouldn't these people be remembered by people who cared about them, instead of splashed on the television as evidence of the current tenor of discourse we're led to believe is all a result of the influence of those hateful Tea Party-ers and Sarah Palin? I can't watch Obama pretend he knows or cares anymore. This charade has gone too far.

Early 2011 Observations

2011-01-03T15:52:00.000-08:00

I read that the IRS is blaming Congress for not acting quickly enough in renewing the Bush tax cuts. Apparently now they are unprepared for itemized filings during this upcoming tax season. This seems odd for two reasons. First, this is a major bureaucracy in charge of collecting money for the government. For them to not be able rollback to a legacy version of their software platform would be unbelievable if it were not a government entity.

What is more interesting about this problem is that the Bush tax cuts extended through calendar year 2010. That’s the year we’re filing for in 2011, so there should not have been any changes in place. It seems very likely the IRS does not know what year it is.

---

Once again the United States is closing in on the “Debt Ceiling” which Democrats will no doubt want to raise to a new unprecedented and previously inconceivable level. Didn’t they just do that 6 months ago? How could they spend a trillion dollars that fast? Democrats for ya. So why even bother with a debt ceiling if we just raise it every time we get close? In the NFL they have a salary cap – if the Patriots or Giants want to bring on everyone else’s expensive free agents do we just let them violate the cap? Of course not – that’s how a responsible private enterprise works. But again this is government, where rules are made to be broken.

---

The new Republican-controlled House is planning to send up a repeal of Obamacare before the State of the Union. This is a silly and futile act. It’s not good enough for them to do things based solely on principle. Furthermore, all they can really hope to accomplish is to undermine the funding for the law. It amazes me how naïve our side can be. If funding for Obamacare is cut off – whether it be by legislative act or judicial decree - the law still obligates providers of health care to maintain coverage and services. When the money runs out the private sector will be forced under. It’s a catch-22. This plays right into the hands of the single-payer advocates!

We can’t win this now, and I further suggest we can only make things worse by meddling until we get the Presidency back. Can’t Republicans wait 2 years?

---

ABC has threatened Republicans over the likely slate of upcoming investigations of the Obama Administration. California Republican Darrell Issa will run the Oversight Committee and has promised to bring Holder and others to task for their overt partisanship and dubious enforcement of the law. In response, a major media network has basically said, “You better not do that or else…” The message is pretty clear – if Republicans dare to expose Obama and his cronies as the partisan villains they are the “Free Press” will skewer them even worse than they already do. I imagine the ABC battle cry will be something like “The Spirit of 1996.” It’s the old trick - if you can’t beat ‘em, lie about ‘em in the press.

---

I still have heard nothing about the fate of Bradley Manning. He is a traitor, this should be easy, but it will be anything but. On a related story, Obama says he is all for gays serving in the military, but is still against gay marriage, although he fully supports civil unions. I cannot fathom the depth of his inner turmoil – he must not sleep a wink. Has anyone ever straddled the big throbbing gay issue so precariously? But he has to do it to prolong alienating the few socially-conservative democrats, including Latino Catholics. You might say he knows what side his buns are buttered on.

---

Now that Scott Walker is our Governor and he has solid Republican majorities in both houses, why not abolish taxes on business altogether? As conservatives we believe that prosperity is limited by government, and Wisconsin’s reputation as a high-tax state with an overbearing bureaucracy is not doing anyone any favors. It stands to reason that if we can become an ideal state in which to do business by not punishing companies for operating here we can solve our unemployment issue, and by virtue of increase of personal incomes resolve budget issues as well.

Maybe we don’t abolish all taxes on business, but at least be competitive! I have high hopes for Scott Walker – I think we all do. It may be too much to ask, but it would nice if he got a fair chance in Madison.

It occurs to me that the conservative model of nurturing investment and private enterprise is an organic process. There is inherent risk that the investment may not yield results, in which case the lower tax burden translates into diminished returns, but the laws of nature are on our side. The liberal philosophy of demanding fruit from the seed is clearly unsustainable.

Have a prosperous and healthy 2011!

Iraq Civilain Death Toll Survey Is Ridiculous

2010-12-30T08:37:00.000-08:00

There are some staggering numbers out there, proposed and perpetuated by academia, suggesting the United States military has murdered more than a million civilians in Iraq since 2002, or roughly 1 out of every 30 people in that country. The "studies" suggest even this claim to be "conservative", as in, this number is a conservative estimate.

Remember, you can never trust any number given by a liberal! (see previous posts)

The numbers come primarily from two studies by the same group of people, conducted in 2004 and again in 2006. The first study surveyed 988 "households" in 33 "clusters" and found 73 total "violent deaths". The report includes a statistical anomaly, stating that the Fallujah cluster alone accounted for 52 deaths. This aberration was left in the final analysis based on the rationalization that it was "not sufficiently abnormal to warrant total exclusion from the study." So 3 percent of the data accounts for 66% of the results and they don't think that's "sufficiently abnormal"?

This is the sad state of science today.

Oh, but they go on to state that in the Fallujah cluster they visited 52 households and 23 were abandoned. They don't state why they surveyed buildings with no people inside and included that in their results, but do make the absurd speculation that the reason no people lived in those houses was because they were killed by U.S. actions.

Any rational-thinking person would now be completely comfortable dismissing the body counts from these surveys as the worthless speculative work of imbeciles. But wait, there's more.

The same group went back in 2006 and this time expanded their survey to 1849 households in 47 clusters. Again Fallujah data was included, and the results of this study state, "With 95% certainty, that between 426,000 and 794,000 Iraqis had died violent deaths as a consequence of the war." With 95% certainty? Seriously? If anything these results are even more dubious because of the attack on Fallujah carried out by U.S. Forces during that time. Remember that Fallujah was Saddam Hussein's hometown - that's where all the loyalists were concentrated (or scared shitless to rise up against their dictator), so the concentration of resistance was significantly higher there than any place else. I would venture that to use the survey numbers in a different light, 66% of the remaining Saddam regime was in Fallujah. Also remember that the U.S. military went to extraordinary lengths to protect civilians there, taking the unprecedented step of delaying the invasion for several days to allow civilians to leave the city! One could easily suggest, and I do, that ALL deaths in Fallujah should be considered enemy combatants.

That invalidates more than two-thirds of the survey results.

Now ask yourself this: Is 1849 households a sufficient sample? To suggest that the sample is a fair representation of the total population is a grave misstep, and one taken with obvious malice against the United States. Also, the 1849 households comprised 12,801 individuals, which is inconsistent with the birthrate of Iraqi women. The individuals number is inflated by 20%. There are 5.4 million households in Iraq, with 22% rural population underrepresented by the survey.

Finally, the survey inquired how many "violent deaths" were experienced by the household. The decision was made not to use actual hospital statistics because, "Only the innocent go to the hospital." Huh? Ignoring that justification as completely contradictory, the survey team instead simply knocked on "random" doors and asked how many people in the household have died in the last 40 months. Whoever answered the door would tell them a number and they would write it down. So actual data was disregarded in favor of the word of a distressed sliver of a largely un-canvassed population. The final conclusion, extrapolated linearly through 2010, is that, "about 20% of households surveyed had lost at least one member, and estimated that 1.03 million people had died in the war. Without compensating for the conservative biases mentioned above, their data and sample size gave them 95% certainty for a number of deaths between 946,000 and 1.12 million."

And the methodology is beyond question because it is the same methodology used in previous war zones, and it is at least somewhat unlikely that all of the previous studies could also have been flawed. Unless of course the same methodology were used... Round and round we go.

Science!!! (*sarcasm*)

Conservative biases? Right, because what they really want to say is that using their original data and including the Fallujah sample, 285,000 people died in the first 18 months of the war, and a linear extrapolation through the total 117 months of operations would yield a result of 1,852,500 civilian deaths and three times as many wounded, for a staggering and unbelievable total of roughly 7.5 million casualties! Viola - George Bush is worse than Hitler! (That was surprisingly easy.)

But they realize only vegetables or people who read Democrat Underground would believe such an obvious falsehood, so they are forced to stick with their "conservative" estimate of about a million deaths. Meanwhile, other outlets suggest anywhere from 15,000 to 748,000 deaths, a spread so large as to be useless.

Look, I am not suggesting Iraqi civilians have not died during the conflict. Clearly thousands have. But even this survey indicates almost as many civilians were killed by insurgents as by coalition forces, and I suggest that is the only conservative number in the piece. U.S. soldiers are bound by rules of engagement that the enemy is not. How many of our boys have died protecting civilians while the insurgents use them as shields? The people who did the survey cannot risk the truth, so they chose to ignore it and instead report lies to be used in anti-American propaganda. How many more will die because of their actions? Could this survey be considered an act of treason?

The truth is we do not know how many people have died and in most incidents we do not know who is responsible. That is the nature of war. The question is simply at what point do we say we can shed no more American blood? That is the only thing we can control. But believe me, when the United States withdraws its last man, violence in Iraq will continue, and it will be on the hands of the fundamentalists on either side of Islam who will perpetuate it. A functioning government with a respected rule of law and police entity is essential, or whatever the number of unintentional casualties at the hands of the coalition will pale compared to what Islam can do to itself.

The Odd Couple

2010-12-10T20:43:00.001-08:00

I'm sure I'm not the only one who found the President Clinton event at the White House extremely odd. There was Bill, in all his old-man glory, and I got the strong impression that Obama was just relieved to finally have someone who knew what he was doing running things. Meanwhile, Obama slinked away to a party. Big shocker there. Nobody knows less about governing but more about expensive galas than Bama.

The thing is, I felt relief too. Bill at least understands the art of the deal. Bama is just a complete failure. The office is way too big for him. He's a bad fit.

Did we just watch Barack Obama throw in the towel on his presidency? Is he mailing it in? I wonder.

Vote Running

2010-12-10T11:52:00.000-08:00

The “Dream” Act. Only a liberal could think of amnesty for illegals as a “dream.” But did you know Orrin Hatch was an original sponsor of this bill? He’s opposing it now because his own political future is cloudy as he faces the scrutiny of the Tea Party. He’s come around – that’s the important thing.

It’s a dream for Democrats because Latinos vote for them at a greater rate than even women. The only group more reliably in the bag for Dems is Blacks. Naturally the prospect of creating millions of new votes has the lib leadership all moist. They are especially excited about Texas, where enough illegals reside that could turn that Republican mainstay blue. I mentioned before that Texas already grants in-state status for student illegals, so a large population of Dems’ ideal demographic – young students – is already established there.

I was thinking about what this situation is like in relevant terms. Imagine you are a Mexican. You cross the Rio Grande at El Paso – its ankle deep there – and are met by a border agent. He offers you two choices:

Choice A, you can apply for a student visa, dedicate yourself to succeeding at school for 4 years and when you get your diploma you can apply for a work visa and eventually citizenship. After 6-10 years of keeping your nose clean, working hard and paying taxes you will be granted the trust of the American people and the rights of citizenship that goes with that trust.

Choice B, you can accept this $100, (the face on the bill means nothing to the Mexican) courtesy of the Democrat political party. Every month you remain in the country the Democrat party will give you another $100. For every family member you bring into the country with you the Democrat party will give you an additional $100. In fact, who ever comes with you, as long as you say they are family, will qualify you for another $100. Nobody will check. We would rather you got a job and paid some taxes and stayed out of trouble, but if you don’t we won’t hold it against you. All we want in return is your vote for a Democrat at every opportunity. Do you think you can manage that?

Sound familiar? Seems a lot like drug running to me; cold hard cash for the simple trafficking of drugs, or in this case, votes for Democrats. The more votes you can move the more cash is in it for you, and it’s the easiest thing in the world because the American system of wealth redistribution puts you at the lowest tier by default, so you have the most to gain, and there are no strings. All you need to do is vote Democrat! Just don't question how well that has worked out for Blacks.

Having unveiled the Dream Act for what it really is, I believe Latinos are a double-edged sword for Democrats. On the one hand they want amnesty, so they will vote for Democrats because of that. On the other hand they tend to be Catholic, pro-life, and anti-gay, as evidenced in California last year when their gay marriage ban passed, helped largely by the Latino vote.

What is a liberal to do!

Democrats figure that progressivism will ultimately win out. They will tirelessly wear down resistance with the retread emotional arguments from the dusty playbook. That’s what they think, anyway. I think it is possible the opposite will happen. Once Mexican illegals are citizens, their nature as hard workers and devotion to Christianity may swing them away from the Democrat party. My guess is that will take about 80 years, or roughly the time it takes for the generation that owes their freedom to Democrats today to die off. If you want an argument supporting that thought just think of your grandparents. Mine are still in the bag for Democrats because of FDR.

It’s going to happen. We will soon have an amnesty act. Might as well get it over with and start the clock.

The Great Society

2010-12-07T13:07:00.000-08:00

There's no need for me to get into this. The epic failure of LBJ's centerpiece has been detailed a hundred times by people far more knowledgeable and intelligent than I. You can find dozens of books online with a simple search on Google or Amazon.

The important point is to tie the indefinite extension of unemployment benefits to what Johnson claimed to want to accomplish. People will not find work as long as government pays them a subsistence wage to remain unemployed.

Ending poverty? Ending unemployment? Government is clearly not the answer, and history has proven it.

Let's Make A Deal!

2010-12-07T12:39:00.000-08:00

After all that posturing during the election season. After all the nonsense about “D is for Democrat and R is for Reverse” or whatever, and then the ridiculous arbitrary statement that “Tax cuts for the rich are paid for by the middle class,” and, “Tax cuts for the rich will cost $700 Billion.” Well, I guess the democrats don’t really believe that nonsense either, because they signed off on extending President Bush’ tax cuts for all Americans. And good for them – good for us!. Now if only Democrats were “compromising” for the right reason, that being to not further stifle economic growth and try to grow the market for jobs in this country. Unfortunately they intend to make good on their threats. They show no indication of reducing spending to offset the decrease in tax dollars, so the net result will be more debt and more uncertainty, so the economy will remain stagnant.

This is all part of the plan, as demonstrated by two things that happened in conjunction with the extension of the Bush tax cuts. First, Democrats are also going to cut the Social Security tax for one year – not because they intend to reduce benefits, which would actually be a good thing, but because they want to further compound the debt crisis. That’s right, they want that. Second, Democrats have scrapped the previous plan to extend unemployment benefits by 12 weeks and instead extend them an additional 13 months! Naturally this will cost hundreds of billions of dollars at a time when the government is already taking in less than it did before, but it also aligns the next unemployment fight with a very important event:

The Iowa Caucus.

That’s right, in case you forgot, election season started the first Wednesday after the first Monday of last month, and although Bama will probably run through the primaries unopposed this gives Democrats something to grill conservatives on (unopposed in the major media) at the beginning of Primaries season, saturating the airwaves with sappy emotional stories of people who are chronically unemployed. Blah. Blah, blah. So get ready for that nonsense. Meanwhile, don’t expect the President to “compromise” on anything for the rest of his presidency. It is critical to the Democrat strategy to keep the economy stagnant by continuing to spend this country into oblivion. That allows Bama to get in front of the camera and read a message on his teleprompter that goes something like, “We tried it their way, but now we know for sure that tax cuts don’t work…” When in reality the tax cuts do work but our completely inept government has no idea how to implement meaningful reforms that incentivize work instead of joblessness.

Which leads me to my next post: What do we have to show for three generations of incentivizing poverty, i.e. The Great Society!

Down Goes Hillary

2010-12-07T11:30:00.000-08:00

Hillary has effectively announced she will not run for President. I wish I could take the credit - my well-timed Bradley Manning post spelled out the nature of her plight better than any other source I've seen - but I'm pretty sure no one reads this blog. My guess is we will continue to see more damaging revelations about Hillary and her complete and total ineffectiveness as a diplomat and bureaucrat come from the Wikileaks site. She's trying to head off some of the embarrassment by letting everyone know now that she has no interest in future public office when in truth she will have so damaged herself that all prospects for future runs for office are dead, dead, dead.

So Wikileaks was good for something.

Government's New Jeggings

2010-12-07T11:29:00.001-08:00

It is truly a sad day. My bleeding heart, um, bleeds. (I’ve been meaning to get that checked out). Our President has chosen to deprive government of hundreds of billions of dollars by allowing the filthy rich two-hundred-and-fifty-thousand-aires keep more of their own money. For shame! How will the poor government make do with less? And right before the holidays! Has this man no compassion for the plight of the government? Did not his prior experience as a community organizer – his only pseudo-real world life experience, upon which he was elected to the lofty office he now occasionally passes through – teach him what it means to be in need, with no means to support oneself except by the mandatory contributions under penalty of law from others more fortunate? I gnash my teeth at him!

We must act now to band together to help the government, which cannot do without these hundreds of billions of dollars, not because it needs the money to feed the hungry, but because it cannot bear to part with expanded digital cable and 100 Mbps DSL. Not because it cannot afford to pay rent but because it must have that new 4G iPhone with the maximum voice and data plan. Not because it cannot afford to clothe its 300 million children but because that fat bitch down the street just got the newest Kim Kardashian jeggings and the government’s ass isn’t that fat so shouldn’t the government have a pair of Kim Kardashian jeggings too? Not because… well you get the idea.

Oh, the humanity!

Why is the Media protecting Bradley Manning?

2010-12-02T10:30:00.000-08:00

* I know the answer, but I’ll get to that. *

Bradley Manning is the little prick that stole all the secret documents distributed by WikiLeaks. If you didn’t know that, or only heard it in passing, but know exactly who Julian Assange is, it’s because the US Media is overtly repressing that information.

I am not saying Assange isn’t at least partially responsible, but consider this. Let’s say I give you one million dollars. Then I tell you it’s stolen. Do you try to spend it? You might not, but Assange is the kind of character that would. You don’t need much to figure his type. Just look at the guy – doesn’t he seem like the kind of nerd that was picked on in school, and who later developed into an egomaniac as a defense mechanism against attacks on his fragile self-esteem? As he gained some small notoriety in the hacker community he became a defensive narcissist, but because he wasn’t as smart as he liked to think he failed to make any kind of impact there, too. A latent Napoleon or Hitler complex set in, and he is now consumed with being notoriously famous, and perhaps enjoys the idea of becoming a martyr, at which point he will finally realize acceptance in his life. If only his father had loved him as a child…

Anyway, who cares? Assange is just the distribution vehicle. Any idiot with a credit card could have done the same thing. And for that matter, I can’t find much fault with the New York Times or the other international media outlets that chose to publish many of the docs. Again, those are the dubious characters that were incapable of resisting such an offer. More to the point, none of them wanted to be scooped, especially the NYT.

Bradley Manning has the most to answer for. Even if Assange convinced him to do it, Manning was still the one actually stealing from his country. And he did it with enthusiasm! Even now he has no regret about his actions. Most of the content is frankly laughable – there are few actual secrets, it just makes Hillary look bad – but if the situation in Yemen, specifically, is influenced by this in such a way where American lives are ultimately put at risk, then what Manning did will have directly caused that.

I see no reason why Manning should not be court-martialed and sentenced to execution. That is the only appropriate outcome.

But it won’t happen for one reason: Bradley Manning is gay. The media and liberals are desperate to keep the focus off Manning because at this very moment they are trying to get rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, and even though Manning’s homosexuality probably has nothing to do with his crime, the perception could be that a gay soldier’s actions cost American lives. So because we’ve been so bludgeoned by political correctness and we are paradoxically now all so conditioned to overreact to homosexuality, we cannot be honest with ourselves as a society enough to punish the actual criminal for his actions, or at the very least we’re not allowed to talk about it. The media is so desperate to protect him that they have once again turned the villain into the victim, labeling him a “funny little guy.” There is nothing funny about exposing your fellow soldiers to unnecessary risk and life-threatening situations.

Screw it. Hang the guy, admit Hillary’s future political prospects are f*cked, and then move on. We have an economy to un-wreck.

111 Weeks

2010-12-01T09:19:00.000-08:00

How do you want to spend the next two years of your life?

Being unemployed sounds like a pretty good option these days. Lame-ass-duck Democrats are going to pass another 12 week extension of unemployment benefits this month, adding to the current 99 weeks that are available. I predicted this would happen when they passed the last extension over the summer. Perpetual unemployment is another method of wealth redistribution, i.e. government dependency, and is therefore a useful tool for liberals in their unrelenting push to destroy prosperity, capitalism, and the American Dream – three major obstacles in the path toward socialism and then communism.

My question is, why 12 weeks? Why not 50 weeks, or 100 weeks, or just make it limitless? The answer is obviously politics. Over the summer Dems accused Republicans of not caring for the unemployed. Conservatives held their ground but lacked the votes to stop the insanity. Dems tried to get the last extension through so it would run out right before the election, but they were delayed by the Oil Spill, but now they see another opportunity. 12 weeks puts the extension to the end of March, which should align nicely with the first legislative push from the new class of conservative legislators looking to cut spending. Democrats can then make their counterproductive emotional arguments and try to score political points in the larger effort to disrupt the momentum conservatives have gained in the last 2 years.

The tactic won’t work – too many people see that perpetually extending unemployment is a scam, and it should serve to underscore the failure of the Democrat economic policy under Bama, Pelosi, and Reid.

Also, I’ve seen and heard of more than one study lately that shows that long-term unemployment is psychologically more damaging than a death in the family. It would seem then that incentivizing unemployment would actually diminish happiness. I’ve said it before, liberals love to share misery.

The TSA Security Myth

2010-11-19T12:44:00.000-08:00

I’m pretty sick of the TSA controversy already. It’s funny to watch the same libs who cried out in anger about the wiretapping program under George W Bush now saying they don’t mind being physically violated because they know it’s making them more safe. That’s the talking point, almost word for word from Juan Williams and the ladies on the View on Wednesday. (Liz had it on)

So whatever, libs just react the way they are told, what’s new?

It occurred to me that the TSA does not keep us anymore safe than if we were allowed to walk right to the gate like we could 10 years ago. The TSA exists for one purpose: the perception of fairness. If as a country we were serious about security, we would have no qualms about racial profiling. Hello, terrorists look like, well, terrorists! Just like illegals from Mexico look like Mexicans. But America is not mature enough to be honest with itself, so we have to inconvenience everyone else for the sake of equality.

Of course this all stems from a culture of legal retribution. Trial lawyers love civil rights cases because Americans have acquired a great deal of guilt we are not permitted to ignore. If the oppressor happens to be the U.S. Federal government, you can bet your house there will be a line of attorneys salivating at the prospect of a huge payday. So a hundred billion dollars and millions of hours wasted in lines later we all suffer just so one small group or other can’t sue.

But it’s all BS, because behind the scenes the government is profiling, with secret lists of likely suspects who share common skin tones or surnames. That’s where security actually happens, not at the front door of an airport terminal. The TSA is a huge scam, a cover up for the real operation. Unfortunately we just have to deal with it, but what they are doing now with these scanners is too flagrant. People are already starting to talk. It’s too expensive, and it goes too far. The thin curtain of fairness is in serious danger of being torn down. So much the better.

You want to know how safe the TSA makes us? Try this thought experiment. What happens when a suicide bomber walks into an airport and waits patiently until he gets to the middle of one of those long lines queuing up at the TSA checkpoint, and then sets himself off? He can kill just as many people as he would on an airplane if not more, and at the same time totally destroy the myth of TSA “security” forever. What’s the government response then? Put TSA outside the Airport? Just blow up that line, then. You see, wherever you perform fairness is where you expose people to greatest risk!

The TSA is a colossal waste of time and resources, but until the country accepts that terrorists actually do fit a profile all the rest of us can do is complain.

High Speed Rail: Pros & Cons

2010-11-18T16:23:00.000-08:00

I was listening to WPR yesterday morning while running errands, driving around town wherever I pleased by whatever route appealed to me, on nobody’s schedule but my own, and the topic of the hour was the High Speed Rail initiative. Joy Cardin had two guests, both of them very much in favor of commuter rail. They recited all the Obama talking points for why it is good for Americans generally, and Wisconsinites specifically, and then fielded questions from mostly pro-rail callers.

One of the callers asked why if Europe has been using rail successfully for decades America can’t seem to get it going. This question was asked while I pulled into the massive free parking lot in front of the local Ace Hardware store. Nobody on the radio acknowledged the subtle irony.

I finally decided to run through the pros and cons of railroad travel in my head instead of just listening to people regurgitate talking points. Here goes.

Pros:
- It’s nice to have someone else do the driving once in a while, especially when the distance is long. Anything over 2 hours can be tedious.
- Today’s Amtrak Passenger cars are relatively comfortable, if you can find a newer reclining seat.
- It is often nice to have restrooms and a food car available at all times without having to stop.
- Railways carve through some beautiful country you otherwise do not have a chance to see from a car or plane.
- Once a certain passenger threshold is met, trains are more environmentally friendly than other forms of transportation.
- Trains have the potential to get you from place to place very quickly. Some French trains can go 300 mph!

These are the fanciful arguments you hear from people who want it, appealing to the emotional but impractical ideals of those who don’t think long enough to get to the actual implications of the proposal or the real-world cultural roadblocks that will quickly doom this venture to Amtrak-style failure times a thousand. In the spirit of common sense, here’s my list of cons.

Cons:
- Train travel can be prohibitively expensive. A one-way ticket from La Crosse to Milwaukee costs, on average, $51 per person. An entire family can make the trip in a single vehicle for half that.
- Trains operate on schedules. Americans are conditioned by three generations of travel by car. We leave and arrive whenever we please.
- Trains are political animals, and succumb to the failings of jurisdiction. If a municipality wants a stop, and they are willing to pay for it, they will probably get one. That means one more 20 minute delay for anyone trying get from one side of the state to the other. Ideally a high-speed train would not have this problem, but get serious already.
- Once you get to the end of the tracks you still need to get to your destination. One of the major differences between Europeans and Americans is that Euros walk. Think Americans will be willing to walk a mile or two after getting off the train? Good luck. Oh, but we could take the bus…
- Europe has been resigned to train travel because its cities were not planned around roads or parking lots. Ours were. Americans are not forced to take the train, and the only way to change that is to make car travel much more expensive. This will be accomplished by a gas tax. On a cultural note, Americans are rarely won over by negative reinforcement. That’s the kind of thing that causes landslide elections.
- Trains are incredibly annoying. You cannot control who you share a car with, and you’re just likely than not to be in a car that smells bad or has out of control children and screaming babies, or people taking up more than one seat or coughing or talking too loud and generally being inconsiderate, or the bathrooms being disgusting and the food car being out of just about everything.
- Security is impossible. First of all, nobody has brought up the ominous prospect of installing and operating TSA-like security at every train depot. Imagine airport TSA issues times a hundred in terms of cost and manpower and logistics and delays. And don’t forget unions!
- It will be a simple matter for terrorists to walk up to any length of track in the middle of nowhere Wisconsin and put a bomb on the track and detonate it from the comfort of a sunny hillside and watch the speeding train pile into the surrounding fields and kill hundreds or more. If I have thought of this, trust me, terrorists already have stretches of track in mind. They’re just waiting for Obama to supply them with human targets.
- Our current infrastructure of freight track cannot handle so-called bullet trains. Trains that move at 300 mph need tremendous lengths of straight, flat track. The cost to get the United States up to French standards could be in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
- We do not have enough track to simultaneously accommodate current freight traffic with desired passenger traffic. The cost of the current plan includes a proposal for new track, but expect freight lobbies to want in on the new track or use it as leverage for massive public expenditures to upgrade existing track. The cycle never ends.
- Finally, the current proposal creates a supply for which there is insufficient demand. If there were, Amtrak would be profitable, or at least break even. Americans enjoy the freedom of travel by car, and until that fundamental right is legislated away high speed rail will not be viable.

I’m sure there are many more considerations, including all the political infighting in every municipality the trains will travel through. I cannot imagine this thing ever getting beyond the planning phase, but I am certain the debate, now that it’s started, will never, ever, end.

Californicating With Itself

2010-11-18T11:55:00.000-08:00

I went home for lunch and turned on FoxNews and watched reports on two separate, totally unrelated stories.

The first was on the recent California court ruling that illegals in that state are eligible for in-state tuition. California isn’t alone in this – you might be surprised to know that Texas offers the same benefit. Incredulous, I asked myself, “Self, what is the point of in-state tuition? Why give someone a discount just for being a resident?” Universities know that the cost structure for educating some number of students is relatively unaffected by providing education for that number plus 1. Higher education institutions, despite claims to the contrary by professors and administrators who say they are “overworked”, can absorb many more students than are enrolled. The game they play is to extract as much tuition as possible and also as much state subsidy as possible, and encouraging in-state tuition for illegals accomplishes both. The bottom line is that illegal immigrants are good for the business of education.

The problem comes when the professors and administrators who complain about being “overworked” convince enough of the Regents or legislators, depending on the funding source, that they need either more teachers, more administrators, or more infrastructure and buildings to meet the greater demand for education posed by the exploding population of illegal immigrants.

Which leads me to the second story.

Students in California are rioting over proposed 8% college tuition and fee increases in their state.

I wonder how many of them voted Democrat two weeks ago. Do you think they understand cause and effect? Just wait until Jerry Brown gets his hooks into things.

Obama, Foreign Policy Disabled

2010-11-15T16:03:00.000-08:00

Clearly the media has dramatically understated the scope of epic failure that was Obama’s foreign policy mission to India and the Far East this month. He completely failed to negotiate even one useful trade agreement. He couldn’t even get the South Koreans, one of our closest allies in the entire world, to agree to a minor addition to the existing trade agreement brokered by President Bush. Basically, Obama wants the rest of the world to agree to buy more American cars, specifically GM so he can give a boost to the IPO and the “Government Motors” debacle won’t be such a bad deal for American taxpayers. Nobody's buying.

Obama is an international laughing stock. Fresh off his party’s historic drubbing at the midterms, the Campaigner-In-Chief’s gravitas is at an all-time low. You’ll remember that he made an ass of himself when he grovelled around the Mideast apologizing for America’s “arrogance”. The message to the world was crystal clear: Obama is weak, and by association the United States is also weak. By the way, the first rule of diplomacy is, ALWAYS NEGOTIATE FROM STRENGTH. So now when Obama says that a strong US economy is good for everyone, he may be right, but he's got no balls so the rest of the world just says, “Whatever, dude.”

Obama further undercut his chances before leaving by signing off on Bernanke's plan to effectively devalue the Dollar. The purpose for this is to make US exports relatively cheaper and therefore more attractive. The problem is that most of these countries also own a significant amount of US debt, which is also devalued! Not only that, but how in the world does Obama expect other countries to enter into binding trade agreements in good faith when he is brazenly unwilling to do the same??? I can’t believe this story is not getting more attention, at the very least for the inexplicably bad timing of the Bernanke maneuver with Obama’s Trade trip.

This has to rank among the absolute worst foreign policy gaffes of all time!!

He couldn’t get one single country to agree to condemn China’s currency manipulation strategy. No shit Sherlock – you've got the US doing it to! Way to go, BO!

Idiot.

Meanwhile, why do we even have a State Department? Still a frighteningly popular figure among Democrats, Hillary was conspicuously deployed oversees during the last two weeks of the campaign season, but during that time she had zero impact priming G20 countries for Obama. What’s that term for a porn actress who’s not attractive enough to be seen on film so she sits off camera and her job is to keep the male star ready to go? Oh yeah, fluffer. Hillary is Obama’s personal fluffer, but apparently she’s terrible at it. That explains Bill’s behavior.

America needs to get rid of these bozos, grow a new pair, and resume telling the world how its gonna go down, or we are Greece in our lifetimes.

The Next 9/11: High Speed Rail

2010-11-09T15:42:00.000-08:00

With all the heated discussion about high speed rail, one aspect is consistently overlooked: security. I have yet to hear anyone ask the question, "How do you secure all the rail in this country?" There's nearly a quarter-million miles of track in this country, and every spike and tie is a ripe target for terrorism.

Imagine a fundamental change in transportation infrastructure - Obama's vision for a future without cars. Everyone depends on trains to travel long distances, all in the name of a greener, less polluted world. We learn to tolerate the inconvenience of living by train schedules, traveling only where trains go, and being stuffed together into uncomfortable train cars built for quantity of transference and not quality of travel experience. We simply have no alternatives, the government having legislated in favor of environmentalism.

And then one day a series of small improvised explosive devices, placed along lengths of track no one ever sees except from the inside of a rail car, is detonated, coordinated to cause maximum damage in a single moment of incredible destruction. When trains moving at 90 or 100 miles per hour or more jump track the result will be unlike anything we've seen since September 11, 2001.

It becomes a simple matter for a terrorist organization to kill tens of thousands, and they would not even need to sacrifice to do it. The bombs need only be large enough to derail the lead car - maybe 10 feet of damaged track is all - and the entire train would wreck. The destruction would be awful. And what's more, government would react predictably, shutting down all rail traffic everywhere, disabling an economy with no other means to travel. You thought 9/11 shut us down? Just wait.

If the politicians pushing this idea - mostly Democrats - would admit to the likelihood of such an even, and then were forced to consider the cost of making high speed rail secure, we would quickly come to the consensus that it is unmanageable.

Attacks like this have already occurred - most recently in Spain. But the United States remains the big prize for extremists, and they will bide their time to get the biggest bang for the buck. Believe me, if I took this long to think of this then professional terrorists already have stretches of track in mind.

All they need to do is wait for Democrats to provide them with human targets.

Demise Of The American Century

2010-11-01T14:26:00.000-07:00

I was reflecting this weekend on how good life is, despite all the negativity among coworkers and politicians who believe they deserve but are not willing to earn. When you really think about what we have it’s not too bad, and any failings are my own and no one else’s.

This windfall is the direct result of an era of American exceptionalism that many have referred to as “The American Century,” a subset of the Twentieth Century, but more than that because its exact duration is more than 115 years.

It began emphatically on October 9, 1893, when nearly three-quarters of a million people visited the Chicago Columbian Exposition, the greatest exhibit of technological and societal achievement ever presented in one place, and in so doing shattered the attendance record set the previous decade in Paris and signaling to the world that the United States of America had seized a place ahead of Europe on the world’s stage.

And it terminated with equal fanfare with the inauguration of Barack Obama, a bona-fide Communist, as President of these same United States. The message could not have been more clear – a majority of American voters were either apologetic or even openly hostile to the exceptionalism fought for and enjoyed by preceding generations. Obama went to work immediately, apologizing for our arrogance, bowing to the unelected kings and despots of other countries, and deferring to the will of the United Nations in managing affairs of interest to our nation. Legislatively, Democrats went to work plowing under the risk-reward philosophy of capitalism in favor of a new socialist paradigm which discouraged prosperity by hard work, elevated Marxist fairness rhetoric, and destroyed the American Dream.

The American Century is over. Anything resembling a new rise to prominence for Americans will be something different and less durable. History tells us that to recapture a measure of our former glory will take nothing short of Revolution. I believe the revolution has already begun, and after tomorrow’s vote we will take the next step.

In Defense Of Juan Williams

2010-10-22T14:40:00.000-07:00

One of the few occasionally rational-minded liberals in the world, Juan Williams, finally got the axe this week from NPR. This was a long time coming – they were just waiting patiently for any reason at all. It’s obvious that NPR brass have been steaming for years that Mr. Williams dared to stray from the reservation and join Fox News as an analyst. As I stated last week, many far-left groups consider Williams a traitor, or even a “conservative.” While I agree that relative to their place on the spectrum he must seem conservative, Juan Williams is a liberal, although an often pragmatic one, which sometimes has led him to accept truth when he sees it to the disdain of his farther-left colleagues at NPR.

Williams admitted what everyone in this country automatically thinks: that he gets nervous when he sees men in full Muslim dress board a plane with him. That was all the justification NPR needed to finally unload him. Naturally, the mainstream reaction to his firing is one of introspection but you can also hear the liberal pundits not affiliated with NPR collectively say, “D’oh!” They realize this is Shirley Sherrod all over again, because anyone who bothered to watch the whole segment saw Juan Williams take Bill O’Reilly to task for O’Reilly’s (correct) assertion that it was Muslims who executed the attacks on America on 9/11. Yeah, it wasn’t all Muslims, but it was a network of people who shared the Islamic faith. Only liberals can seriously debate against irrefutable fact.

I’m waiting to see what Bara Bama does now. He was so quick to admonish Fox News and conservative pundits for his mistakes in the Sherrod scandal, but now he has no one to blame except other libs who swung the axe. What’s he gonna do, blame Fox News for trying to be “Fair and Balanced”?

Likely he will stay out of it and let Williams swing from the gallows. Williams was helping the enemy, after all, by attracting viewers, however progressive his goals might have been. My guess is, whereas Sherrod received a personal apology from the President along with a promotion and a raise, Williams will be treated by the left like a leper. His promotion will come from Fox News, and that will piss the left off even more. They hate nothing more than when conservatives promote minorities based on merit instead of skin color, as liberals are more likely to do. Juan Williams deserves a larger role at Fox News – I’d like to see him with his own primetime show. He could bump Greta back on hour.

Aside from the personal controversy revolving around Williams, the most disgusting aspect of this is all the pundits admitting to self-loathing when they do the very same thing. I’ve read several articles online about this in the last two days and they share the common theme that the pundit is nervous when he/she sees Muslims in full dress on airplanes, and then how much they hate themselves for having such an inappropriate reaction, and how badly those Muslims must feel, blah, blah, blah.

The fact is that, whatever the numbers, Muslims of both sexes and all ages have committed terrible acts against innocent people, and yes, Muslims flew airplanes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on 9/11. Every American has the exact same thoughts go through their head, every time. It is an honest and sensible reaction to what happened and to what is indelibly burned into each of our minds forever, and no amount of air travel will scrub it clean. On top of that, it may actually be prudent. On 9/11 none of the people in those planes knew what to do. Prior experience was always that terrorists had some demands, and had no interest in suicide. All that has changed, so if you get on a plane you better have some idea about how you are going to act in that 1 in a 1000000000 chance that the Muslims sitting next to you start hollering in Arabic and lighting fuses leading into their rectums.

We all need to be better Boy Scouts – be prepared. There’s absolutely no shame in that. Juan Williams knows that even though almost nobody else on his side of the aisle does. I like Juan Williams, and I hope this will result in more exposure for him and ultimately expose the far left’s propensity for Big Brother style thought policing and further turn America against those kooks and their like-minded President. That’s the guy we need to fire.

UPDATE: I had written this post earlier today, but it turns out the news is already out - Williams confirmed that NPR was "vindictive" about his relationship with Fox, and Fox has offered him a substantial contract in the wake of all this. Further proving my point, NPR Chief Vivian Schiller said Williams should have "kept his comments between himself and his psychiatrist." It's fun watching the left self destruct, no?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44009.html

Privatize Social Security to Save the Economy

2010-10-15T08:33:00.000-07:00

I woke up this morning to sound bites for the Angle-Reid debate last night. The contrast could not have been more stark, and I’m looking forward to the end of Reid. Is there anything worse for your career than to become the Democrat Senate Majority leader?

Reid’s biggest swing was his most predictable, going after Angle’s stance on Social Security. During the primary Angle was a pro-privatize or get rid of it altogether candidate, and she has now stepped back from that a little. Reid is of course a do-nothing Democrat, more than happy to continue to force Americans to throw money into a black hole and not at all shy about admitting they will lose out on the deal. His attack used the tired charge that if Bush had succeeded in privatizing SS in 2005 most Americans would have lost their retirement when the economy crashed.

For some reason, smarter political minds than mine have not mounted a respectable resistance to this claim, but it came to me this morning.

First off, Bush wanted to make privatization optional. Why don’t Republicans ever bring that up? If you’re about ready to retire or already retired, then don’t change anything, and keep sucking on the teat. If you’re young and can take on short term risk for long term gains, privatize. Bush tried hard to get that message across, but the likes of Harry Reid and the Democrats successfully scared enough seniors with their lies that the public never came around to the idea, and unlike Obama, George Bush listened to the people, even though they’d been sold the liberal lie.

But the real master stroke is that if Americans would have been allowed to privatize SS in 2005 we would never have had this degree of financial collapse. Think about it. If every day thousands of US companies received millions in new investment dollars the credit market would not have seized and yeah, the mortgage crisis would still have happened but millions of Americans would not have lost their jobs because American businesses would not have failed when the money ran out. The money would not have run out! President Bush would have prevented this collapse, but Democrats stopped him!

Conservative candidates need to make this point. Today SS money gets turned into an IOU with an ever increasing likelihood of default. If it were privatized it could be invested in American companies and American jobs! And if the economy takes a hit again history is on the side of the investor, whereas the future is against anyone relying on Social Security and its guaranteed 25% loss.

A Shovel Full Of "Shovel-Ready"

2010-10-14T14:05:00.000-07:00

The friend of mine I mentioned in a previous post who was working two part-time jobs and starting his own small business after getting laid-off from his previous full-time job now has a new full-time job. This absolutely proves my point that if you walk into a prospective employer and show them that you are a worker, and not just someone who surfs the Internet all day looking for a place to send her resume to, you have a much higher likelihood of getting the job.

What continues to amaze me is how delusional many of this nation’s unemployed are. Manufacturing jobs are not coming back, yet every day I hear the lament for those “good manufacturing jobs” that were lost. I realize the situation for those people is tough – they got into manufacturing when they were young, were often paid well beyond their skill level because of union contracts that ultimately cost them their job when the company was forced to look for cheaper labor elsewhere. Now they still don’t have any skills and no prospects. The world changed while they weren’t paying attention. They were lured into Bama’s slick presentation with the promise of “shovel-ready jobs” but no such thing materialized, despite a trillion dollars worth of wasted idealism.

So now what? It seems highly likely that unemployment will remain around 10% for the foreseeable future. My guess is it will be a generation before we see unemployment back down to 5% like it was during the Bush years. Two things must happen. First, businesses must regain faith that the government will not punish them for success. “Cap And Trade” would be another devastating blow to private sector industry, and must be defeated. It is obvious now that we can either have extreme environmentalism or we can have a prosperous economy, but not both, at least no right now. Obama’s promise to create 5 million new clean energy jobs could still happen, but at the cost of countless jobs lost to layoffs as companies look to cover the higher energy costs. We can move in that direction, but it cannot happen overnight. Increasing government regulation as a knee-jerk reaction to the Bank failures and the mortgage debacle will only hinder company’s attempts to access new revenue streams. The trade war the Democrats are instigating with China will further impact an already massive trade imbalance. And liberal’s continued attacks on CEO salaries and their vilification of corporations has and will continue to result in trepidation or outright unwillingness to expand into markets that are openly hostile to their very existence. Liberalism and its extensions are the root of the demise of capitalism, and they are starting to own up to the fact that they like it that way. Until American voters restore sanity to the political force of the economy it will continue to sputter.

The second requirement is that Americans must become better educated, and I don’t necessarily mean college. In today’s workforce it is much more valuable to be specialized and then find a job that applies that focus than to fumble around with a Liberal Arts degree. Technical colleges will become the primary avenue from which the next generation of workers achieves a functional education. Those who fail to continue education will have limited value in the economy going forward. Those “good jobs” of the past have no relevance, and attempts by unions and Democrats to cling to them for purely political reasons is a drain against the producers of wealth.

“Shovel-ready”, “Hope and Change”. America was sold on meaningless slogans. Obama is nothing more than a catch-phrase comic, with his presidency as the punch line and American liberties as the butt of every joke. Until we get these jokers out of power and then take it upon ourselves to increase our individual value in a competitive global economy collectively we will continue to tread water. On the other hand, for those of us that do choose to better ourselves we should have an easier go of it compared to those that don’t. My friend’s success is proof of that.

Liberals vs. The Truth: A Timeless Matchup

2010-10-10T20:21:00.000-07:00

I was going to post last week Friday on the Chamber of Commerce flap, but was too busy, and now I'm glad I waited, because in just 2 days the thing has exploded. In case you don't know, ultra-liberal think tank "Think Progress" accused the Chamber of Commerce of backing political ads favoring Republicans with foreign contributions, which would be illegal, if it were true.

First of all, when I say ultra-liberal, I mean it. "Think Progress" is so far to the left they accuse NPR pundit Juan Williams of being a conservative. I won't link to their garbage website. If you want to read that kind of nonsense just Google it. It's enough to say that "Think Progress" and Democrat Underground occupy the same space on the ideological spectrum.

So they made this charge, without any evidence whatsoever, and now the President of the United States is reciting it as fact. On Friday, NPR did a report on this - is there anyone who doesn't think NPR is part of the media arm of the Democrat party? Anyway, they played a single quote from the "Think Progress" cartell: "We simply don't know where the money comes from."

Ok, so does that mean because you don't know, then it must come from foreign entities? Isn't it also true that if you don't know then you have no evidence and your claim is baseless. On the website, "Think Progress" cites as fact that the Chamber solicits foreign donations and also has not refuted the claim. Well they must be guilty! Obviously, that case is good enough for Bama to go around blabbing like he has a fucking clue about it.

Not suspiciously absent is any kind of real journalism to get to the truth, because the media already knows what it will find, and would prefer to simply refer to the "Think Progress" claim as the news story while letting the prospect of illegality linger. That meets their journalistic standard just fine. This is a tired and desperate old Democrat strategy, and as long as the "Free Press" is comprised 90% of rank-and-file Democrats they will never challenge this kind of bullshit, even from the President.

Say, you know who did take foreign contributions? Bill and Hillary Clinton! Remember when they sold US missle technology secrets to the Chinese for cash?

I'd like to take this opportunity to make some claims of my own. First, Barack Obama was secretly in league with Saddam Hussein, and it's very likely that Obama knows where the WMDs are hidden and may have even tipped Saddam off. I cite as evidence the fact that they share a the name Hussein. This is irrefutable, and it is now Obama's responsibility to prove otherwise!

Second, I charge that "Think Progress" is itself fronted by foreign money, namely the Russians and Iranians, and it is there secret mission to destabilize the Republic of the United States, and I challenge them to prove themselves to the contrary! Btw, I think this might actually be true. Ha!

That's a good start, now if someone would just help spread the truth!

Just Pay With Food Stamps

2010-10-08T14:57:00.000-07:00

Recently Congressional Democrats and Obama have touted their spending blitzes for schools and Medicare as being “paid for.” They’ve “paid for” these bills with future deductions in the Food Stamps program. As long as you’re not a liberal, you might wonder, “How do they pay for a program today with money from the future?”

Here’s how it works. Food stamps is a huge social program that expands or contracts based on need. If a person meets the criteria, they get food stamps, otherwise they don’t. Pretty simple. As the program exists, Democrats do not have the ability to deny food stamps to those who meet the requirements. They wouldn’t do that anyway, but they couldn’t if they wanted. Right now, with the economy trudging sluggishly amid the pitfalls of liberal economic policy, food stamp usage is at an all time high. All Bama and his cronies are doing is betting that by the time the bill comes due, food stamp demand will have diminished to the point where the difference covers the government’s financial obligations. Essentially, the government has written an IOU to itself today with the expectation that tomorrow’s food stamp program is costs that much less than it does today. Given Bama’s economic track record so far, I’d say that’s a gamble.

What should upset taxpayers about this is that if the cost of the food stamp program decreases, it doesn’t matter, the savings is already spent, and for something nobody remembers that happened years ago, and for dubious reasons. And if the cost of the food stamp program does not decrease, then we have to incur additional debt to cover the IOU. Either way we lose!

Just another lesson in fiscal discipline from Bama and the Democrats!

Democrats On Social Security: "Do Nothing"

2010-09-27T07:51:00.000-07:00

Ron Kind said it this morning on Wisconsin Public Radio: “Even if we do nothing recipients will get 75% of their benefit for 75 years.”

Imagine if someone said to you, “I can offer a retirement plan where I guarantee you will lose at least 25% of your investment.” Would you take it? Seriously?

Republicans should jump all over this, because it amounts to a 25% tax on social security on top of existing taxes on benefits. Either that or Dems raise Social Security taxes on the front end to maintain benefits. The message is clear – Democrats are unwilling to recognize the epic scope of the failure of their most cherished welfare program.

Meanwhile on the economic front, Congressman Kind said that he favors protectionism, essentially, as a strategy for improving the US economy. This must coincide with Obama's decree to "Double exports within five years." Kind wants to hold imports to the same standards we hold ourselves. In other words, the same standards that helped kill American manufacturing - environmentalism, health care, labor progressivism... How can he be that naive?

And right on queue, China launches a preemptive attack, kicking off the trade war that Obama and the Democrats wanted. They are initiating a tariff on chicken imports. Democrats are writing the book on how to destroy capitalism, and don't think for one second that wasn't the plan all along.

The Tea Party has ammuninition for decades.

Gagging On Liberalism

2010-09-24T08:49:00.000-07:00

It struck me the other day liberalism is like a food you forget you don’t like. I would suggest that the current political climate extends back to the Carter presidency, as Ford and Nixon were tarnished by Watergate and it’s residuals and prior to that we had three decades of significant war. Since Carter was ousted after a single term, this country has experienced less than 4 total years where Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency. In each case – 1994, and again now in 2010, the Democrats are getting shelled in the polls and Republicans are poised to reclaim one if not both houses in dramatic fashion.

Liberalism is clearly a highly toxic substance that America gags on and cannot swallow, but Americans are apparently stupid enough to put it back in their mouths once in a generation. What’s remarkable and dangerous is that Liberals can do so much damage in 2 year intervals, but they have to because that’s all they get, and then they’re shut down until the next batch of voters comes along who have either never tasted the poison or forgotten how bad it was the last time.

The media is quick to say how bad Republicans got shelled in 2006, but that was only after 6 long years of uncontested media reports hammering Bush for every little thing – many of the same things which are overlooked today or receive a wink and a nod. This situation is different – America is making up its own mind.

The good news is this is obviously a conservative leaning country, and it will always gag on liberalism whenever it foolishly tries it out again. On top of that, we understand that there is little room for fiscal liberalism in the Republican party, and as we cleanse it this November – even if we don’t take back the Senate – we setup a more consistent conservatism with better staying power, more resistant to the vice of liberalism.

YOU Are Funding Feingold Attack Ads

2010-09-24T07:23:00.000-07:00

I woke up this morning to a disgruntled Wisconsin Public Radio. First they had to report that Ron Johnson has pulled to a significant lead over Russell Feingold. To temper this foul news, they immediately did a report on how Johnson’s latest ad is full of falsehoods and inaccuracies – about as close as they can get to say he’s lying. They referred to his claim that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme.” Then they explained the definition of a ponzi scheme: using new investor money to pay for commitments to old investors. ?!? How is that not exactly what Social Security is? Then they refute his claim that the money for Social Security is gone, even bringing in a professor of elderly programs. (BTW, I know a good way to cut $70,000 from the UW budget…) She says the money isn’t gone, it’s borrowed. Well that makes it so much better. Apparently accounting tricks are used to say that specific tax dollars go to specific programs, and by moving the money around you can leave a debt trail that shows everything is paid for. Isn’t that something!

It amounted to a free 2 minute attack advertisement against Ron Johnson courtesy of the taxpayers of Wisconsin. Disgusting. I can’t wait to vote!

Tax Cuts Do Not Need To Be “Paid For”

2010-09-15T12:28:00.000-07:00

Democrats are framing the tax cut debate by saying things like, “How will these tax cuts for the rich be paid for,” or, “Tax cuts for the rich paid for by the middle class.” This is infuriating class warfare, and it’s a desperate tactic, but so far conservatives have done a terrible job refuting the premise of the Democrat argument.

Their argument says two things very clearly: they are unwilling to reduce government spending, and they consider tax money as belonging to the government. The second point is the most insidious because they, the government, control how much money they take from the people who earn it.

Conservatives need to change the debate. Whenever a Democrat asks how a tax cut for the rich will be paid for, turn it around and ask them point blank, “How can you defend tax hikes on the producers in the economy when government spending is out of control? The premise that tax cuts need to be paid for implies spending cannot be reduced. Reject that premise! We should always be looking for ways to reduce government spending and allow hard-working Americans to keep more of the money they earn. Don’t pit people against each other – we’re all in this economy together, and when you take more from those who have achieved some modest financial prosperity then you tarnish the American dream!”

Challenge Democrats to defend all the egregious spending. Look at the headlines this week about government contracts for the Gulf cleanup effort. $52,000 for a “marine charter for things.” That’s more than most people make in a year! $90,000 for boat anchors, nearly $6 million for helicopter services – how many helicopters could they possibly need? And it goes on and on and on. That BP is getting the bill does not grant government a license to waste money. Remember last year, when “stimulus” money went to congressional districts that don’t even exist? Every American should be infuriated by this nonsense, regardless of political leanings!

What is the Democrat plan to pay for Social Security in the next thirty years? Don't tell me it's paid for, we all know the lockbox is empty. Will they just continue to raise taxes to fund broken programs? Change the debate - make Democrats answer for relentless government spending!

Tired Old Tricks

2010-09-13T10:54:00.001-07:00

This morning on the Early Show Gibbsy was interviewed about the economy and the host mentioned Senator Boehner's plan to reduce Federal spending down to 2008 levels as a solution to the current massive Bama deficits.

Gibbsy replied by reminding us that Bama has proposed spending freezes on non-security discretionary spending, but also "We can't afford to give $700 Billion to the rich paid for by the middle class." Huh?

Boehner's proposal makes the $700 Billion into Zero! Boehner wants to reduce the deficit and extend the Bush tax cuts. The nerve!

Doesn't he know that it's more important to steal from the rich to fuel Bama's socialism while lubricating the gears of class warfare?

Democrats are so transparent.

The Cost Of Taxes

2010-09-11T19:37:00.000-07:00

I must be slipping. I missed a golden chance to highlight the quintessential difference between Democrats and conservatives. Bara Bama said it himself. Economists say extending the Bush tax cuts to those who make more than $250,000 will cost $700 billion over the next decade.

Cost.

It will cost the government money.

You see? Democrats, and our elected Campaigner-In-Chief, think of all of our money as belonging to the government. Like we're only borrowing it instead of the other way around.

The biggest problem with the current economic debate is that most Americans don't catch this critical difference in philosophy. Conservatives believe that those who earn are actually entitled to what they earn. Democrats and the government think that they are entitled to what is made by those who earned it. And if people start to catch on Democrats up the ante by framing those who earn as somehow having swindled their way to ill-gotten-gains, so better off the government takes it.

This is the essence of the Tea Party movement; the assertion that government doesn't earn anything, it only takes from those that do. And then who is government accountable to? Taxpayers? Yeah right. Voters? Hardly. Lobbyists? Sure, for the money, but the truth is that government is accountable only to the ideology that drives it. And that ideology is liberalism.

Our Desperate President

2010-09-10T08:16:00.000-07:00

Bama's "Perfect example" of a failed policy that led us toward a depression is the Bush Tax cuts, which in the same breath he says he wants to make permanent for 97% of people. What a clown. But of course he can't say, "Bush Tax cuts" because then his lie would be exposed. He can only survive as a politician for both attacking Bush while taking credit for Bush's successes. He's also claiming as his own the Republican tax cuts included as part of the "stimulus". Democrats didn't want them but Republicans demanded it and held their ground. Now Bama is using that to highlight his good record on taxes. Yeah, right.

Now Democrats are saying extending the tax cuts to the remaining 3%, those making more than $250,000 a year, will cost the country $700 Billion over the next ten years. First of all, you can never, never, trust a Democrat with a number. But even if we again take that number at face value, it ignores the principle that almost all economists have come to understand, that the "wealthy" don't just stuff money into Swiss Bank accounts; they buy things and look to invest. If you allow them to keep their money they will use it! That's how the economy works, that's how innovation is is financed, and that's how jobs are created in healthy sectors.

Bama keeps saying Republicans will put us in reverse. WTF? Democrats are the ones in love with unsustainable manufacturing jobs because of their incestuous relationship with Unions. Those are the jobs that will cause this economy to fail. We can't go back there in a global economy. How can people not see that? Rational people do.

He keeps blaming the "determined minority" for his inability to do everything. Then he also demands leadership. What a loser. Donald Trump would have fired this guy day one.

Oh, and there's this looming agency whose sole responsibility it will be to "Protect families' financial transactions." Holy sh!t - that deserves a post in itself, but that stinks of Nanny State policy!

He just sounds so desperate, and he can't stop whining.

Islamophobia? Absolutely!

2010-09-09T10:19:00.000-07:00

Not surprisingly the media and all of the pundits are missing the critical element in this whole Qur'an burning thing by the pastor in Florida. What most people don't know is what justification this pastor has. Why would anyone want to burn a holy book?

The justification he has is exactly the same justification Muslims around the world use when they burn Christian Bibles. Their fundamentalism prohibits them from allowing another view of religion. Their way is the only way, and any other view is heresy and is not tolerated.

Now you know that may be the justification, and it doesn't make it right, but there's also a lot of human emotion clouding the judgment of those doing the burning. My guess is Pastor Jones might also believe this is a pretty good PR device for his church given the visceral reaction of a majority of Americans to the proposed Mosque site in lower Manhattan.

All of that belies the real issue here: that America is now a country that operates out of fear of Muslims. The Mosque people want to call us Islamophobic. Damn right we are! Because every time any little thing happens like this some crazy radical Muslim straps a bomb onto their teenage daughter and blows up a bus full of people. These people are f*cking crazy! Meanwhile, they are allowed to burn Bibles and American flags and our Presidents in effigy and chant, "Death to the Great Satan!" and elect leaders who openly do the same on the world stage, and we're just supposed to passively sit by and hope to God they don't ever get the Bomb because we all know what will happen next. Of course they are not afraid of retaliation because Bama has already said nukes are off the table as long as he's in charge.

That's pussy-diplomacy, courtesy of Bama and Hillary, where the USA is always wrong regardless of what atrocities other societies commit. President Bush was absolutely right. The Bush Doctrine scared the crap out of the Muslim world, but then Rumsfeld and the Free Press combined to make a mockery out of what could have been a resounding victory.

So yes, burning Qur'an is stupid, or as Governor Palin put it, "Unnecessarily provocative," but we shouldn't allow ourselves as a free society to be ruled by fear.

Why I Think What I Think About Race

2010-09-01T19:27:00.000-07:00

Given the recent potential for my commentary to be read by more than four people I felt the need to go through my posts and try to read them from the perspective of someone who has never met me or conversed with me and has no idea about my beliefs beyond the words accumulated in this blog. I reached one stark conclusion: It is likely that my comments regarding race will be considered inflammatory by those inclined to be offended by such frank and unfiltered language. I have made no attempt to censor myself and have always written what I think at the time, and in reading the body of my efforts here there is definitely a trend toward viewing the problems afflicting this country through the lens cut by those who created the problems, and this lens, despite the promise of a post-racial era affected by the election of Barack Obama, is increasingly tinted.

Let me start by saying that to the best of my ability as a white man I try to understand the concerns of non-whites and women in this country, but I will not be apologetic for being who I am. This is the core of my belief system - no one can control their race or the social circumstances of their birth and upbringing, and I will not judge anyone on that basis, but I will also not tolerate being judged for being white and male. The perceived disparities that result from race and sex in this country are not my fault, and in my life I have not caused any person or group to be in any way disenfranchised.

Do I generalize about race? Yes, but only in the context of circumstances created by those who presume to target people along racial lines for the purpose of gaining or increasing power over the targeted group. Please understand - I want everyone to succeed in life and be happy. I want this for myself and my family and friends, but I also desperately want it for others I don't even know, with the exception of anyone who's ideals would then infringe on other's ability to meet their own personal goals and succeed and be happy. So when I say things like, Obama has lower expectations for "black folks" kids, it's because the statement is observationally true. The quotes exist because those are Barack Obama's own words, and I use them no less often than he does. You might read that and think there's no evidence he thinks that way, but its clear in the context of his speeches that is exactly what he thinks, not out of any malice or pity but because he sees the circumstances of those "folks" as something that is an absolute for the purposes of defining his ideology.

"You're unfairly generalizing," you say. Maybe, but so does Obama. He's a world-class generalizer; just read his words and count how many times he refers to people by class or race or sex, or says "some people," or "many people." He's one of the great generalizers of all time. I generalize to show the absurdity of his generalizations. So then you say, "He's black, so he can talk frankly about black people, but you're white so the same rules don't apply." I don't even feel the need to defend myself against that argument, as it shows the true lack of depth of the racial discussion in this country. When you allow one group to define the rules of an argument you lose the ability to assert your point effectively. Typically it is the self-proclaimed leaders of these groups who make the rules so only they can be right about whatever it is they want to say, and any dissension from that narrow line of thought is then vilified. This is how the current tenor of racial discussion in this country reverberates. As a white man I am only permitted to agree with the premise of any racial issue or I am automatically a racist. You can see how this undermines any useful discussion revolving race in America.

Critical for Democrats and so-called "progressives" is to maintain the facade that they care about the needs of these minority groups, while Republicans and conservatives do not. The truth is that while Democrats may be genuinely empathic of the human condition, they are completely incapable of doing anything to help. This is proven out by nearly fifty years of liberal programs aimed at helping minorities, but the results are that more minorities fail to graduate high school, have children out of wedlock, get into trouble with the law and fail to meaningfully contribute to society or make a stable, prosperous life for themselves and their children. The reason for this failure is twofold: First, subsidies and handouts have diminished the need for many people to achieve a better standard of living for themselves. If you can get by with almost no effort, why would you work hard and take on personal risk for just the possibility of achieving success in life? Humans are creatures of habit, and like lightning our tendency is toward the path of least resistance. Naturally many people become dependent on these programs because they know no other way to live. Starting your own business, with all the perceived legal and bureaucratic obstacles, must seem impossible, and so these communities survive but almost never prosper.

The second reason is more insidious, and no politician would admit to it, but Democrats need for racial minorities to continue to be dependent on them and their government programs. The logic in that is undeniable, and voting trends prove it out.

What upsets me so greatly is that minorities, specifically blacks, rarely seem to see the truth behind the curtain. 97% of those that voted chose the same old self-destructive liberal policies that have failed them for three generations. But I understand that mindset - when you are continually told that everyone else is against you, and you cannot succeed on your own merits, and you need to listen to your local community organizers because nobody else cares about you - that kind of thought is pervasive but it tends to stick because, again, it's the path of least resistance. Challenging the status quo is difficult, and if you really don't believe it will get you where you want to go you won't even try. That's why the conservative belief of self-reliance is so important. It's why Jackie Robinson campaigned for Republicans - he saw the power in that message in the face of the alternative.

My message is not politically-correct, and it's not polite, but I absolutely believe that a commitment to hard work can rescue anyone from any set of circumstances. They just need to believe in themselves and not government or anyone who offers them a handout in lieu of the hard truth about success in life. It takes hard work and nothing short of that will do. You can't just want something and then wait for it to be handed to you. Go work for it! Earn it! Overcome the obstacles in your way! Believe in yourself, and don't let anyone tell you you can't do it without their help! I was raised poor and watched my parents make better lives for themselves and for me and my siblings through hard work and personal sacrifice. I've seen first hand what it takes, and I have absolute faith everyone can do the same if they just believe in themselves and in the prospects for a better future.

Am I naive? For the sake of our country I hope not. But I will continue to call it the way I see it until everyone understands what brand of sugar water those Democrat carpetbaggers are peddling. If I am frank it is because I care, and not because I want your vote or care if you agree with me or ever read my blog again. I believe the only way we will ever break down barriers between groups is if people stop listening to those who say we can't and start doing for ourselves, regardless of where we start from.

Government Abuse Of Power Alert

2010-08-31T09:41:00.000-07:00

You probably know Roger Clemens was a pitcher with the Yankees who was forced to testify two years ago about whether he took performance enhancing drugs. He told the U.S. Senate he never had, and later test results and sworn testimony contradicted his claim. So it’s pretty clear he lied to the government.

So what? The government lies to us all the time, and about a lot more important things than whether some sports star took drugs that aren’t even illegal in order to improve his ability to play a game. It pains me that President Bush put himself on the front lines with this in the State of the Union speech, no less, but the witch hunts were driven by Democrats who wanted to destroy wealthy athletes and score cheap political points with the middle-class male sports fan who they otherwise have nothing in common with. There’s no way they did it for the integrity of the game or whatnot – they might be fans or even purists, but big deal, now quit lying to me about how you’re paying for Social Security!!

Roger Clemens will probably get about a year in prison and have to pay a $1 million dollar fine – to the government – for lying under oath. That’s quite a bit more serious than what Bill Clinton got, and of course Bara Bama will never get taken to task for all his lies and the fiscal destruction he has wrought on this country. What’s the penalty for treason these days? Probably a statue on the front lawn, or maybe they’ll paint the Washington Monument with a more diverse color palette.

I don’t feel bad for Clemens – he’s an ass and a liar, but no private citizen should have to be dragged in front of that idiot firing squad full of pompous pricks who’ve done far, far worse in their lives, and then have to answer questions about something that has nothing to do with the government and be taken to the woodshed for his answers. Where’s the frickin’ ACLU on this one? Oh right, Clemens is white. Nevermind.

Jon Stewart Is An Ass Clown

2010-08-31T07:32:00.000-07:00

There’s a bit of infuriating banter from last week about FoxNews contributing $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. This is apparently proof that only Republicans receive endless money from evil corporations, and even more proof that FoxNews is anything but “fair and balanced,” and is in fact a front for the Republican Party. We know this because no less of a credible investigative authority than Jon Stewart made a huge deal out of it, and he is as unbiased as they come.

And Barack Obama is a moderate. Yeah, right.

So it took just five minutes of digging to find that Rupert Murdoch/FoxNews also gave $1.02 million to Democrats. During the 2008 election cycle he gave $400,000 directly to Obama, but only $80,000 to McCain. I agree with Stewart that indicates bias, but it isn’t the way he spins it.

And what about NBC and MSNBC, supposedly FN’s cable rival? In years past parent company GE has given millions to Democrats! Hey Jonny Stew – when are you going to start complaining about that egregious flushing of dollars into Democrat campaign coffers? Stewart is a first-rate ass clown, which is why he hangs on to the only gig that will have him on Comedy Central. It’s telling that he keeps winning Emmy awards, isn’t it? Let’s see, Hollywood, where are your campaign contributions going? I can tell you it ain’t to Republicans.

I’ll say it again. Thank God for FoxNews. At least somebody is sending money to Republicans.

Lying With Numbers

2010-08-20T07:43:00.000-07:00

My freshman year in college I did a report on the Drake Equation, which can be used to determine the probability that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy.

The Drake equation states that:

where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

So that’s all pretty interesting but I’m sure you can see with just a quick read that almost none of the variable values in the equation is known with any great deal of certainty. It’s the sort of thing that makes for good sci-fi but bad science. My result was something like 100 such civilizations, but I could have easily said zero or 1,000,000 – the equation has little actual value beyond its novelty.

The same is exactly true anytime a Democrat says any number. Any number at all. Whenever a Democrat says a number it is meaningless, because no number they ever say is in any way associated with fact.

Take the EduJobs bill that passed last week. We were told this would absolutely save “300,000 teacher’s jobs.” Bara Bama himself cited that number, and he’s already added the tally to his total of 150 bazillion jobs “created or saved.” But where did the 300,000 come from? If you haven’t visited, there’s an outstanding education blog here: http://www.eiaonline.com/communique.htm

This guy is first rate at unwrapping all the veiled lies of the teacher’s unions and their cohorts in the Democrat party, and he does several articles on EduJobs. To summarize, the numbers for EduJobs are a fabrication. “300,000” originally started as “100,000”, and “teacher’s jobs” was originally just any “education job.”

No less than the U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, vastly distorts whatever the facts are to make the case for this kickback to education professionals with this gem: “We always said between 100,000 and 300,000. We had a broad range there… because this was a moving target.” He then followed up with this: "So, I think the reality… is the vast majority of districts around the country have literally been cutting for five, six, seven years in a row. And, many of them you know are through you know fat, through flesh, and into bone.” I don’t know what planet Arne Duncan lives on, but it isn’t Earth and it’s definitely not one of the other hundred or so “intelligent” civilizations out there.

The facts are that over the past seven years he’s referring to total student enrollment K-12 in the U.S. has increased only 1.6%, while total number of teachers has increased by 4% and the amount spent annually per pupil on salaries for educators has increased an astounding 26.4%! And this is US Census Bureau data, so Duncan knows it too well, but chooses to lie and distort the facts to pad the coffers of the teacher’s unions and education professionals, who overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

The blog cites the State of Alaska, which has budget surpluses almost every year because of the oil there, as being specifically told by the NEA that teacher layoffs were imminent, despite the fact that Alaska continues to increase school funding and leads the nation in percentage increase of teacher’s pay. They were never going to lay off anyone, but they still get $23.5 million from EduJobs.

WTF?? This is the kind of flagrant disregard for taxpayer money that is exactly the reason Democrats have zero credibility on the economy. More than that, I believe it is obvious quid pro quo, as Democrats have clearly just given their a powerful voter pool a $10 billion kickback. What I wouldn’t give to see some of these state’s Attorney’s General go after them in court! Maybe I should send this to Van Hollen…

Pay Go Away

2010-08-19T10:24:00.000-07:00

So the Democrats last week attached $16 billion in emergency funding for Medicare to fill states budget gaps. Umm, didn't Bama partially fund Obamacare by taking $500 billion out of Medicare? Is there a single rational person on the planet who actually believes one dime will be cut from Medicare?

Democrats will continue to stuff these "emergency" measures into bill after bill after bill until they have covered the $500 billion and then some.

It is laughable that Democrats think they can run on fiscal responsibility. It is no stretch to say they have shown nothing but contempt for the very concept.

Health Insurers: Comply Or Die!

2010-08-17T15:01:00.000-07:00

This is the time of year when private sector companies allocate benefits for the next calendar year, and with that has come the first evidence of the true impact of Obamacare. Primary attention will be given to the nationwide epidemic of insurance premium hikes, and the incredulity from politicians as to why it’s happening, and their equally incredulous response to a situation they themselves created.

I heard the first reports on the radio just yesterday, including one baffling account from an “Insurance agent who could not understand why his company’s premiums were going up by 25%.” That agent is an absolute moron, and he’s not alone.

One of the stipulations of Obamacare is a requirement that 85% of revenues (80% for “small businesses”) be spent on benefit payouts. In the industry this is called the “Medical Loss Ratio (MLR).” 85% is about the high-water mark for the industry, with the average about 10-15 points lower. This arbitrary requirement was installed to appease the extremist single-payer crowd. You might ask, “Well how does this affect single-payer?” Included in the law is creation of a review agency to identify private insurance companies who are increasing premiums, at which point the government has given itself the authority to essentially put that company out of business. Do that often enough and the private insurance industry will collapse and voila! Single-Payer.

Here’s how it works. Let’s say your insurance company currently has revenues of $150 million. In the insurance biz this makes you a small fry, but you’re doing your best to grow your customer base and expand your business while delivering for your employees and shareholders. Of that $150 million, you currently spend $100 million on benefit payouts, $40 million on the costs of doing business, and you’ve managed a profit of $10 million. That sounds like a lot, but it’s only 6.67% of total revenues, which is about the industry average or maybe a little higher. Unfortunately your MLR is at the lower end of the industry average at 66.67%, and now Obama and his anti-capitalist progressives are gunning to put your greedy butt out of business. The message is simple: Comply or die.

But you’ve got big problems. The costs of doing business are what they are. You need a building and an IT infrastructure and an Internet presence and Marketing and claims processors and agents and administrative staff and Legal then you also need a small army of accountants and another building full of people whose job it is just to make sure you’re business complies with all those government regulations, new and existing, at all levels from Federal to Municipal. You may be able to make a few cuts to payroll and find some savings in IT by outsourcing everything that isn’t already outsourced, but the reality is that, as a small insurance company, your customer base is not large enough to balance those bare minimum fixed costs of doing business and achieve an 85% MLR.

Luckily, you’ve been a good taxpayer and friend of the community, and have been liberal with campaign contributions – which also add to your costs – so you can call your Congressman and be deemed small enough to hit the 80% MLR slot. Ok, but you still have a long way to go to meet the Federal standard and stay in business.

As a small company, you have relied on ingenuity in your product offerings to maximize profits. You currently offer a wide array of services in the region of preventative care, such as encouraging customers to exercise and eat healthy, including incentives such as discounted memberships to fitness clubs and details about local CSA’s and recommending healthy lifestyle choices, etc., and you’re also working directly with physicians to help your customers make well-informed choices about care. As a result you’ve managed to keep premiums relatively low, but now because of the Federal MLR mandate you need to make some difficult choices.

Now keep in mind that benefit payout is largely beyond your control, but you have a solid algorithm for predicting total payout costs annually based on customer base and several well-understood industry specific variables. The bottom line: unless you take on more customers and higher risk, the $100 million will not significantly change.

So you’re stuck with two choices: find a way to reduce non-benefit costs or sell the company. You decide to try to make it work. So the first thing you do is eliminate all the services for preventative care, which allows you to scale back your IT presence and fire several hundred people who comprised your Preventative Care division, including dozens of on staff nurses, nurse practitioners, and those expensive consulting fees charged by physicians and other health-care industry types. You freeze all pay – no raises for the foreseeable future. You also sacrifice the future for the present, and eliminate half your Marketing team. You fire an entire tier of middle-management and reorganize the corporate reports structure. You have transformed into a flatter but less versatile company with the single objective of filling claims and surviving into the next fiscal year.

Congratulations! You’ve saved the company. You had to fire a third of your workforce and discontinue all value-added services, and as a result your customer base is less healthy overall, but you’ve met the federal mandate. Obamacare works!

But wait, now that your customer base is less healthy your seeing more claims, and your benefit payout spikes to $125 million. You had cash on hand to cover this event, but you need to plan for it for next year, and since you’re operating at a razor thin profit margin as it is, the only option is to increase premiums.

This time you can’t escape – you need to raise premiums by at least 20%, but that will inversely affect MLR because a hike in premiums is revenue! You decide to do it anyway, but 6 months later the Federal auditors deliver their papers and you are forced out of business.

Companies that cannot reduce costs must raise premiums while taking on additional risk. It is a fine line and a game in which the deck is intentionally stacked against the industry. The government wants insurance companies to fail. That’s the whole point. If insurance companies are forced to raise premiums, Democrats can score cheap political points by vilifying the private sector while taking steps toward Single-payer! Obama and Democrats have purposefully created a system to destroy American companies and cause the loss of millions more jobs, just so they can then implement a system under which they control every aspect of your health and lifestyle.

You think this won’t happen? Wake up, America, it’s happening already!

The Messiah Returns (At Last)

2010-08-11T10:04:00.000-07:00

I almost forgot the funniest part of Bama's speech on Monday. He said that he, "Will call for a doubling of exports in the next 5 years."

Good, that's done then.

Just today there's a report that the trade gap is the widest it's ever been - nearly $50 Billion every month, or about the same level as when Bama took office. Now there's change you can believe in!

Meanwhile, the Feds have announced another $3 Billion in giveaways to people who exercised their Democrat-given right to own a house regardless of their ability to pay for it. The newest bailout includes interest-free loans of up to $50,000!

And in the same vein a riot broke out in Atlanta today when thousands of people waited up to 2 days in the heat just to get an application for a rent subsidy. That's right - they weren't waiting for the money, they were waiting for the application for the money. And yes, there were signs saying that everyone who was in line by this afternoon would get an application. No money, just an application. Two days in line, in the heat. For an application. Yeah, some people are really, really stupid. What I'm wondering is why someone from the office didn't say anything to the assembled mob like, "You don't have to stay here for two days. We have plenty of applications and can always print more if needed." Or maybe someone did but the mob said, "It's ok, I got nuthin' better to do with my life." That's sad, but not surprising that it turned violent. If you look online for the pictures you'll see the whole story, and know that 99% of those people voted for Bama.

Diff'rent Strokes

2010-08-10T11:16:00.000-07:00

Bama gave another stump speech in Austin yesterday and again spent the majority of his time on education. This is the sort of topic Dems love to trot out for election cycles – it’s a bread and butter issue for them because the volume of their good intentions is rivaled only by their track record of spectacular failure. Concurrent with the campaigning from Bama is the big House vote to approve $26 Billion in emergency dollars to save “Hundreds of thousands” of teacher’s jobs. Bama is very specific about this: this money will prevent hundreds of thousands of teachers from being fired before the new school year. He couldn’t be any more clear. And yet it’s a bunch of BS. Some portion of $10 Billion will go to the general funds of the states with the soft mandate that it should be used to plug holes in education spending. The obvious problem is that states make state budgets, not the US Congress, so if there are budget holes then the states have irresponsibly appropriated their own funding. The more likely scenario is that this money will get used for any number of pet projects within states that invariably have nothing to do with education.

Oh wait, what about the other $16 Billion? No surprise, the majority of this spending will go to plug other holes in state budgets. We actually have 2 RINO’s to blame – those “Republican” senators from Maine are always messing things up. This time they sold their votes for $70 million to plug a hole in Medicaid spending, so naturally if they got it every other state wanted it, too. Where the hell is the leadership in that body?

Real Republicans have opposed all these spending blitzes on the grounds that enough is enough – pay for it like you said you would! What happened to “Pay-Go?” Did anyone believe a Democrat could really stick to paying for anything? Democrats are saying they have paid for this by “Curbing corporate tax loopholes” and also with the expected reduction in foodstamp usage, starting in 2014, because the economy will be so great by then. Wait a minute – 2014?? Tax loopholes??? How can you pay for something today with money from the future? And why didn’t you close those loopholes 18 months ago, the first chance you got after Bama took the throne? This reminds me of that Popeye character who’d say, “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” (Just searched online – Wimpy’s famous line is a well-established tool for illustrating just this sort of fiscal dishonesty.)

Because they’re bullshitting America, that’s why. They haven’t paid one dime for this, and they never intend to. They don’t feel the need to pay for anything as long as they control the press and the people who run it are unionized.

The bottom line is that there’s absolutely no justification for Bama’s outrageous claims to save jobs and there’s no actual money to pay for this scam. It’s a political stunt and a small bailout for states who follow the federal paradigm and spend what they don’t have because they figure – correctly – that Democrats will always come around to hand out cash as long as they can make a campaign stop out of it. This teachers-jobs crisis is a total election stunt to try to save what should obviously be a lost cause.

Now on to the speech itself. Remember just 10 days ago when Bama was talking to the Urban League and he told them that he doesn’t only talk about parenting to “black folks?” Well, he talked about education for 20 minutes and never said a single word about parents to these “white folks.” What’s more, his message to the Urban League seemed to place College as this lofty aspiration, an almost unreachable thing, and his primary focus was just getting “black folks” kids though high school or even just grade school. Well, no such problems in Austin – he never mentions high school. This speech was all about college. I think his message is pretty clear – he expects a lot less of “black folks” kids, and that’s too bad, but that’s the Democrat Party today – quietly as racist as they ever were, regardless of who the President is.

And it occurs to me that "Race to the Top" can never work – with its rigorous application process and merit requirements – as long as Democrats are all too eager to undercut the program by throwing cash at every school where a teacher’s job may be on the line. Shouldn’t this be obvious? Does anyone in Washington ever think before they act? It’s all a scam!

Race To The Top, or, Why Earn When You Can Just Want?

2010-08-02T18:39:00.000-07:00

Bama gave a speech to the National Urban League Thursday of last week. The NUL is non-partisan by charter, but it’s about as ideologically and racially diverse as the NAACP, so that makes it the perfect venue for Bama to spout his lies. I actually watched this on CNN – it was one of only a handful of English-speaking channels in my Montreal hotel room – and what struck me was the amazing divide between what Bama and “black folks” want, and how they intend to achieve what they want. I make a simple distinction here between want and earn.

The speech began with Bama’s customary litany of lies and exaggerations regarding his accomplishments to date – among other things he now claims to have “saved 8 million jobs.” Whatever. Oh, and he talks about the Shirley Sherrod mess and mostly blames the media, because its well-known that Fox News has the power to fire high-ranking federal employees. But don’t worry, black America, Bama not only reprimanded Fox News but he also hired Shirley back for more pay. What he actually says in the speech is, “Rather than jump to conclusions and point fingers, and play some of the games that are played on cable TV…” Oh no he didn’t just point his finger at Fox News!

Another issue close to “black folks” hearts, Bama “helped right a longstanding wrong” by reducing prison sentences for crack-cocaine users. Thank goodness we’ll finally get more those drug users back on the streets where they belong.

The meat of the speech had to do with his education bill, which he calls, “Race to the Top.” The “top” of what is never explained, but by the sound of it, he means, the top of the bottom. Unbelievably, after five decades of liberalism in education, “black folks” still don’t do as good as whites when it comes to school test scores or graduation rates or college participation rates or employment rates, or seemingly anything else that contributes to a self-sustaining way of life in America. In fact, things just keep getting worse.

Bama claims that, “Education is an economic issue – if not ‘the’ economic issue of our time.” This is a statement everyone should be able to get behind. Now if only we could come up with some good ideas on how to improve education… I know, let’s let Teddy Kennedy write an education bill called “No Child Left Behind”, which encourages low standards because we don’t want to be politically incorrect and elevate smart kids above dumb kids. Ok, that didn’t work, now all the smart kids are bored and playing with their iPhones instead of learning the mundane splatter that is intentionally watered down. And the schools with all the dumb kids are getting their funding cut, and as any Democrat can tell you, the solution to every problem is always more money.

In that vein get ready - here comes Race To The Top (of the bottom)!

First things first, lubricate the gears of racism, I mean, pledge billions of taxpayer dollars to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, which, in case you’re wondering, are not only historically black but also presently black. Next, let’s take the private sector out of the business of issuing college tuition loans. God forbid students are indebted to anyone but the Federal Government for their education.

But he’s getting ahead of himself. We need to go back before the start and deprive children of their childhood by saturating their “formative years” with more government-controlled “early learning options.” Options. Yeah, right. Of course all this costs money. Lots and lots of money. So Bama is starting out with $4 Billion in “grants” to states which change their curriculum to meet Bama’s new educational standards. This should allow inner city schools to get more money to build better buildings and hire and keep better teachers, because it’s always worked out that way in the past. (sarcasm) Also, Bama is not opposed to all Charter schools, but don’t worry, teachers unions, if he judges a Charter school to not be up to his standards he won’t hesitate to “shut it down.” Yeah, he actually said that – no double-standard there. He only supports “good Charter schools,” but he supports all failing inner city schools because that’s where the “black folks’” kids go, and he can’t offend the teachers unions or the Urban League by suggesting “black folks’” kids should go somewhere else, like to a better school where there might be “white folks’” kids who are probably racists. Am I reading too much into his remarks? I really don’t think so. I’m sure you get the idea. Absolutely no specifics on how any of this will get done except that $4 Billion is earmarked for it. As long as states change curriculum, they get the money.

But here’s where Bama’s philosophy of life begins to shine – when he merely “wants” something. For Bama, “want” is pretty much the same as “hope”. To any rational and likely conservative thinking person, these are empty words which epitomize the old adage, The path to Hell is paved with good intentions. It’s the Democrats oldest trick – to talk a good game but do nothing.

From the speech, here is Bama’s list of wants:

He wants to remind us of what things were like in 2008.
He wants to put a college degree in reach for anyone who wants it. (Sound familiar, home owners?)
He wants the USA to be number 1 instead of number 12.
He wants better early learning options.
He wants to address civil rights as part of Race to the Top.
He wants teachers to be the single most important factor.
He wants teachers to have high salaries.
He wants teachers to have more support.
He wants teachers to be trained like professionals.
He wants to give teachers a career ladder.
He wants teachers to have a fulfilling and supporting work environment.
He wants teachers to have the resources to help them succeed.
He wants to build a culture where we idolize teachers.
He wants teachers featured on MTV.
He wants to know who Snooki is.
He wants to commend teachers unions.
He wants to give schools the chance to try new things.
He wants young people to be able to read their diplomas.

In all, Bama says “want” 27 times during this speech, but he only says “earn” once, when he says, interestingly, that teachers should earn financial security (doesn’t the government already control that???)

In Democrats’ minds it is good enough to want something, or to hope for something, and completely unnecessary to have to work hard or earn that wanted thing. In this speech it is never incumbent on students to work hard for their education, or earn the privilege – not the right – to go to college. If they want it, they should have it.

All of the really obvious problems with society, and specifically “black folks”, are overlooked – the majority single-parent households, high crime rate, gangs, and overall cultures of entitlement and fear which have destroyed the black community for going on 3 generations – these are the real issues plaguing black and inner-city Americans, and all of this affects children well before they ever step foot in a kindergarten classroom or dare to dream to be something more than what they started with. What Democrats and Bama refuse to acknowledge is that it takes hard work to turn problems into opportunities into successes, and not just put money in government coffers.

What was surely intended as the highpoint of the speech is when Bama claimed that in convincing states to change their standards he “leveraged change.” Now he must have been talking to some of those dumb kids that came from No Child Left Behind, because change is what happens when you leverage something else. You don’t leverage change, unless he means he leveraged his slogan. What he really leveraged was money. So we know that for Bama, change and money are synonymous. (For those in the Urban League, synonymous means they are essentially the same.) Furthermore, money replaces the need to achieve by hard work. This seems to be the key tenet of the Obama administration: Change = Money. Your money and mine, presumably to give to teachers, from what he says in this speech.

Whether he can translate money into results is the real question, and if history is a guide then Race to the Top will likely end further down the hill from where it began.

Liberals: Racists And Thieves

2010-07-13T13:24:00.000-07:00

Couple quick hits today. First, the NAACP will publicly denounce the Tea Party movement. They are claiming this is because of veiled racial undercurrents among Tea Partyers. Their evidence of this is that many people associated with the Tea Party are “Anti-President Obama.” I guess they think people are offended that he’s half-white or something. Of course anyone with an once of common sense understands the Tea Party represents the antithesis of Bama’s socialist policies. This frightens the NAACP, who depend on socialism to steal wealth from America’s earners and give it to black people who don’t have and don’t want jobs.

So I guess anyone who thinks you should take care of yourself in life and take responsibility for you actions is a racist. You know who was probably a racist, then? Jackie Robinson. The man who broke Major League Baseball’s color barrier was a Republican, and not only that, but he actively campaigned on behalf of Republican candidates expressly because they represented the party of self-reliance and personal responsibility, in stark contrast to Democrats, who grease the wheels of racial tension by creating an environment where Blacks were held to different expectations than Whites.

So one of the great heroes of Black people would today be denounced by the very people who hold him in such esteem.

Another thing I was thinking about was the fact that governments in this country can’t seem to wrap heads around the idea of controlling, much less reducing spending. There’s also significant resistance to raising taxes. Of course everyone expects the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire, and so they will passively raise taxes next year. But there’s a huge amount of money changing hands that is not taxed in the form of charitable contributions. Personal contributions to charities represents an uncontrolled distribution of wealth, which liberals abhor. Only government should be the sole proprietors of wealth redistribution. Even more horrifying to libs is that conservatives give a significantly greater portion of their incomes to charities than do liberals, and in many cases the charity is a Christian church! This needs to stop asap, so I would expect that in the very near future the laws for charitable contributions will change to no longer allow for tax deductions. Furthermore, Christian churches will be taxed on all contributions they receive. Liberals accomplish 3 things of great importance to hem by doing this: First they claim what they believe is rightfully theirs in terms of taxes otherwise lost from charitable deductions. Second, they reduce conservative influence among charities and other non-profits be limiting the financial return for contributors, while securing more power for themselves to take the stream of new tax dollars and apply as they see fit. And third, they hope to further limit the effect of Christian morality on this country, which will inevitably result in destruction of morals and the American soul, and break down the last barriers standing in the way of Communism.

And speaking of morals, it is now a proven fact that Al Frankenfuck lost the election to Norm Coleman. You’ll remember that over 330 votes were “found”, many on ballots that also included votes for John McCain, but also a trunkload of write-in ballots that all went for Franken. Now we know for a fact that at least 346 convicted felons voted for Franken, and as many as 800 or more. If Dems had this kind of evidence in Florida 2000 against Bush things might well have turned out differently, but of course they didn’t because only Democrats, who operate without a moral compass, try to steal elections and circumvent the will of the people. What is particularly ironic in this case is that Frankenburglar was one of the loudest voices following the 2000 election, saying all the stupid, nonsensical things liberals said about Bush and Florida and the Supreme Court deciding the election and all that, and now it is he who has actually stolen an election. Think he’ll man up and resign now? Don’t bet on it.

Bama's Friend Chavez

2010-07-02T09:20:00.000-07:00

Wonderful Glorious Socialism update: July 2, 2010

This week the Magnificent and Magnanimous People’s President Hugo Chavez from the People’s Paradise of Venezuela seized control of two oil drilling rigs off the shores of the socialist utopia. Further adding to the victory of the People, these rigs were owned by a private American capitalist pig company, which had previously been supplying oil for Venezuela’s State-controlled refineries.

Inexplicably, the American pigs halted drilling operations, claiming they should be “paid” for this oil and their labor to recover it. How dare they demand to be reimbursed millions of U.S. dollars for something that exists below the legally recognized naval territory of the glorious worker’s paradise of Venezuela! The Wise and Handsome President Chavez refused to pay, and now has not only taken the oil but he has seized the rigs, evicted the Americans, and nationalized the operation.

What a fine show of his authority, granted by the People! This is just the latest in a long line of great socialist victories over capitalism. Do not believe the Western pigs who say the economy of Venezuela is failing! El Presidente can always just seize more western assets for the People, claiming them for the State.

Everyone knows that the weakling American leader Obama will never condemn these glorious victories because he secretly supports the actions against the will of his own misguided people. Weakling Obama and Wonderful People’s President Chavez are friends and allies, and even now the People’s President whips Obama like a bitch and shows the American leader the true meaning of leadership while guiding him to the true light of socialism. Soon all American capitalist pigs will be forced to give their money and allegiance to the new socialist paradise of America, as shown the way by its master Venezuela. Our glorious leader be praised!

Some Idiot Libs Rank The Presidents

2010-07-02T06:24:00.000-07:00

The stuffy poll of 238 ultra-liberal elitist historian academic snobs was released yesterday, and go f***ing figure, FDR is number 1. No president in the history of this nation greater exemplifies the time-honored liberal tradition of trading the future for the present than FDR. Three men did more than any others to cause the financial and social mess we’re in today: FDR, Woody Wilson, and LBJ, and among them, FDR tops the list. Although a stubborn wartime leader, FDR has nearly destroyed this country through his leftist New Deal policies. Hitler would be proud.

So that’s all you need to know about this latest poll. The man who saved the country from certain destruction by Civil War and the man who had more to do with the creation of this country than any other are 3^rd and 4^th, respectively. Who’s number 2? Teddy Roosevelt. WTF!!?!? Another progressive whackjob who spent most of his presidency traipsing around in the woods is rated above the greatest engineers of freedom mankind has ever known.

Jimmy Carter, who had us on the brink of statehood in the Soviet Union, somehow finds the middle of the list. Slick Willy is top-15, admired for doing virtually nothing over 8 years. Heh, I could almost agree with that if he hadn’t caused 9-11 by refusing to take in Bin Laden, a known terrorist, when offered after he tried to blow up the World Trade Center the first time!

Not surprisingly, the President who finally decided it was not OK to strap a bomb to yourself and blow people up by the bus or building-load in the name of fundamentalism, George W Bush, is bottom-5, right above the secessionist appeasers. GOOD GOD!

Meanwhile Barry O’Bama is ranked a chipper 15^th. 3 Spots ahead of Reagan.

Yeah, it’s ok to start screaming profanity now.

Barry is admired for his “Imagination”, and, “Communication.” And not at all dinged for the fact that he communicates only lies and imagines a world in which Americans are free to be sniped from rooftops in every country while Mexicans have more rights in America than Americans. He might also be admired for being the straw that broke the camel’s back. Just give it another 20 years.

Bama's Magic Bag

2010-07-01T11:37:00.000-07:00

In Racine, Wisconsin this week Bama was doing the only thing he really knows how to do in life – campaigning. Bound by the Democrat Rules for Campaigning, Section 1A, he lied and distorted reality in an attempt to fool the mostly inane union goons who skipped work to hear him and show their unflinching support. Among the most egregious distortions is this fallacy that Republicans are the majority party, with the power to hold up legislation and not allow anything to come to vote. That must be how Health Care got passed. Oh wait.

Remember the big announcement earlier this year about “Pay-Go?” That’s where Democrats pledged to not put forth any legislation that was not 100% paid for. Yeah, I know, pretty funny coming from Democrats. But even as the pundits try to spin this election cycle as bad for all incumbents, Democrats are trying to be credible in being more conservative than conservatives. Anyway, those dastardly Dems want to push through a $34 Billion emergency bill to fund unemployment insurance through November, though I'm sure the timing with the election season is just a coincidence (Riiight). It’s not like this thing just snuck up on them and they realized 3 days before the deadline that benefits would terminate. They’ve been “working” on this bill for the past 3 months, and could have taken a vote at any time, but because they have refused to – wait for it – pay for it, Republicans won’t sign on. Now they do have one RINO, but because Old KKK Byrd dies this week they lose by 1 vote. And just how much do Democrats care? Enough that they are dropping the issue to go on vacation. Oh, those poor suffering Americans.

To any rational person it is obvious that three things have doomed this effort. First, Democrats went back on their word, discarding Pay-Go at the very first opportunity. Second, Democrats wanted to make this close so they could also make it political and blame Republicans if the bill failed. Third, and most importantly, Bara Bama and the Democrats’ failed economic policies have created a business climate where this is still an issue in the first place. Listen, Congress extended benefits last October up to an unprecedented 99 weeks! How long does it take to find a job? Any job?? It’s no wonder people aren’t out there working the jobs that are available because the f---ing Federal government is paying them to stay home and do nothing!!!

Yes, I have a friend who got laid off, but guess what? He went out and got 2 part time jobs to make ends meet while he continues to look for something full time and permanent.

Let’s say you’re a prospective employer, and you get 2 resumes for one opening you have. One of the applicants is working 2 part time jobs to make ends meet and providing for himself, while the other is sitting at home watching cable in his underwear on the taxpayer dime. Who would you hire?

Bama must still think he’s Jesus Christ, able to pull fish endlessly from baskets to feed the five thousand, or in this case, reach into his magic bag of endless dollars to pay for cable TV and Taco Bell for millions of the habitually unemployed.

I do feel for those who lost their jobs in this economy, but to them I say that it is Democrats’ unending culture of state-reliance and vilification of private business that has caused the economic slump to get this bad for this long, and with no end in sight. Bama and his magic bag are the cause, not the solution.

Live from the Oval Office!

2010-06-15T08:35:00.000-07:00

Tonight the Campaigner-In-Chief is going to tell us whose ass he kicked, and we're all supposed to understand that he's been involved in the cleanup effort since before he was born, or before oil was first discovered, or before the Big Bang, and that he definitely did not waste a single moment since the spill thinking about anything else like his golf game or Barbara Boxer fundraisers or which third-world dictator to support over our historical allies. If he mentions tonight how he had to stand near some rain when he was chatting it up with local folk I'm gonna puke.

Gibbsy was on NPR this morning claiming the United States has legal authority to take $20 Billion from a foreign-based public corporation which employees thousands of workers in this country and directly affects tens of thousands more and redistribute it as they see fit to anyone impacted financially by the spill. On the face of it this action usurps due process and the legal system in total. This from the administration that wants to give enemy combatants a "fair trial" in US courts. It's pretty obvious whose side Bara Bama is on, and its likely this thing is going to get ugly in the courts when BP decides to start disputing bogus claims.

The underlying message is, "Don't blame Obama." While I could have supported this (and did) during the first few weeks after the spill, Bama's actions since he decided to finally get involved have been devastating. He's been everything but a leader, deflecting blame by way of his incest partners in the media to anyone else, including President Bush. He might have blamed God except he thinks he is the second coming. I'm sure it was difficult for him yesterday to have to admit he could not personally "Dive to the bottom of the ocean and plug the leak with (his) finger or suck up all the oil with a straw." If I was sitting next to him at that point I would have tore him a new one. He has threatened indiscriminately and been visibly annoyed with the concerns of everyday people. And he has actively divided, pitting environmentalists against oil workers against fishermen against British Petroleum against the whole of the American people against everyone else on the planet. Good job, prick.

The thing to remember tonight is that Barack Obama is a brazen liar. From the first time he sat on Leno's couch he has been dishonest about who he is, what he believes, and how he intends to get things done. Thus far the "Free Press" has maintained its complicity in this scam perpetrated against every US citizen, but as the barrel count rises that bond will show its cracks and start to leak. Maybe he'll be able to plug it with his finger, maybe not. November will tell us how much of this barrel of hope and change we are able to swallow.

Backfire!

2010-06-05T08:11:00.000-07:00

Well, the spill isn't any better after the cap, but that slick operator Bama had a plan B. Instead he met with common folk - people he has no understanding of - to harvest their sad stories and then relay them himself back to the press. Referring to these hard-working men by their first names as if he'd known them all his life, Bama tried to become a man of the people. Money quote: "Even when I'm not here, I'm thinking of you." He might have just said what he actually believes: "God is watching, and he works through me alone." Nobody's gonna believe him. As much as he wants to be, he's not Bill Clinton.

Then he goes on to tear into BP, trying to voice the people's frustration that is actually focused just as much on him as BP, and threatens more lawsuits without actually saying the word.

If he'd just seemed to care early on we could live with what should be an obvious fact that he can't do anything personally to stop the spill - this is BP operation to the finish. But he had to stumble and resent the imposition of the event and then overreact and now he's compounded problems ten times over with the decisions he has made.

Hey Bama, STOP, you idiot!

Media Whore-In-Chief

2010-06-04T12:55:00.000-07:00

The Administration announced last night that Bama has once again postponed/canceled his trip to Indonesia and Australia. He did the same thing in March when he want to stick around and mug for cameras and distribute superlatives when the Health Care albatross was about to be passed. Indonesia and Australia must not be very important if he keeps canceling for photo ops. Most likely he just considers that trip a vacation, and since he's already taking so many vacations, playing golf and basketball every week and hosting elaborate and expensive parties at the White House at taxpayer expense, he doesn't feel the pressing need to get on Air Force One for 20 hours just to show his daughters the Eastern Hemisphere.

Now he's doing it because he wants to be in Louisiana today to take credit for BP's first successful effort to reduce the amount of oil vomiting into the Gulf. Not that he had anything to do with it. Let me rephrase that for effect: Barack Obama had absolutely nothing to do with today's successful siphoning strategy. Quite the opposite, in fact. By continually belittling BP, the media, and the American People (he had the gall to refer to affected fishermen in the Gulf pleas for help "Unfair"), Bama has contributed to the negative impact of the spill. If he would have just stayed the F out of the way and let BP and Governor Jindal do what was necessary, the situation might be very different. But instead, He stonewalled Jindal on the sand berm plan and then sent Holder out there to start ginning up lawsuits against BP, all the while publicly condemning all oil drilling and then shutting down 40% of the industry, further exacerbating the economic situation in the region and directly causing the loss of thousands of jobs.

What this President has done in response to the problem represents perhaps the greatest failure of leadership in the history of this country. We're way beyond Jimmy Carter failure now. Barack has moved into the land of Buchanan and Taylor.

Oil And The Slick Science

2010-06-01T14:08:00.000-07:00

For what it's worth - not much! - I do not fault Bama at all for what's happening in the Gulf. This was not the Campaigner-In-Chief's oversight, and there's not a lot he personally can do about it.

What has been telling, and frankly predictable, with this whole mess is the media response. It goes without saying that had this happened under Bush' watch there would have been an immediate coordinated media response with the sole purpose of annihilating the President and exposing all of his "Big Oil" connections as true villains. But that did not happen this time for obvious reasons. It is only in the last couple weeks as the environmentalist left's anger over the spill has burst the pipeline of liberal talking points running from the Administration to the major media outlets that concern has leaked into the airwaves saturating the general public. I hear it every morning on that liberal safe haven NPR.

How much damage this will cause Bama is irrelevant. Its not like lefties are gonna pull the lever for a Republican despite Bama's seemingly stunning lack of leadership on this issue. Last week, on the verge of a likely fix, Bama called a press conference and took responsibility for the fix, Now that that has failed, any guess on how much distance the administration is already negotiating with their buddies in the press to put between the Chief and BP? Bama has proven he is all too willing to say one thing and do another - remember the Health Care Summit when he promised to delay action to consider Republican concerns and then signed the bill two weeks later?

The real wonder is how long he can survive as the Teflon President. Already the slick science of journalism is showing cracks against him for his total disregard for public opinion - they still work within the capitalist model even if he does not, and they cannot protect him indefinitely while viewership/readership continues to sink like BPs stock price. That relationship suffers more everyday for its incestuous proclivity, and Americans are not blind to it.

The Heath Care Bureaucracy Boondoggle

2010-05-28T13:13:00.000-07:00

I had an interesting conversation with my doctor the other day. He was saying that in the 1960's, there was about 1 administrator for every 10 physicians, most health care costs were payed out of pocket, and as a result, most insurance covered a significantly smaller percentage of total costs. This all makes sense. The science of health care has developed so many new and wonderful opportunities to treat people in the last fifty years, but all that progress was not achieved without cost. Furthermore, the government steps in more and more to regulate the industry of health care to do what doctors are clearly unable or unwilling to do for themselves, and enforce the Hippocratic Oath. We all know how in bed all doctors are with the Pharmaceutical companies, and then there are all those needless tests to justify the extravagant cost of otherwise pointless equipment and procedures!

Anyway, the net result of all this regulation is that today the ratio is reversed - we now have about 10 administrators for every doctor! So for every new doctor we've added 100 administrators in the past half-century. That's really eff-d up. That means that the cost of care covers not only the expertise of the doctor, but also the salaries of all those administrators. My doctor went on to generalize that most of the administrators in the next building over were needed for compliance to Federal, State, and Local government regulations. Translation: skyrocketing health care costs are a direct result and are primarily driven by the increasing influence of government.

And now thanks to Democrats this country has just created a massive new regulatory requirement on health care. That means more administrators, not fewer, and like I've always said, costs can only go up. Any savings claimed is a total lie.

Furthermore, he described how under government programs such as Medicare, the government tells the provider what it will pay, and of course the provider has no recourse. So as the cost model goes up and the price model goes down, who gets squeezed? Doctors, of course, because patients don't see administrators, and therefore can have no emotional reaction to them. It's the same thing with schools: Always threaten to fire teachers, never administrators, because teachers teach and we see them everyday, but nobody knows what the hell an administrator does.

He predicts that the best and brightest will no longer go into medicine. People may still be motivated by the job, but without appropriate financial incentive many of the high-achievers will affect their desired lifestyle in other fields that are not so heavily controlled. And why wouldn't they? These are the people who make it all work, and the government wants to penalize them for their effort. Screw that.

So get ready to see your primary care physician replaced by a nurse practitioner or PA or worse! That much is an absolute certainty. It's only too bad we can't inflict the same quality of health care under socialism on the a-holes who created it.

The Future Of Education

2010-05-25T10:44:00.000-07:00

It is a well-worn maxim that in this country people achieve via education. Its generally true in life; people with a college degree are more prosperous than those without, with some notable exceptions. Americans tend to elevate those who have persevered despite convention - those who have succeeded by their tremendous work ethic and force of will are more respected than those in similar positions who traveled the more direct route.

The truth of the matter is that the number of people who succeed in life solely on their own merit is very small. Society wants to see that degree on your resume. It is important as a symbol that you have made the effort and been through the process, and the reason its important is because the people reading the resume have the same experience and expect it from those they wish to hire. In this respect society has conditioned itself to value education not for education's sake but for the promise of future returns that are only indirectly related to having the degree.

Educational institutions, on the other hand, are fully invested in selling the education for the sake of the education. They have to be, otherwise all the tangential fluff built into achieving an education would be valueless, and then the perceived value of the education would fall short of the experience.

Consider "general education credits." Every four-year public college requires some number of G.E.s to graduate. But G.E.s are just fluff that distract students from the core coursework that leads to the desired degree. Do I really need to learn how to play golf and volleyball to build a SQL query? And how does Music Appreciation or Film or Biology of Aging help me discern project scope? These are not trick questions. Universities bone up on G.E.s so they can justify all manner of expenditures, from professor's salaries to new buildings to overhead and everything in between. If they can't keep pushing the volume of fluff then they would fail to support the need for more and more money from students and taxpayers. In this way public colleges are self-perpetuating redundancies. The critical element to their ability to continue operating within this model is the lie of prestige.

Public colleges compete with each other for the best faculty and the best students. And because people who have previously graduated from those institutions want to raise their own stature, they consider their educational experience superior and seek candidates from the same, creating a perceived value for that institution that can influence perspective students. The value is almost baseless, and yet the university latches on to it as a reason they are better than the next school down the road. They can then say just about anything and expect to receive endless taxpayer dollars, most of which, when you really boil it down, is meaningless to the ultimate goal of the typical student.

But so what? Colleges have been selling the value of the education as-is for generations. Why does anyone care what the actual value is? There are two primary reasons. First is that education is the number-one expense for almost every state in the country. I live in Wisconsin, where the budget for education, including K-12, accounts for a full third of all state expenditures - more than $10 Billion annually! It's no secret that Republicans have been trying to promote alternatives to public schools for more than two decades, but the education lie is so ingrained in the public psyche that liberal scare tactics continue to subdue efforts to privatize K-12 or even allow fundamental choice in where children can go to school. The teacher's union in this state also wields far too much influence, and decades of liberal-mindedness with respect to government provided and controlled education has resulted in the incestuous corruption that is the inevitable end to all such endeavors.

The second reason is that the philosophy of education is changing as economies globalize. All but one of the programmers around me are either from India or Bangladesh. In those countries the competition for a quality life is so severe that young people are focused like a laser on achievement. Distractions lead to failure, and that includes wasting time taking G.E.s. As our workforce looks for the best candidates for today's skilled jobs, foreign talent is often given priority consideration, and justifiably so. Four-year colleges are not built to fuel this workforce, and the academic elite often work actively against it. Technical schools were supposed to offer this alternative, but society does not treat an Associate's Degree as having equivalent value to a Bachelor's Degree, regardless of what is actually learned.

The new battleground is secular private colleges. The University of Phoenix is not going away, and its scaring the pomp and circumstance out of the public institutions. Today on NPR the lead story was about the increased enrollment at for-profit colleges. There is a fierce demand right now among people who are looking to get an education without all the fluff and get into the workforce and on with their lives, and as community colleges fill up, private colleges are opening more doors. This is an obvious threat to the status quo; government does not control these and as a result loses some of its control over the people who attend them. More disturbing is the thick fabric of elitism that has been cultivated among academia for hundreds of years does not exist at private educational institutions, where professors and administrators are employees, and subject to the demands of the business of education instead of the fantasy of public institutions imbuing students with great knowledge and wisdom, almost as if by osmosis.

The NPR report was predictably negative toward the University of Phoenix. They brought out an "Expert on education" - and we know she's an expert because she wrote a book about it - who said, "There's no incentive to provide a quality education." Now if by "education" she was referring to the style-over-substance approach employed liberally by major public universities, then she's probably right. But the intent of the sound byte was to say that what students are taught at for-profits is not as good as their public counterparts.

Only a liberal could try to make this argument, because liberals always fail to trust the market force of competition. Every time. In fact, the opposite is true - it's public colleges and professors with tenure who have absolutely zero incentive to teach their students anything useful. Once you commit to a particular source of education you as the consumer have absolutely no control or influence over the quality of that education. And since the supply of education is rationed by the state, perspective students are limited in choice, and must either settle for what's available or pay significantly more to try to go out of state. In a real sense, the NPR "expert" was using the tired old liberal trick of attacking her enemy by using what she knows to be the fatal flaws of her ally. This is so when her opponents say her argument is ridiculous she can dismiss it out of hand.

The biggest problem liberals have right now is that they cannot meet the demand, and by their own words cannot risk denying someone an opportunity for education, so private colleges like the University of Phoenix will continue to expand enrollment and also lure quality teachers whose interest extends beyond academic elitist cronyism away from public institutions. The balance of education is slowly shifting, and for the better.

In the long run the result will be a better skilled, more equipped American workforce to compete globally in the 21st Century. It will also mean less reliance on the state, and less direct control by liberals over developing minds through curriculum. And beyond just the educational considerations it should translate directly to government spending restraint as the shift moves more toward private and away from public funding of higher education. At least it ought to.

These are all excellent goals worth fighting for, and one of the main reasons why all is not lost in America.

The Unspoken But Actual Immigration Argument

2010-05-12T10:20:00.000-07:00

I've been reading a lot lately online and in print, and also seeing on TV the pundits expounding on all the wrong arguments regarding illegal immigration. It's not useful to reiterate the nonsense, so I'll get right to the heart of the real issue: Votes.

This all about votes. Its always been about votes and it always will be about votes. Democrats desperately want to convert 10+ million illegal immigrants into 6+million votes for Democrats. It's pure numbers; as long as illegal immigrants are likely to vote 60% or greater in favor of Democrats, Democrats will continue to push for those people to not only be allowed to vote but encourage them to bring their family and friends across to do the same.

That's the basic difference between people and party. A liberal would have an actual reason for wanting to allow an illegal immigrant to stay and be provided food and shelter and even work - that's just how they think. And a conservative would have an equally compelling reason to send them back, whether it be security or crime or services fraud or what have you. But the parties are focused solely on gaining and expanding power.

I do believe that fundamentally, conservative Republicans are much less likely to be driven by votes and much more likely to be guided by moral and legal convictions than Democrats, who ore exclusively devoted to the goal of growing power and government control. What is absolute is that people are merely pawns in this chess match between Democrats and Republicans. They are being manipulated for a specific agenda, and for no other reason.

What Happened in Britain?

2010-05-07T09:23:00.000-07:00

Well, for the first time in nearly 20 years the Conservative Tories have the most seats in Parliament, though it is not quite a majority which would allow a clear mandate and finally unseat Labour's stranglehold on the political landscape for the first time since Margaret Thatcher.

What's strange (sarcasm), is how a month ago the American media was ecstatic that the progressive Liberal Democrat (redundant) Party candidate, Nick Clegg had gained so much momentum, with one headline blasting that he was as "Popular as Churchill," having garnered a 70% approval rating following the first televised debate.

So it's a complete surprise (again sarcasm) that the Lib Dems actually lost seats during the election. Media on this side of the pond are now scrambling in the wake of this embarrassing showing for socialism, saying that the Conservatives must now deal with the Libs in order to secure power. Whatever. The people have spoken, and Britons are afraid of the legacy of debt heaped on them by 20 years of liberal Labour rule.

America should get a clue, but the spin is more likely to be that conservatives failed to get a majority instead of the fact that Labour lost theirs, with the message being, "don't bail on Bama and Dems here just because other countries are seeing the light." Or in the case of Greece, having finally been exposed for the failures of ultra-leftist governments.

It's going to be fun to watch them fall one by one.

The Character of Bara Bama

2010-05-03T11:46:00.000-07:00

Another White House Correspondents dinner has come and gone, and the only question that remains is, what's the point? At this event, the political leaders of our country intermingle with Hollywood elite and media snobs, creating a petulant blend of verbal diarrhea that could only come when you put that many liberals in one room and try to infuse comedy.

I don't know why we couldn't just stand them all in a line and laugh at them without a word being spoken; their records as bureaucrats, entertainers, and journalists is the ultimate joke.

I bothered to watch some of this event last year, when they had Wanda Sykes as the headliner. She is universally regarded by those who know as being not particularly funny in the way most comediennes are are not funny. Bama, on the other hand, was just not funny because he is a singularly humorless ass. It's well known that taxpayers pay a third party - this year it was the writing team of The Daily Show - to write his schtick, and it's always predictably anti-Republican. You only need to hear his delivery - using the same Shatner-esque phrasology that he speaks in at all of his campaign stops - to realize everything about this man is canned.

What's most revealing is Bama's total inability to to joke about himself. Last year, and again this year, all of Bama's nyuks came at the expense of others, including a couple stabs at the ordinarily cartoonish Joe Biden and Rahm Emmanuel and after that it was like listening to the hysterics of Bill Maher ranting against Republicans simply for daring to be the opposition.

This is important because a person who can't make fun on themselves is a person who can't take a joke. It is these narrow windows that we are allowed to see Bama's true character. He is arrogant, selfish, and most of all vindictive. It's not hard to imagine him in the 1920's shaking down speakeasys with a Tommy gun and then stomping through the bloody pools of those that met his glare. And his actions have done nothing to dispel this vision. His daft handling of almost every diplomatic venture in the last 15 months alone should be enough to castrate him in world opinion (and it's happening, the American media just isn't telling us).

Obama is just a bully. He displays no sincerity or remorse because he feels neither. All he is capable of is self-admiration, and he demands it from those around him. He honestly believes in the cult of his own personality. Is there a more disastrous compilation of traits for the man elected to lead the United States? No one should be laughing so long as that man is in the White House.

Edit 5/7/2010: This week it was revealed that the Campaigner-In-Chief used the term "Teabaggers" when referring to the Teaparty movement. George W Bush would never have disparaged his opposition like that. For some reason only Republicans are required to have class in politics, as the "teabagger" comment is getting zero media play from the "free" press.

What We Could Learn From Greece (But We Won't)

2010-04-30T08:01:00.000-07:00

Greece represents the ultimate end for the progressive liberal ideal.

40% of the workforce in Greece is employed by the government. 40%!!! The remaining 60% are comprised more or less equally by three groups:
1. Union members
2. Family businesses
3. Immigrants

Immigrants do the work other Greeks are apparently not willing to do. Sound familiar? They also pay almost no taxes, but qualify for available services, so they are a net drag on the state budget. The same is true for the family businesses, which are ripe with cronyism, and since the families penetrate deep into the weave of government, tax evasion is rampant. Finally, unions always push for more pay and benefits while also striving for less productivity from workers.

The massive public sector has seen the average pay for its workers double in the last 15 years, and of course they're all unionized, too, so good luck reversing that trend. So what has been the Greek solution? Tax the private sector more, which won't work because of cronyism, and "freeze" pay increases for public sector workers. That can't help either since they can't afford to pay what people are already making.

You would think that given the incredibly dire situation Greece is in that its people would be willing to make sacrifices in order to get things under control, but in fact the opposite is true. Public support for the minimal measures being proposed is almost zero, and the unions are staging violent protests across the country.

The obvious problem with the reform is that Greeks are so brainwashed by the big government/entitlement mentality that they cannot see the forest through the trees.

Given all these factors, the Greek economy truly has no chance. And yet, this is exactly what Bama and Democrats are striving for here in America. Germany, one of the few stable EU economies, stands to lose the most in bailing out Greece, and has actually suggested Greece sell several of its islands as collateral on the bailout package. Greece, instead of actually owning up to its failures, has instead raised the spectre of the Nazis, saying perhaps Germany needs to finally pay reparations for the costs of WWII.

Its scary to think that this is exactly the road liberals in this country want desperately to take us down. Maybe we can sell Alaska back to the Russians some day and get a bailout in return.

The Truth is Only a Minor Obstacle

2010-04-26T13:25:00.000-07:00

The Feds announced today that they will be selling 1.5 million shares of Citibank stock - at a profit! This is supposed to be good news, proving what a good investment it was to bailout the banks in 2008.

But wait! Government doesn't make money (it prints it, but the value of that currency is backed by American's productivity) - it takes it from taxpayers. So really, you and me and everyone who pays taxes bought that stock. I don't remember the government asking my permission to sell those shares. What gives? Who's regulating those crooks? But then they didn't ask my permission to buy the shares in the first place with my money. And because it would be unprecedented for that money to actually go back to taxpayers, or even just be taken out of circulation, anyone who has paid any taxes to the US government who then also buys one of these Citi shares is essentially paying for it twice. That's a bad deal for everyone except Democrat politicians, who first gleefully endorsed the creation of $800 Billion to bailout the banks, then spent every dime that was repaid, and now stand to generate even more revenue from this stock sale. All of which will go to fund more liberal crap like Health Care reform.

Speaking of which, the thing I've been screaming for nearly a year now - that adding another bureaucratic layer the existing health care process can ONLY result in higher costs for all - has been proven true by the bean counters at the Medicare administration. In fact, they sent a report saying as much to Kathleen "Blinders" Sibelius a week before the vote, but she didn't want to read it for fear the truth might "influence the vote." Damn right! It's all a scam though - everyone with an ounce of common sense could figure costs will go up, and they all lied about it, starting with Bama. Think we'll get a congressional investigation into that? Hell no! Instead we're getting another bill that will enable government overseers the power to fine or in other ways damage private insurance companies who, through no fault of their own, are straddled with huge new cost burdens and are forced to raise premiums to compensate.

Bama and the Dems knew this would happen, and they already had this planned - bank on it. This is all part of the same effort to put private insurers out of business in favor of the government option. It's coming...

The Government Taketh Away

2010-04-21T16:17:00.000-07:00

Bama and the Dems are now pushing their "Regulatory Reform" proposal, which currently includes a "Bank Tax" of $90 Billion to cover the remaining TARP expenditure. JP Morgan president Jamie Dimon did something the government could not counter - he told the truth, saying that this tax would get passed onto consumers. Everybody who knows anything about capitalism knows this is how it always works, but we rarely hear it admitted. Now Democrats are backing off.

But some, like Dickhead Durbin of Illinois are still pushing for it, and so is Bama. If it goes through, you, as an American Taxpayer, will already be on the hook for the first $90 Billion, and you're still on the hook for it, because even though it gets repaid it has already been earmarked for future spending, like the Jobs Bill. You'll also be on the hook as an American consumer for another $90 Billion to cover the hike in service fees passed down by banks that get taxed. So all of a sudden you've just spent 180 Billion dollars. Under President Bush' TARP proposal you were to be reimbursed with interest, but under Bara Bama you get screwed. This is exactly why we continue to see no net increase in jobs relative to population, and why we're unlikely to as long as Dems control government; Bama and the rest of these clowns continue to heap more and more financial burden on everyone while they pursue their liberal political agenda.

Betting It All On Black

2010-04-05T20:19:00.000-07:00

The networks are in a full-court press to repair the damage Bama's done to his credibility with the public. NBC went so far as to revive the Somali Pirates story from last year for their Sunday night edition of Dateline with the teaser something like, "The President takes on the Pirates..." And there was even a sit down interview, made to appear as if this whole event with the American hostages had just happened. It's like they're pretending all the animosity Bama and Democrats have incurred never happened. Actually, they have everything to lose when he fails; the media is ultimately responsible for Bara Bama having been elected, so his failures are their failures.

Anyway, as a service to America, because almost nobody bothered to watch it, I transcribed part of the interview:

NBC: "Were you nervous before you made that shot to save the captain?"
BO: "That's a common misconception, but I didn't actually pull the trigger."
NBC: "But you were there, on the Navy ship, and your personally authorized the action."
BO: "I wasn't on the ship, but I was following closely at the White House."
NBC: "I see, so you were talking to the sniper team and that's when you assessed the situation and ordered the shot and saved the captain."
BO: "Not exactly. but I did give the order to carry out the operation."
NBC: "Obviously you made a difficult decision. I would say a brave decision."
BO: "It was the right thing to do, not only for the freighter captain but for American interests in the region and for all free trade."
NBC: "Right, but your predecessor did nothing to stop the situation from getting to this point."
BO: "Well I'm the President now, and we do things my way now."

Objective journalism at its best. Meanwhile, Bama's out on his Sell Health Care to America Tour, just another extension of his never-ending election campaign, and someone dared to say Americans are "over-taxed". During the following 17 minutes, Bama managed to obfuscate in his rhetorical way, confusing and boring everyone in attendance, and finishing with, "I hope I answered your question," even though he knew he didn't. But then, that's the thing with the word hope - it's pretty useless, just like our Campaigner-In-Chief.

85% Of Bullsh!t

2010-03-29T17:51:00.000-07:00

Under the new law, for-profit insurance companies will be required to spend 85% of their budget on claims. One left wing group estimated HMOs spend only 15-25% on claims, and 75% on executive bonuses and payments to stakeholders. Yeah, right. A more realistic estimate was produced by people who actually work for the industry - not executives, but people who get a regular wage like most hard working Americans - of 65% of cost to claims. Now lets say you're a liberal lawmaker who thinks anything short of 100% of cost to claims is not enough, but you're willing to take money from the insurance lobby toward your reelection hopes, so you settle at 85%. Now we've all hard a few stories of people who were actually denied claims or dropped from insurance, but of course we never hear all the facts, only the side of the "victim" of the insurance company, but the reality is these companies are not out to get you, and for almost everyone with insurance who isn't taking on an elective operation, your insurance company will honor your claim. If they don't, sue them, it's your legal right. That doesn't happen because those people don't really have a case and just want government to take care of them.

Anyway, the 85% rule will have only two possible outcomes: Either insurance companies will slash thousands of positions to meet the drastic cost cuts - more lost jobs - or premiums will skyrocket to balance existing costs against the new benefits requirement. Democrats know this, of course, and built in a provision where they can step in and evict companies from programs that directly or indirectly receive any public funds or provide for public clients if those companies break undefined and arbitrary cost borders. Effectively, politicians can force private insurance companies out of business by robbing them of significant revenue at any time. And the more insurance companies are forced out of business the more people will be forced to accept the government option of tax credits for access to local, government-contrived insurance organizations with more red tape and bureaucracy between the patient and provider.

You want to talk about customer service? At least with a private company the livelihood of the person on the other end of the phone or the email is dependent on your continued contribution. With government there is no such failsafe. If they screw up you have absolutely no recourse. You're on the hook, and they're unionized - why should they give a damn about you? If you're lucky you'll be allowed a "health insurance advocate" who will dig into your claim and maybe it will all work, but there are no guarantees and you can't realistically sue them and win, and as a taxpayer you're paying their salary, too.

How is this not a scam???

The Crazies!

2010-03-29T17:00:00.000-07:00

General Rahm wasted no time implementing his new operation to distract from the substance of health care. The effort to demonize the opposition has reached a fever pitch this week, with the lefty media stumbling over themselves to label anyone who disagrees with the destruction of personal freedom as a racist homophobic evangelical Christian with limited intelligence. Two black leaders in Congress claim racial slurs were hurled at them, although there were hundreds of people in the vicinity, including members of the media, and no one else heard it, but they report it as fact anyway because no one should ever question the integrity of a black politician. To do so is the epitome of racism. Now I'm not calling Charlie Rangel a liar - he wasn't there but was ready to judge the thousands who turned out against the vote without any evidence. Rangel is a repeat tax offender who only stays out of prison by calling everyone else a racist and threatening them from his chairmanship. Democrats hold this guy up as one of their leaders - that is exactly the kind of person and politics they promote. Amazingly, there is absolutely no evidence of racism or any kind of bigotry from conservatives, and the media has been all over these events. They're desperate for it, so desperate that today on NPR they tried to create a link between tea-partiers and the Michigan militia that conspired to kill policemen. I find that horribly offensive, but its just the sort of disgusting slime spewing from the mouths of NPR hosts and guests on a daily basis.

Funny how when crazy liberals were comparing Bush to Hitler there was no outrage from the "Free Press" about rampant partisanship or how the political rhetoric had "crossed the line." No, it's only crossing the line when conservatives dare to speak up, peacefully and armed with nothing but facts. Now we have to be outraged when someone likens politics to war - as if that doesn't happen all the freaking time. "Battleground states"? Never heard that one before, I suppose. Its no one's fault but their own that Democrats executed political suicide by voting to bankrupt the country (even faster than it otherwise already would have been, thanks to Democrats of generation's past).

The media is in its death throes as any kind of unbiased, fact-affected institution, and more and more Americans are catching on to that. Lets hope the beacon in the storm, Fox News, can point out the obvious play Rahm's directing to undermine our credibility as the majority opposition, and the legion of weak-minded fools who were persuaded to vote for Bama without any basis besides his oratory skill are not also swayed by this Chicago-style backroom political trick.

I'll Pay What I Want!

2010-03-23T12:35:00.000-07:00

So we found out today that the price in American taxpayer dollars for Bart Stupak's vote on health care reform was a paltry $750,000. Apparently his principles aren't worth very much, as this pales in comparison to the hundreds of millions given to Nebraska, Louisiana, and Florida to get the votes of senators in those states. Oh, and Bart, that executive order that Bama drafted to ease your mind? He didn't sign it. You're both frauds.

On NPR this morning they were conducting a listener poll to see whether people were happy or not with the vote outcome. Naturally, NPR being a lefty slum, the vote went 2:1 in favor. One caller who claimed to be a physician from Milwaukee claimed she was so happy that she would gladly pay more taxes to support the reform.

That got me thinking, why don't we just let everyone in the country pay what they think services provided for them are worth. The government could come out with a breakdown of all services and what everything costs, and you could say, "Yeah, I was helped by that this year," and write a check for whatever. If this crazy liberal whackjob wants to pay $100,000 a year of her income in taxes, who am I to stop her? She could do that today - you can contribute toward next year's return, but of course the government isn't saving that money, they're spending it, so just give as much as you want, crazy lady.

I see the military as the primary service which does me any good, and maybe the federal highway system, so my taxes should be a bout a thou' for 2009. But liberals should feel encouraged to give much, much more, so they can get the warm fuzzy for the sake of "fairness."

The Last Hurrah

2010-03-22T16:35:00.000-07:00

It was inevitable, and now it's nearly over. Everything predicted will come to pass with the brush of a pen tomorrow, or more like 50 pens; these bill-signings always call for lots of pens for some reason. In the end, politics trumped principles, as it always does with democrat lawmakers (when the principle isn't the politic). Bart Stupak himself needed little more than Bama's craftily conceived obfuscation to cast his troubles to the curb and vote yes. So what of these vaunted "pro-life Democrats?" Obviously there is no such thing, only liberal opportunists whose "principles" flutter in the wind.

One needed little more than to watch the grandstanding following the vote last night to understand what this was all about. Look at that podium. Every single person who spoke was born during the FDR presidency. Coincidence? Of course not. They were raised suckling the teet of Depression-era New Deal liberalism. They cut their teeth moving paper for LBJ, and now they've created a bureaucratic monument of their own, both a testament and tribute to a life of liberal idealism. They call it progress, but true progress would eliminate the perceived necessity of such action. As I've described before this is entropy. Entropy is cold and inevitable, just like "progressive" liberalism. Maybe the only question is how did we hold out so long?

If democrats could just get out of the way and let somebody make a profit then truly free markets would offer a solution for anyone who needed it, and there would be no imposed fines and weighty new federal institutions to manage what will surely be unmanageable. Unfortunately, profit is some unimaginable horror to democrat politicians, even though many of them are wealthy exactly because of the capitalist society they demonize. Or maybe that's not right - there's a lot of lawyers in that group, too.

What will last for most of us who have been thinking about the issue for the last two years is how brazenly Democrats have and will continue to lie to the American people for this thing. Today Secretary Kathleen Sebelius commented on this occasion by reiterating the lie that "You can't fix the economy without first fixing health care." Oh, then what was the point of that trillion dollar spending spree last year? Wasn't that to fix the economy? It's a lie because the only sector in the American economy that grew last year was Health Care, which saw record profits. When she says "economy" she means government, because government spending for Medicare sets new records every year. Hundreds of billions of dollars of your money and mine goes to approved providers to pay for the care of mostly the elderly. Are we so lost as a society, so afraid to die, that we must squeeze every last painful second from life? More evidence of the erosion of values. More entropy in action, bought by Uncle Sam and paid for by every generation of Americans to follow.

Another lie is that only through reform can we cut costs. If it was possible to cut $500 Billion from Medicare, shouldn't they have done it by now? It's unlikely one dime will be cut from Medicare; it's very likely that Democrats will cave to pressure from frightened seniors, who are equally responsible for the mess the economy is in today because of 80 years of selfish entitlement spending, and who continue to dictate terms even as they get to the end of theirs.

It's a lie that the insurance industry is exploiting consumers for pure profit. Insurance industry profits were 7% last year - hardly egregious. Why do you think that Blue Cross company in California raised rates by 40%? Not because they wanted to make 40% more profit, I assure you of that. I'm not convinced Rahm and Bama weren't involved, and I'd bet a month's pay that if the media was at all interested in the truth instead of just pushing the democrat agenda that they'd find members of the board of directors of that company were Obama campaign contributors, and the relationship goes both ways. Classic Chicago politics.

And then there's the lie that premiums will go down. During that useless meeting with leaders of Congress last month Bama was emphatic that the CBO report showed premiums would go down. Well remember how liberals aggressively pushed for "equality" in mortgage lending, openly threatening and bullying lenders to give loans to unqualified borrowers? Bama was on the front lines, along with corrupt feeder groups like Acorn, directly caused the collapse of the housing market and contributed greatly to the economic collapse of 2008. Now they're doing the same thing to the insurance industry. Forcing companies to take on consumers with pre-existing conditions alters the cost equation. Either premiums will go up to cover or insurance companies will go out of business. There are no alternatives. Bama's argument is all lies.

But that's what he wants. With the insurance industry bleeding a slow death the federal government can step in more and more, and we will be dependent on it for more of our needs all the time. We'll likely have single-payer at some point this decade, and who's going to pay for that? Remember, the government spends our money - it doesn't have its own. Single-payer is a myth - just another lie. We'll all pay, and in addition to the current costs we'll now have to support a massive new layer of bureaucracy. It's self-perpetuating. It's socialism, but that's not even the ultimate goal. Progressives want Soviet-style communism, where the elite few control every aspect of the lives of the many; only then can there be true equality, so long as you don't consider the elite. They'll call it "US-brand social capitalist democracy" or some such nonsense, but it will be death to the freedoms and liberties we've enjoyed for better than two centuries.

No, societal prejudices do not favor everyone, but that's the thing: life isn't fair. Not everyone is born to privilege, or is good-looking or healthy or highly intelligent or even capable, and for the less fortunate we can help out. Americans are a very giving people - we just don't like to be forced to do things at the end of a baton, or a gavel. But then liberals don't trust the American people. They don't trust us because they don't control us. Not yet anyway, and hopefully in November we can get rid of these Stalinists and take a step away from progressive entropy.

The Slippery Slope

2010-03-19T08:42:00.000-07:00

Some might wonder how conservatives can claim to want health care reform but be against Obama's proposals. The answer is simple, and reveals the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals. While liberals need to accomplish everything through a consolidation of power to the few in the federal government, conservatives strive to restore power to the many in private enterprise. How do we do that? By eliminating the crushing impediments of taxation and bureaucracy which slow down the health care system and drive up costs exponentially. Think of it like this: taxes and fees are not merely added to regulatory oversight costs, they are multiplied several times over. I said it in my first post on this subject: Government is the cause of the problem and cannot also be the solution.

We've heard the "Public option" ad nauseum, but the moniker is a lie. What Democrats propose is a government option, and has nothing to do with the interests of the public as a whole.

This morning again on NPR the guest said this is all about the 50 million uninsured, and it's just common decency to give them the same coverage everyone else has. I hate that obnoxious entitlement mentality. There are dozens of other factors that must be considered besides "common decency", which is not a factor that benefits society at all. The same guy held up Social Security and Medicare as great triumphs of progress, ignoring the reality that those two programs are doing more damage to the long-term financial solvency of this country than any thing else, and if you add yet another massive entitlement program on top of that you really do hasten the end of this once great democracy. This is not a joke. The United States really could collapse under these financial burdens.

Finally, realize that Social Security was a political gimmick concocted to raise money for the government. When it was enacted the average person did not live long enough to collect - that was by design. The "fund" has actually never been funded, and now we're $50 Trillion in the hole. Try asking the government for a lump sum payout of all the money you've paid in when you retire. Good luck. Somehow Democrats have managed to make it sound like the money to pay for all these things is just sitting around waiting to be applied for some purpose, not that it comes from taxpayers who have no say right now in whether they want to donate even more of their paycheck for someone they've never met to go the clinic to stop a nose bleed.

Liberals have said for decades that there is no slippery slope. Is there anyone who still believes that? I guess so, but here's hoping that number is getting smaller, even while public education is conditioning our kids to believe otherwise.

The Inevitable

2010-03-17T14:33:00.000-07:00

Stalinist Dennis Kucinich is now on board with Bama's health care takeover. Not really a surprise there; I imagine Dennis was just holding out for pork but easily caved. I bet his conversation with the Campaigner-In-Chief went something like this:

BO: Look, Dennis, obviously I need your vote on this.
DK: Mister President, I can't vote on this in good conscience.
BO: Well what is your objection, exactly?
DK: This bill continues to favor special interests and Big Insurance at the expense of the poor.
BO: You want single-payer.
DK: This country needs it.
BO: Dennis, and this is between you and me, OK? I'm with you, but we both know that once we get this passed then single-payer is inevitable.
DK: I have to stand on principle. You understand.
BO: Sure I do. Look, here's how this is gonna go down. You're going to vote Yes on this bill, as it exists today. You got me?
DK: Umm...
BO: You know, Dennis, I'm sure your voters get it, we're not talking about Texas here. Tell me I've got your vote and I promise you single-payer during my second term.
DK: You're second term?
BO: What do you think of Air Force One? Nice, right? I could probably use your council more often on trips like these. Whaddaya say?

Eventually DK caves without any sugar except an empty promise from a likely one-term jerk-off.

The Democrats are going to pass Health Care destruction. It might even happen this week, but it will happen. It's also at least remotely possible that the Supreme Court will throw the whole thing out, but that's some wishful thinking.

Ridiculous Liberal Polling

2010-02-25T21:12:00.000-08:00

Newsweek, which I was surprised to learn today is still in business selling lefty rags, unleashed a poll where they found almost everyone loves democrat health care reform. They accomplished this amazing feat by breaking out the core components and asking for each, "Do you favor or oppose this proposal?"

Here's an example:

(Are you in favor of) Requiring that all Americans have health insurance, with the government providing financial help to those who can’t afford it.

Most people are going to read this as saying, "I'd like everyone to have health insurance." They miss the first word "Requiring", and sure, the government should provide financial help.

Well what does any of that mean? Absolutely nothing. First of all, the "government" doesn't help anyone do anything. You do. That's your tax dollars at work for someone else and you have no control over it.

So how about this for a question:

(Are you in favor of) The government imposing an additional tax or fee on you to pay for someone else to have health insurance they may not need or ever use?

That's a much more honest question given the actual legislation, and clearly only severe bleeding hearts would be in favor of such obvious socialism.

Finally, Newsweek, like all lefty rags, over samples liberals by a wide margin. While most credible polls put Bama's Approve/Disapprove at even, Newsweek manages to find 11% swing in his favor, so their results can be read as skewed by the same percentage.

I hope that's the last time I ever cite Newsweek for any reason. Goodnight!

Getting To The Meat Of It

2010-02-25T20:41:00.000-08:00

At the health care debacle today the Campaigner-In-Chief used the analogy of meat inspectors to show how government is not only an absolute good but a necessity in regulating private industry. Sure, without meat inspectors, meat would be cheaper, but at what cost to consumer health? None, and if you're surprised by that you need a lesson in free markets.

This is the perfect analogy to show why democrats are dead wrong about capitalism. All you need to do is take a look at what has happened to Toyota to see the truth. What happened when their cars showed faulty gas and brake pedals? People stopped buying Toyota. There is no greater incentive to improve than when the market turns against you. Toyota did not intentionally put faulty pedals in their cars, and since it took almost a year for the problem to be exposed no government inspector would have discovered the problem either. Toyota knows what they need to do and they don't need anyone to tell them what to do, least of all the US government.

So back to Bama's meat inspector analogy. Does anyone believe for one second that if people started getting food poisoning from Oscar Mayer bologna that Oscar Mayer wouldn't do absolutely everything it could and then some to crack down on quality control? But it goes even deeper than that, because Oscar Mayer never wants that to happen in the first place, their quality control has to be impeccable. Meat inspectors are just a bunch of union schlubs who spend all day watching the clock, not the meat. The industry self-regulates, and inspectors only get in the way.

So yeah, get rid of all the government inspectors, and free markets will self regulate to the highest standards, and Americans' food dollars will go a lot farther as a result!

So Bama is once again proven wrong on a basic tenet of our capitalist society. We can't trust anything he does, because he just doesn't understand how this country actually works.

Live At The Dog And Pony Show!

2010-02-25T10:31:00.000-08:00

I have to lead with a soundbite from Bara Bama, who responded to John McCain's concern that health care reform treat all Americans equally by saying, "We're not campaigning anymore. The election's over." To which McCain replied, "I'm reminded of that every day." The obvious problem with this is that John McCain is running for re-election this year and Bama will never stop campaigning. We learned last week that Axelrod is already putting together the 2012 campaign team and deciding whether to base the campaign HQ in Chicago or D.C. If you ask me, they're both clowns.

Leading up to this event, New York Congressman Anthony Weiner claimed he'd, "Never met a Republican who wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry." So, just so I get this straight, every Republican he's ever met is a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. Yeah, that's what he said, and he repeated it too, on the floor of the House chamber yesterday. There are 2 possibilities with this guy. Either he has never actually met a Republican, which may be possible in some districts of New York, or he's a worthless liar. Oh wait, he works in Washington - he's met all kinds of actual Republicans. Well, that's that then. This is the kind of useful dialog Democrats get a pass on but Republicans don't dare use because they get labeled as obstructionists. Riiiight.

What representative Weiner (pronounced whiner) was so upset about was the effort to tear down protections insurance companies get with regard to competition. The basic idea is that in order to sell insurance you have to be capable of paying out claims; you can't just start selling insurance out of the back of a truck. So why do Democrats think that's a problem? Because the only entity that Democrats want competing with the insurance companies is the Federal Government. If the public option gets passed before this exemption is removed the Supreme Court could throw it out. It's not that Republicans favor monopolies, its that they understand Democrats don't want competition, they want single-payer. Who are the hypocrites here? Isn't it obvious?

If Weiner and Democrats actually favored competition they would tear down all such regulations, allow companies and individuals to purchase insurance from an insurance company in the country. That's competition. That's free market capitalism. And that's what Democrats fear most.

Piling onto the hypocrisy, what do you think Democrats will do if they get government single payer and corporations no longer have to pay health insurance? Do you think they'll be satisfied knowing that expense is now profit? Hell no! They'll tax the shit out of every company in the world that employs even one U.S. worker. That's government money, dammit!

Ridiculous. If you want to kill America, this is the fastest way to do it.

What Do You Think? Nevermind, It Doesn't Matter.

2010-02-22T21:15:00.000-08:00

On Thursday Campaigner-In-Chief Bara Bama will meet with Republicans to get their input on health care, see where they can compromise, and try to get some Republican support.

Sounds good right? Except Bama put his health care proposal out today, and it will be voted on by the Senate Friday. WTF? Republicans had zero input into the new Bama version - they weren't invited to the table. And there's no chance the bill will get overhauled in the wee hours Thursday night to include Republican proposals and axe awful democrat ideas.

Obviously he's not interested in Republican input or compromise. This is just an effort to make Republicans look like they're playing politics with health care when the opposite is true.

Don't fall for this dog and pony show, America.

Passing The Bucks

2010-02-22T12:31:00.000-08:00

Bama and the democrats are working on Credit Card Reform now, which is an effort to appeal to people who are irresponsible with their finances and get into trouble and then can't afford to donate to Democrat politicians.

Already the pundits are pointing out all the loopholes, but its not really a loophole if all you're doing is passing the buck. By capping interest rates on high-balance and high risk consumers, the Government forces credit card companies to find other ways to generate revenue. Companies do this by creating new fees on consumers who don't otherwise generate revenue for them - those who make payments on time, payoff the entire balance each month, or who maintain a low balance and typically pay for purchases in cash. In other words, people who live within their means.

Instead of telling people to take responsibility for their finances, the government wants to shift the burden to those who are responsible. This is the way it is with democrats. It's just another welfare scam. Why on earth should I pay for some idiots leather coat who works part-time at K-Mart? This is the kind of reform Bama wants. Hope and change and all that bullshit.

The biggest problem with democrat's entire ideology when it comes to the economy is that they believe so strongly in punishing success and bailing out failure. When you punish people for working hard you create a disincentive to continue to work hard. In the case of credit card reform, a lot of people will cancel their cards to avoid fees and reduce discretionary spending as a result. If you believe that consumer spending drives the economy and not government, this is obviously a bad thing. Even today democrats blame the Bush tax cuts for the financial crisis, which is total crap. The tax cuts led to unprecedented growth in the economy during the middle of the Bush years, and the economy only tanked when the corruption at the top of the mortgage lending industry led by government-affiliated financial institutions whose board members were heavily leveraged to democrat senators Chris Dodd and Barney Frank imploded.

Obviously there's a lot more to it than that, but the tax cuts are one of the very few positive things this country's economy had going for it, and Bama is about to raise taxes on everyone to pay for his garbage health care nonsense.

When are they gonna get it that all these entitlements have to sop or this country will self-destruct?

Probably about 2 years after it actually does.

How Much For Just Your Vote?

2010-02-19T07:32:00.000-08:00

Campaigner-In-Chief Bara Bama is visiting Nevada on his "Save the Democrats" tour. This time he's trying to help out that old curmudgeon, Harry Reid. Harry is pretty much dead to rights, and Bama has shown none of the prowess of his predecessor at boosting his party's chances leading into his first midterm.

I believe this is all about Bama in 2012. Nevada is a swing state, and Bama has alienated the gaming industry in Las Vegas, so he's decided to do what Democrats are best at and throw money at the "problem."

By the way, Bama's jabs at Vegas are laughable coming from him. How dare he tell anyone how to spend their money. If people want to entertain themselves by gambling or seeing shows or enjoying the weather, who the hell is he to tell them that's a waste? The ass-clown that occupies the White House has wasted more taxpayer money taking his wife out to eat in just one year than Bush did during his entire first term. The same is true for the number of guests entertained at the White House. Apparently Bama just doesn't have enough work to do. Hypocrite.

This time it's $1.5 BILLION to help with the housing crisis in Las Vegas, where 1 out of 82 homes is in foreclosure. Now, if you take one more step and discover that the foreclosure rate nationally is between 3-5% in the last 2 years, you might actually come to the conclusion that Vegas isn't doing so bad, and may be doing better than the national average. But these are generally big new houses going backup for bid, and people with the means to support presidential candidates financially cannot be allowed to lose their second homes over a silly thing like a mortgage payment.

Of course I'm generalizing. Like everywhere else, people have lost value in their homes in Nevada, but you have to wonder why that state is getting a handout while California, where the governor has been screaming for some of the Bama money for a year, gets very little. If you look to politics for the answer you'll find it. Democrats always take their bread and butter votes for granted - blacks and states with large minority populations always go their way in ridiculous numbers, so they don't have to grease those wheels with cash.

Most infuriating is that $1.5 Billion is coming from paybacks of TARP money. When President Bush signed off on Tarp, creating $750 Billion in new debt for the purpose of saving Americas largest financial institutions, the idea was that the banks would be obligated to pay the money back with interest. The American people would be making out on the deal. I guess we were led to believe that once the money was paid back the balance of the loan issued to create the money would get paid off. You know, the United States borrows money from China and lends it to banks, and then when the banks pay that money back the United States pays back China. That makes sense, right?

Well then Bama took office and now he's looking at all that money coming in and he just can't help himself. He's a democrat, after all. He just has to go out and spend that cash, and the best way to do that is to use it to buy as many votes as possible to stabilize his re-election prospects. So that $750 Billion will get spent again by Bama on pet projects and to grease votes but he will continue to call the debt of the previous administration. What a joke. This guy's catastrophic.

When Government Creates Jobs

2010-02-17T10:09:00.000-08:00

In announcing his intention not to run for re-election, Senator Evan Bayh cited the current partisan dynamic in Washington as the reason "Congress has created no jobs" in the last half-year. He said he plans to go into the business world and created jobs the old fashioned way.

Good for him - he definitely has the connections to be a successful business owner and create good jobs through private enterprise. Unfortunately, his reason for leaving is further evidence of the corruption of thought among liberal Democrats. Congress should not be in the business of creating jobs, but rather encouraging private business to expand operations and thereby increase the workforce. They can do this by creating business-friendly environments, and that means streamlining regulation, reducing taxes, and making it easier for firms that employ US workers to do business at home and abroad.

There's a term for a form of government that takes on the responsibility of managing the nation's workforce: Stalinism. That's what Bara Bama and democrats want for us.

I Write On My Hand, Too

2010-02-09T18:48:00.000-08:00

I have to admit Gibbsy's play on Sarah's handwriting today was really funny. Too bad it wasn't meant in good spirit, and that's the problem with these pompous asses who represent and speak for the ultimate pompous ass, our Campaigner-In-Chief Bara Bama. Even more unfortunate was Andrea Mitchell's rant on CNN yesterday. Is there anyone left in America who doesn't think she's a bitch?

It's amazing that they can be so tone-deaf to how people think. This reaction will only serve to boost Palin's support and popularity, and diminish their own.

Quick Hit: Jobs And Your Money

2010-02-04T09:12:00.000-08:00

During the State of the Union address last week, Bama claimed his stimulus package saved or created "Nearly 2 million jobs." He exaggerates even his own numbers, estimated at 48,000 in October, revised to 600,000 in November, and revised again to 1.6 million in December. I'd call that fuzzy math.

But let's once again say for the sake of argument that the Campaigner-In-Chief's 2 million jobs number is accurate. The purpose of stimulus was to put Americans back to work, and it cost $800 Billion. That's $400,000 per job! And nobody is taking him to task for that. How long is it going to take for all those menial construction jobs to make up for what it cost to save or create them?

And we know he's just making shit up. There's no way to quantify "saved" jobs. And it's been well documented all the fraud in the reporting of these jobs. Yet we're supposed to believe him because he's the chosen one. Just ask him.

So where did all that money really go? The "Free Press" was keen to make big stories over the spending oversights in Iraq during the Bush years, especially when they got to print Haliburton. But they are totally silent, except for the last bastion of true journalism, Fox News, which today highlighted several abuses of stimulus funds where the money apparently disappeared in the bureaucratic process. Billions of dollars just gone without a trace.

Why would anyone trust the Federal government, especially when controlled by Democrats, to manage anything successfully and keep costs down. Hello? Seriously. These people can't get dressed in the morning without generating spending waste, and they want to run health care?

The Most Important Essay Ever Written About Obama and Health Care

2010-02-02T11:49:00.001-08:00

Bama clearly is not backing away from health care. In New Hampshire today he was emphatic that health care reform is the only solution to solving this nation's long-term economic woes.

He went so far as to say that almost all of the forecasted deficit is a result of the increasing cost of Medicare and Medicaid. This is sort of silly, as it implies our tax dollars are earmarked for everything but these two costly programs, which is untrue. To a different audience, Bama would be just as likely to claim Defense spending is the cause of the deficit, and I would be equally justified in claiming Social Security is the villain.

For the sake of argument let me take the Campaigner-In-Chief at his word. The first question that needs to be asked is, What are Medicare and Medicaid? The answer: Federal Health Insurance programs. In theory, Bama and his Democrats already own these programs, so if they are the problem, then he is justified in implementing his solutions. No other facet of health care needs to be touched. So what's the hold up? To use one of Bama's own arguments, why give someone a heart transplant if all they really need is a bypass?

Bama doesn't want to reform Medicare or Medicaid. He wants to expand them to include all Americans. He sells it using words like "free", and phrases like, "at no cost to you." He must have said each of these half a dozen times during a 5 minute response to a question after his speech. Bama is clever. He knows that these are terms his constituents want to hear, regardless of context. In fact, the context is only relevant as far as he can go back to it when arguing against critics, but, knowing people will hear only what they want to hear, he willfully and insidiously uses these tactics to make it seem to the public that he's giving everything to everyone, and at no cost!

It is critical to examine his substantive proposals in this light. How does he actually plan to reduce costs? His entire basis of cost savings relies on the idea that a "panel of experts" is necessary to review the basis for and plan for care for every patient. The rationale being that right now most patients in the health care system undergo tests they don't need ordered by specialists they didn't need to see in the first place. Under Bama's plan, patients will first be seen by a primary care physician who will then forward initial findings to a panel of experts for review and issuance of a plan for treatment. Only then might the patient be sent to a specialist.

Bama's "waste", which he estimates will be a Trillion dollars by 2020, is derived almost completely from these "needless" visits with specialists and costly tests, which today, he implies, are simply ways for hospitals to extort more money from its patients.

There are so many problems with his theory its hard to pick a starting point.

Let me start first with his "panel of experts" requirement. I hope it's obvious that introducing a bureaucratic layer between the primary care provider and the specialist that you accomplish two things with absolute certainty: 1)You increase the time it takes to provide care for a patient. 2)You create another layer of cost - someone has to pay for the expense of expertise and time for each member of the panel. You may be able to justify the 2nd absolute if the panel determines a specialist or expensive tests are not necessary, but only if you can prove unequivocally that they would have been ordered otherwise. The 1st absolute, however, can never be reclaimed. If someone dies because they had to wait for approval from a panel of experts, that person cannot be brought back from the dead.

Next, every American needs to be aware that this country is already facing a health care crisis more dire than escalating costs. It is a fact that there are simply not enough primary care physicians to see everyone who wants health care. In many areas of the country, clinics have one MD or even none, so all patients are served by PAs, and may receive a lesser quality of care as a result. It is common sense that if you increase the burden on primary care physicians, quality of care must suffer as a direct result. Either people will be forced to wait longer to see someone from the existing pool of physicians, or the bureaucracy will have to find a way to make more primary care personnel. How do you do that? By encouraging more young people to enter medicine, and since it's unlikely that one of those measures of encouragement is more pay, the only other options are fewer education and training requirements at lower cost. The inevitable result is less experienced, less qualified, and less competent primary care personnel. How can that be good for anyone? I believe this will shift the burden back toward specialists, so I don't see how this requirement saves any cost at all.

We must then consider human nature. If cars were free, wouldn't everyone want the most luxurious car possible? And you wouldn't bother getting it repaired if anything ever broke. You'd just trade it in for a brand new one, and you might do it every year anyway just to have it. After all, it's free! If we were to go with Bama's ultimate preference of a single-payer system, anyone with a sniffle would be in to see their primary care physician. Why suffer when you can get someone to check you out and give you drugs? And who's going to tell Americans they can't go to the doctor when they think they're not feeling well? Again we're presented with two realities. Either people will be willing to congest the system by waiting to get health care for every little thing they think is wrong with them, or the government will have to stop people at the door. Good luck with that.

Now think about the fact that by 2020, when Bama figures he'll have saved America through better, less costly health care, there will be 400 million perspective patients! Where on earth are we going to find doctors for 400 million people? How will the government possibly enlist qualified medical personnel to fill its "panels of experts" to review 400 million cases? We're staring down the gun barrel of the biggest bureaucracy in this country's history! Today, local hospitals review case studies and determine the course of care. In Bama's proposed system, all this would be fed into a nationalized system, which must continually be reviewed for consistency and uniformity of care. That might be ok if every case and every person was the same, but the reality is every patient must be evaluated individually with respect to their history and condition. Its obvious the federal government is in no way capable of conducting any such agency in a way that both reduces cost and improves quality of care. That is an impossibility of the first order.

Finally, health care is a self-perpetuating industry. You partake of health care so that you can live longer, which ultimately leads to you needing more health care the older you get. People should not be required to live to 100 just because technology may be able to keep them alive that long. This is where Sarah Palin was exactly right in labeling Bama's policy as "Death Panels." Because of the reasons enumerated above, the government will decide who can receive care and who can't, and to what extent. As a society we will have little choice in the matter. What is it called when the government decides who among its citizens lives or dies? I would call it a political oligarchy.

Since Bama has been so keen to blame Bush and Republicans for all of his woes, he should chew on this - it was Democrats that created Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, three of the four biggest burdens on the Federal budget. Now propose real solutions, not just those that consolidate Federal power and create more Federal bureaucracy. Democrat proposals, if passed and unchecked, can only lead to a greater burden on the American taxpayer and an escalation of government spending and control. Believe me, Communism is not so absurd a future reality.

So what is the solution? How do we save America? It seems clear that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid need to be abandoned. I propose a cutoff age, say 50 years old and older for those who can expect to get a check and receive care. Everyone else is on their own. I'm dead serious.

How can I say this? Because I believe in something Bama and Democrats do not - the ability of a free market economy to adapt to the consumer. If there is a demand for health care, truly free markets will generate industry to fulfill that demand. It is inevitable and absolute. The alternative - the path we're on now - is certain disaster for this country, and nothing they propose will do anything to stop it.

Emperor Obama Speaks At Republicans

2010-01-29T16:17:00.000-08:00

Reuters followed along as the Campaigner-In-Chief cut loose on Republic congressmen today at their annual retreat. His message was, "Let's work together," but only if that means voting for his crap and don't bother trying to promote any conservative ideas. Check it out:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60S5JY20100129?type=politicsNews?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

At one point he even accuses someone of campaigning against him. God forbid, or at least, Obama forbid. The hypocrite-in-chief spoke from a giant screen. It's like 1984, seriously.

Remember in late July, I think it was, when Bama gave his nationally televised press conference on health care, and he praised Republicans for their contributions, including tort reform? Has anyone heard word one about tort reform in the last six months? Of course not, because only Republican votes are tolerated, not their ideas. He accuses them onf not working with Democrats. That's pretty hard to do when Harry Reid locks his office door and hashes out the entire bill without any Republican participation. If you jackasses can't stomach debate, then you don't get to blame us for not being part of the process when you lock us out of the decision-making!

So Bama wants Republicans to vote for his ideas, so that when they all fail he can't be held totally responsible, and he is apparently willing to blame Bush for everything for the entire length of his term in office.

Bara Bama is a true coward. He does not know the meaning of the word "compromise", yet he expects capitulation, and has made it clear that the media arm of the Democrat party will back him up. What a dirtbag, but then what would anyone expect from a Chicago politician. Same old politics as usual. Is this what you voted for, kids?

The Irony Of Good News

2010-01-29T08:05:00.000-08:00

GDP rose at a greater rate than expected in Q4, and what lead that expansion? Corporations.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Economy-grows-at-57-pct-pace-apf-3028347842.html?x=0

It's amazing how Bama and Democrats can so vilify corporations, the engine of the economy, in one breath, and then go out and trumpet the turnaround in the economy under their leadership in the next.

Well guess what, you can't have it both ways. I work for a company that is incorporated outside the United States for tax purposes, and if Bama starts hammering corporations - he's already threatening to do it to banks - with more taxes or penalties or red tape, then more companies will incorporate somewhere else. This is the essence of globalization, and its why Democrats antiquated ways of thinking about tax revenues don't work. Unlike our bloated government, corporations need to reduce costs wherever possible - they can't just print money. And when the government increases the tax burden, a company in trouble can shed that cost by seeking greener pastures. That's why Bush' tax cuts worked in the last decade - Tax "revenues" were at all-time highs, and unemployment was at all-time lows. President Bush created a business-friendly environment at home. Democrats and the media have already deleted these facts from history and most of our minds with their endless war on Bush, which is still a key play in Bama's campaign, as evidenced Wednesday night.

By the way, how come we're not hearing anything about the Bush tax cuts which are set to expire this year? Democrats have no interest in extending them, instead offering credits to people who already don't pay taxes anyway. That's just more burden on the rest of us! I remember now - Bama gave us all a tax break of about $13 last year in the "stimulus". Great. That's meaningful change we can believe in. But it's not permanent, so they shouldn't call that "cutting taxes." Again, it's a one time credit, mostly to people who didn't pay any income taxes.

Anyway, the GDP is good news, but it will be sickening to watch Democrats spin it as a victory for their ideology when the opposite is true.

And In This Corner...

2010-01-28T09:10:00.000-08:00

Ok, less than 12 hours after Bama promised to freeze agency spending his cronies in the Senate killed a bill that would do essentially the same thing. That sets up a fight between the Campaigner-In-Chief and Congress over budgeting. Bama also promised to veto any bill where his proposal is exceeded, so lets see what he does when the paper hits his desk.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100128/D9DGRPQ80.html

My bet is he was never sincere in the first place, and will sign anything put in front of him. I can hardly wait for the litany of lies he tells in his next State of the Union.

Bama The Unabashed Lefty

2010-01-27T19:48:00.001-08:00

In retrospect, Bama gave another campaign speech tonight to his lefty disciples. It was basically "stay the liberal course" and don't be afraid of the people, who hate you. I don't understand how his handlers could have miscalculated the public mood so disastrously, except that it's a certainty that everyone around him actually thinks he's the chosen one, capable only of absolute good. Wake up, people!!

Luckily, almost no one is as liberal as this ass-clown, and November should be more proof of that. And that will be in spite of the all-out media campaign by the "unbiased free press" on behalf of Democrats. Unlike 2008, when millions of brainwashed teenagers and early twenty-somethings cast votes without any idea of what their vote would mean long term, this November should be the time for the voice of the people who actually pay the bills and make this country work to be heard.

God willing.

The Perpetual Campaign

2010-01-27T19:00:00.000-08:00

I can't believe the Campaigner-In-Chief just said that we can't wage a "perpetual campaign."

That's the absolute height of hypocrisy. How dare this guy tell Americans what they're sick and tired of. He has no damn clue that it's him we're sick of. Somebody show this tool a recent poll.

That's right, he just challenged Republicans to take responsibility for inaction. Uhh, 59 votes not enough for you anymore? Maybe if your proposals weren't total liberal, pseudo-communist bullshit, there would be something conservatives could work with, but no, it's all garbage. What does anyone expect? There's no way Republicans will be caught dead endorsing these self-destructive policies. Let the Democrats hang themselves. Literally.

Oh crap, he just said he's not interested in blaming anyone for the past - what the fuck? That means he thinks he's above all blame, but look, he sure can be magnanimous. Never mind all those slams against Bush and Republicans he just said.

By the way, the Cold War is back on. Bama just said so with his Nuke nonsense. Yeah, lets see him sell this to Iran. Sorry, Israel, you're just going to have to trust Bama on this...

I'm not sure he said anything substantive tonight. Not one thing. Just a bunch of hot air and hope and no substance. Bama personified.

Three more years of this? Seriously?

I Once Caught a Fish Thiiiiiiis Big!!

2010-01-27T18:23:00.000-08:00

Bama's telling some real whoppers tonight. First blame Bush for the economy and the wars, then take credit for Bush's initiatives to fix the credit crisis and pull out of Iraq.

By the way, if this live blogging sounds totally random, remember, I didn't write this crap speach.

Then claim the stimulus package has saved 2 million jobs - all in the public sector, except for 200,000 construction jobs - those great paying, mentally challenging, benefit rich... Oh wait, those jobs are none of that. And who's saying all those teachers, policemen, and firefighters would have been fired. Yeah right. What a bunch of crap.

And lets fine banks who haven't paid back stimulus money. Might as well just tax anyone for anything.

Harry Reid yawns.

Oh, but "lower taxes" but only on a bunch of people who aren't paying taxes anyway. Huh?

Here's his big job initiative - more construction jobs! Way to get people invested in their own futures with back-breaking work for low pay and few benefits. Might as well just add to that Social Security burden - how else do we keep people voting Democrat.

How much longer is this country going to last? I forgot to mention that last night on Rachel Maddow she had some jerk professor of economics saying the economy is fine as long as the US can keep borrowing indefinitely. Ok, so say I'm rich and you come to me and ask for $50, and offer to pay $2, and you do this every day. How long am I going to tolerate that? That's the way these liberal economists are apparently thinking. But if I'm that rich guy I put an end to that pretty quick and say pay me what you owe me or I'm gonna send Rocky to break a few of your fingers. How long before China says, "C'mon, you can't be serious asking for another trillion..."

Bama won't accept second place for the USA. Um, yeah, and who does? Liberals, apparently, so he's telling us he's a centrist. Yeah... sure you are. Anyway, more regulations coming your way, which means more bureaucracy, and more *cough* taxes *cough*. Oh, and lets be innovative while we're working those construction jobs. Clear message there - America has a working class and an intellectual class. Liberals clearly hold themselves as members of the intellectual elite, so that means anyone who doesn't agree with them better pickup that hammer and that sickle and get to work.

Bama knows it doesn't make sense to spend a whole bunch of money on new clean energy initiatives during a recession, but he's going to do it anyway because no one told him that the Global Warming data was fraudulent. How did he not get that memo? He was in Copenhagen twice last fall...

Shocker here - we need to export more. No shit, Sherlock. So how are we going to do that? By not "sitting on our hands while other nations sign trade agreements." That's total nonsense.

Ah yes, more liberal chapter headings. We need to focus on education - for those construction jobs, I guess. But Bama is having a competition among schools. Boy, I hope schools with a lot of well-off white kids don't kick ass like usual. That would look bad. Oh snap, that would just give the race-card carrying members of the Rainbow Coalition more ammunition to go after those darn rich white schools.

Holy crap - if you go to college and then go work for the government Bama will forgive your college loans. Good God! That's it. That's the end. His cover is completely blown. Bama wants to grow government, and he's taking unprecedented steps to make that happen. Will someone please ask who will get stuck with the bill for all those new government workers!!!! FUCK.

It's hard to go on after that H-bomb, but here comes a bunch of lies about health care. We're reminded that Bama reads lots of letters. From people he has no intention of helping by the way, because his reforms won't go into effect for 3 years. More Bama slight of hand. Here we go, millions of Americans will lose health coverage this year... Yeah, because your economic policy of devaluing the dollar and increasing pressure on businesses will cause corporations to lay those people off. Bama, YOU are causing this strife. Just get the hell out of the way and let free markets be free! You can't do anything but make things worse. And that BS about reform saving a trillion dollars over the next 20 years? That's the biggest fish story of the night.

Finally, lets blame Bush some more for the ills of the nation. But make sure we fudge the facts - the trillion dollars last year was mostly the bank bailout Bama supported. Was a fucking asshole this guy is. Human garbage. I hate that there are 100 million morons in this country too stupid to learn the facts so they end up believing all these lies. He just said his $15 billion freeze would pay for the trillion dollars he spent last year on stimulus. Can anyone reconcile that math?

He refuses to pass the debt on to another generation of Americans. Let that be the marker on his tombstone. Why doesn't he just promise everything for everyone?

Say, does anyone else notice how out of touch he is - making light of the skeptics of his policies while his regulations and spending have caused real strife in this country.

Did he just say, "Let's try common sense?" But he doesn't have any. I think that's code for, "Let's spend mooooooore money!" And all this will be paid by "Tax as you go." er, pay as you go. I guess that means he'll just keep printing money and borrowing froom the Chinese and taxing corporations into oblivion.

Can there be any doubt that 3 years from now this country will be so much worse off than it was a year ago tonight? No, there's no doubt.

I've had enough of this lying piece of shit. Time to watch season 3 of 24. Gotta love it when Jack Bauer tortures some a-hole terrorist. Now that's getting shit done!

Obama: Mr. Freeze

2010-01-27T09:12:00.000-08:00

In his latest desperate attempt to revive an economy he knows nothing about, Bama has stolen the idea to freeze agency budgets for the next 3 years. This has sent liberals into a tailspin. Last night Rachel Maddow likened the idea to driving all the way down the football field only to punt at the 1 yard line. Rachel Maddow doesn't know very much about football; her analogy is indecipherable, unless she's suggesting that some massive amount of progress has been made as a result of last years spending binge, and now this almost insignificant freeze will undo all of that.

It's hard for any rational-thinking person to see it the way she and like-minded liberals do. What progress? The economy is still in shambles - look at the job numbers, not the stock market. Stocks are a house of cards without jobs. And nobody punts at the opponents 1 yard line, that's just a stupid thing to say. She went on to trounce Bama, who's getting no love from anyone right now, by saying he's given in to the "inane" Republican idea that less government spending can help an economy in which the only spending is by the government.

First of all, Bama's little freeze on agency budgets amounts to about 1% of the budget. I hardly think that is a substantive amount of government spending. Also, he's only talking about a freeze, not cuts. Of course to Democrats, any reduction of the annual increase in spending is a cut. Maddow doesn't understand that Republicans, or at least the conservatives, want a real reduction in government. How about putting a hard deadline on Social Security, say anyone 50 years and older is eligible, and once they're all dead SS goes away forever. Viola! I just saved taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Now what will they do with that money. Oh, probably stuff it into mattresses or burn it for heat I'm sure. See, Democrats lack the ability to follow the point to its logical conclusion. A lot of this is because they don't trust free markets because they've been conditioned to not trust the leaders of enterprise in this country. It all goes back to class warfare. I wonder now if Bama and Geitner intentinally left the door open for executive payouts from the bailout just to propogate class warfare zeal.

I, for one, am delighted with Bama's freeze. It's wildly unpopular, which hurts him politically and will make everything else he tries to do more difficult, and it is something, even if it's almost nothing. That's actually a good summation of the man himself!

More "Fiscal Responsibility" From Democrats

2010-01-21T08:14:00.000-08:00

Just last fall Democrats voted to increase the debt limit by $1 Trillion dollars, and when that couldn't even get them to Christmas, they added another $290 Billion on top so they could rest easy knowing they had taken one last shot at communism before the new year.

Well crap, it seems the USA has run up all its plastic and now needs to borrow even more money to pay its bills - ANOTHER $2 TRILLION!

That's such a staggering number I can only believe it because Democrats are writing the checks. The party that in 2008 claimed to know how to save the economy and which would act responsibly with our money (or the government's money, as they see it), that party of Democrats, who against all history and reason convinced a majority of Americans that they could control spending and stimulate economic growth, took no time at all to show their true colors as spend, spend, spend Democrats. Like a New Jersey trophy wife shopping for a new wardrobe for her upcoming stint on reality TV, Democrats have spent with total disregard for where the money came from or if there is any money at all to pay for their purchases.

In the ONE YEAR since Bama took office, Democrats are on the verge of having spent...

$7 TRILLION DOLLARS!! That's HALF GDP!!! And DOUBLE what Bush spent in 2008, which included the bank bailout.

What in the hell are they doing???

In defense of this debt limit increase, Democrats would probably say: "The only alternatives are to raise taxes or default. Is that what you want?" To which my response would be, "NO, IDIOT, I WANT YOU TO REDUCE EXPENDITURES AND CUT COSTS!"

But no, these are Democrats we're dealing with here; "Fiscal responsibility" was a charade all along, and deep down everyone knew it.

So maybe the Senate will fail to pass this thing, now that the Republicans have their 41st vote. That would be interesting, and I'm sure Dems would use it against them in the fall, saying, "Republicans caused the USA to default for the first time..." When the real story is that Democrat spending caused us to default and probably lose our credit rating.

I really think this is the most important story out there. Health care is almost cover for the fact that Democrats are very quickly spending this country to insolvency. And for what end? I haven't figured that out yet - not sure how this fits into their master control plan to achieve communism. Maybe they are just trying to position themselves for massive tax increases on almost everyone. That seems likely. That will probably happen in 2013 after Bama - they hope - gets re-elected. Doing it before then cripples his chances. I would argue his odds are worse than even, and not going to get better on any of today's news.

A Bank Tax? Are You F-ing Kidding Me?

2010-01-19T19:59:00.000-08:00

The genius that is Campaigner-In-Chief Bara Bama has once again evidenced its tone-deafness when it comes to the economy.

In a purely political effort to turn the tide in Massachusetts, Bama has proposed a tax on banks that accepted TARP funds a year ago. The obvious ploy was a desperate attempt to sway the remaining undecideds and maybe simmer the blood of a few otherwise blase old Democrats using the tried but maybe no longer true class warfare strategy. Either people are starting to see through this scam, whereby Democrat politicians gin up contempt for evil corporations and the rich while eagerly accepting campaign contributions from the same groups they condemn, or Bama himself no longer has the ear of the people. But what of his self-professed "gift?"

It turns out health care was the number one issue for voters today - go figure - but this skulduggery cannot go unchallenged. Dems will certainly try to make hay of this bogus bank tax issue throughout the year leading to mid-terms, hoping against hope that class warfare still has teeth. Sounds like a political Hail Mary if there ever was one.

Here's the thing to remember about the bank tax - Bama, Geitner, and Bernancke wanted TARP badly, because they knew that when the money went to the banks with the special instruction to lend it out as credit, the economy could turn around, and it would happen in turn with Bama's other reforms and make it look like he fixed everything. So they supported it, and they knew damn well there was no stipulation in TARP requiring banks to pay that money back if they were unable to do so.

So the government has changed the rules in the middle of the game. Remember how incensed people were when bank executives used TARP money to give themselves huge bonuses? Bama and Geitner looked like mud, but most of the anger was directed toward the banks.

Now, one year later, the press has buried any connection between greedy banks and Bama, but has continued to stoke the flames against the banks. The purpose for this is so that Bama can now come in and propose a tax on them, and they're so greedy they deserve it, and who would oppose that??? When all along it was Bama who enabled the banks to behave as they did.

Republicans need to counterattack immediately with nothing short of the truth. Remind Americans what really happened - that Bama is responsible for this mess. He has yet to take responsibility for any of the myriad failures of his presidency - he needs to take it for this.

As for his tone deafness - who does he think will pay this tax? Sure it will come off the banks' accounting sheets, but where do the actual dollars come from to pay for it? Damn right - you and me. ALL COSTS ARE ULTIMATELY PAID BY THE CONSUMER, WHICH IS WHY ALL TAXES ON EVERYTHING IS PAID BY WORKING AMERICANS!!!

People need to be made to understand this point. Its the only hope this country has of surviving the Twenty-First Century.

Americans Hate Their Jobs

2010-01-05T18:22:00.000-08:00

Here's the "story":

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100105/D9D1J3F02.html

You can read the story, but this chick at AP has it all wrong. The study itself is fundamentally flawed, since it focuses on money and cost of health care as primary factors. The article even cites concern for the growing cost of health care as a top 3 concern, but totally fails to mention that taxes account for by far the greatest percentage of money taken out of our pockets, but then we’re all supposed to be happy little taxpayers!

I believe I was actually part of this study or one like it – I’m a member of Gallup and remember taking at least one job satisfaction survey in the last six months, so I can tell you for a fact that the questions only scratch the surface and do not probe to any depth the true causes of job dissatisfaction in this country.

While I admit I’d like to be paid more, I would have a difficult time putting a price tag on my contributions at work, so how much “more” is enough?. Pay is all relative, but the Left’s continued class warfare campaign has taught us that people who make more than us don’t deserve it and probably do less work. That argument gives zero credit for experience, personal motivation, professional acumen, or behavior, but again, none of those qualities elicits an emotional reaction, so liberals are incapable of comprehending why they are valuable. I have no problem with the fact that my boss, who is younger than me, makes more money than I do. He clearly has worked hard for his position and has a great deal of expertise, motivation, and leadership qualities that absolutely should be rewarded. The fact that I’m older than him is irrelevant. Nevertheless, today’s entitlement mentality tells us we are all worth more than we’re currently being paid, regardless of our relative reimbursement. What is absolutely true is that people who are well-paid are over-taxed relative to the amount of services they consume compared to those who earn significantly less money. In this way government’s intrusion into our economy creates a negative incentive to work hard and be more productive. Politicians pit one group against the other, creating stress and tension in the workplace where those who earn less envy those who earn more, and government taxes the higher-achievers, creating animosity among those who succeed toward those who are not motivated to achieve beyond their lesser circumstance.

Envy and animosity are the cause of the problem of pay, and it is clearly an artificial cause created by Democrats for the purpose of gaining power and controlling people’s lives. For the last 2 years the media has campaigned recklessly on the idea that health insurance is crippling American workers, when the average person pays less than $76 a month for health insurance, while they pay as much as 33% or more of their gross income in taxes!

Another finding from this study is that young people are the most dissatisfied, primarily for being underpaid and not challenged by the work. Well it’s a good thing that Bama and the Democrats just spent a Trillion dollars creating thousands of low paying construction jobs! Twenty-something’s who are grumpy about their jobs have only themselves to blame for voting in Democrats who don’t trust free markets to create higher-paying, stimulating jobs. Democrats cater to unions, many of which trowel the manufacturing sector for what few jobs are still out there, despite the reality of global competition. Union jobs are the least satisfying, as envy is integral to the union “Us vs Them” mentality. How can anyone be happy working under such conditions? Again, liberals maintain this environment in order to control votes.

Liberalism is ultimately to blame. Class warfare, three generations of increasingly entitlement-minded young people, and the pervasive scope of government into every aspect of our lives has replaced the moral and ethical compunction to work in order to provide for one’s family and fulfill one’s part in the implied contract with the community. Government has stepped in and removed our need to create for ourselves a sense of self-worth and self respect. We must all be made to be equal so that the playing field is level for all. No one can be allowed to achieve to great heights on his own merit, for surely that was accomplished at the expense of others. Given these obnoxious attitudes toward working and work, it’s more important than ever for business owners to prevail against the surge of government intervention into our lives. We must fight to reclaim free markets, against over-regulation, and for the rights of small business owners and entrepreneurs to create new opportunities in their local community. Only by reclaiming power at home can we create better lives for ourselves and our neighbors.

Isn’t it a little ironic that Obama, the first black man to occupy the office of President, has set in motion a plan to create a low-skilled, low-paid labor force that will then continue to rely on the government teat for their next meal and for health care. Lincoln he is not.

2009: A Year Of Conservative Vindication

2009-12-31T18:38:00.000-08:00

It's been a great year for conservatives. After the beat-down we took in 2008 when the "free" press smelled the blood in the water following a 6 year siege on the Bush administration, we rebounded better than even 1994.

Conservatives were right in opposing Bama's trillion-dollar "stimulus" plan, which was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%. It's now 10%, and the stimulus has been a near total waste.

Conservatives have been vindicated on "global warming." The email hack exposed the fraud at the core of the movement, and the data - the facts - have been exposed and we are proven correct. Man has had a negligible effect on the climate, and not even Al Gore can prove otherwise with actual science fact.

Conservatives were on the right track with the war on terror. Another Muslim extremist tried to blow up a plane this month, and yet many liberals refuse to go forward with targeted security measures, even as more practical voices on the Democrat side call for changes to the system. Iraq is no longer a story - Bush was ultimately successful, but Bama is trying to ruin prospects in Afghanistan with his arbitrary withdrawal deadline.

Sarah Palin has been vindicated for her faux pas during the 2008 campaign. We now know the communists at CBS roasted Palin under the lights for hours, and chose to air only the bits that cast the Governor in poor light. Meanwhile, her world tour has been an enlightening look into her unfiltered principles. Its clear McCain was the wrong candidate at the wrong time.

Nearly half of Bama's top-level appointments are tax cheats. That's criminal behavior. These people have broken the law, and now they help run the country. Any guesses where the money's going? That's right, the press has been negligent in reporting the Bama administration's ties to lobbyists. My guess is we won't hear about it next year, either. Nevertheless, Team Bama is exactly what conservatives knew they were - crooks from the seedy underbelly of the ages-old Chicago political machine.

Conservatives have been right all along about health care. The Dems tried at first for rushed chaos, but then crossed line after line on Bama's home state shores when the American public demanded more transparency and simple stuff, like that Congress should bother to read its own bills before voting. The country revolted, and Reid had draw the curtain on the whole process, draft the bill behind closed doors with no Republican input, and then collect a party line midnight vote to get it passed 2 days before Christmas when no one was looking. The nightmare will continue into 2010, when the Candidate-In-Chief's signature will sentence this country to economic despair and a short road to full-blown Socialism, and ultimately Communism.

2010 should be the turning point. Conservatives need to win back majorities in at least one house this year, and then take back the presidency in 2012 for any hope to turn the corner and head off the socialism train.

I'm optimistic, and looking forward to a great 2010!

The Happiness Pool

2009-12-25T19:00:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas!

I hope this season you are happy, but not too happy, because liberals would remind us that one person's happiness comes at the expense of another.

Think about that. Their is a fairness quotient that drives the progressive ideology - make everyone equal and there will be no jealousy or envy, and then everyone will be happy. In that way there is a pool of happiness - a finite amount, and if someone is very happy you can be sure that someone else is equally miserable. In the mind of a progressive these extremes are linked by the societal pressures which permeate everyday life.

Consider people who are deeply religious. Studies show that those who attend church regularly are generally happier than those that don't. It's because they appreciate what they have relative to what's needed. Needs include God and family, food and shelter, and the opportunity to work to provide for oneself and one's family. Societal pressure says, you deserve more, regardless of your motivation to earn or achieve it.

Simple principles are akin to happiness; there's no mystery, and government cannot create happiness by trying to take it from some and give it to others. Atheist displays at city hall do not make atheists happy because they do it to spite Christians. Those people only sow contempt. They envy the happiness of Christians and are driven by their own unhappiness to want to steal it from others. The government does the same thing. I try not to fall into the "Taxation is theft" crowd, but think about it. If you're a small business owner you have a heavy tax burden. Imagine you own a winery. You work hard to build the trellises, plan the grapes, prune the vines, harvest the fruit, mash the grapes, add the sugars, tend the fermentation, separate the blends, bottle and package everything, then market it and transport the end product, and after all that work the federal government comes in and says, now give me my share. You're share of what? Government did not help in any aspect except to regulate how you have to do everything and then come in and demand their cut. They don't deserve one single penny, and yet if you refuse they shut you down. There's no equity in that, and then your hard-earned money goes to provide services you're unlikely to use, except for perhaps the security provided by the military.

So in that sense the governrment is little different from the mob. Ok, I get it, government is little more than voter-sanctioned organized crime. They are happiness thieves, like the Grinch who stole Christmas, but without the happy ending.

Avatar Review

2009-12-25T18:57:00.000-08:00

White man bad.
Native American good.
Military bad.
Science good.
Machines bad.
Trees good.
God is nature.
$500 million buys you a helluva show.

Framing The Argument

2009-12-25T08:15:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately for everyone who values personal freedom, the Republicans were totally denied the opportunity to frame the issue of health care in their terms. It was always about helping the litany of sad stories and never about the 99% of the rest of us who were not jeopardized by the health industry's capitalist streak.

If only they had been better served by our unbiased free press in showing how health care reform, as put forth by Democrats, is an attack on personal freedoms and our very society; it places the majority at risk for the sake of the minority, and it exposes everyone to the inevitable regulation of every aspect of our lives in the name of health care.

You think the insurance companies ask a lot of qualifying questions? Just wait until Uncle Sam gets in the mix. Tax law will be a light read compared to what it will take just to cook breakfast. At first we'll barely notice the transgressions, but government will be working hard to regulate the food industry, including farmers, and that's going to mean more fees for those who produce, further driving down profit and ultimately the will to produce. Listen to small farmers today - they can barely make it as it is, and the carbon neutral/food agency nazis will drive out any who have persevered.

Next the food pyramid will be strictly enforced. All public school children will be forced to buy the school sanctioned meals, with their correct portions of protein, grains, and fruits and vegetables, and of course, serving size. Many years from now there will be no grocery stores, only vast government run food distribution centers that deliver the approved portions of what you are deemed to need, at a nominal fee.

Is it such a leap to merge genetic science with health care and imagine a future where only those who's DNA is approved may reproduce? We can't afford to take a chance that something as arbitrary as love between a man and a woman may result in offspring with "pre-existing conditions."

Liberals, lacking the ability to see the long-term consequences of their short-term decisions because of the emotional requirement, only think of the good this will do for the small percentage of Americans who for whatever reason actually cannot get health insurance and who otherwise could not receive care. So what's the value of that? If this costs 50 Trillion dollars over the next 25 years, will that be a good deal? Take $50 Trillion out of the economy and tell me we're still a nation of prosperity. No way. We're a nation of dependents.

We'll depend on government for everything, and that's the ultimate goal of progressives, for only when government regulates all aspects of life can society be made to be truly fair for all people. That's been the goal of the Democrat party for nearly 100 years, and it's taken just long lifespan to bring this nation to the precipice.

Voting for Bama and his Democrat villains one more time might just be enough to push us over the edge.

How Democrats Compromise

2009-12-15T13:57:00.000-08:00

Right now the Dems are scrambling to get ducks in a row on health care to get something to Bama by Christmas. The Campaigner-In-Chief has met with the full Dem caucus twice in the last two weeks to address the concerns of "Problem Democrats." These half-dozen or so moderate Dems are holding out on a commitment to health care reform as it exists today because of some of the more controversial components, including federal funding for abortion and the so-called "Public Option."

The new tactic by Reid is to stuff the Senate bill full of ridiculous items only Russ Feingold could love, thereby creating a scenario where the subsequent removal of those items can be spun as a compromise.

Here's how it works:

"Conservative" Democrat senator from the Heartland says, "I won't vote for any bill with a public option." Some east coast snob senator retorts, "Don't worry about getting reelected, just vote for the public option." This statement gives away too much truth: constituent principles take a back seat to consolidation of power. Then Harry Reid steps in and says, "How about instead of a government run public option, we give everyone a big bar of gold, and they can use it to buy their own health care!" (Thanks to AlGore's "A Convenient Set of Lies" for the bar of gold idea.) Now this idea is obviously ludicrous, and yet the Dems spend a week debating it as if it were a plausible or practical plan. Now "Conservative" Democrat from the Heartland says, "I'll lead the fight against this unwise bar of gold idea," and Harry Reid responds, "Well if we can't give everyone a bar of gold I'm willing to meet you halfway. I propose a government run public option." Now the "Conservative" Democrat agrees, and will claim to have defeated the reckless bar of gold idea and agree to "compromise" and vote for the public option.

It's all smoke and mirrors - the Dems get what they want all along and the shifty "conservative" or blue-dog Dems from Republican-leaning states get to hold high the banner of principle and pretend to have represented their constituents, while what really happened was that they folded to the pressure put on them by party leadership and Bara Bama.

God, I hope John Stossel picks up on his one.

Doing the Hokey-Pokey On Pearl Harbor Day

2009-12-07T09:58:00.000-08:00

68 years ago this morning the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the event that caused most Americans to change their opinion on entering another great war on behalf of the rest of the world. Without that event, the political will of the American people would have remained largely isolationist, and FDR would have had a hard time getting men across the Atlantic, and by the time most people understood the scope of the Nazi threat it may have been too late. FDR fought the hell out of that war - he clearly understood what was at stake and what was needed to win, and manipulated the domestic situation to meet the global need. His fiscal policies in response to the Depression may have doomed this country to economic disaster in the long run, but his effective response as a wartime leader likely saved it in the moment.

1 week ago today Campaigner-In-Chief Bara Bama committed another 30,000 soldiers to fight in Afghanistan. Bama clearly has almost no idea what it takes to win a war he doesn't actually believe in against an enemy he's trying to curry favor with. His "Hard deadline" to withdraw in July 2011, is proof enough of that. Once again, he's just trying to please all sides by seeming hawkish and judicious at the same time. He wants to put troops in them take them out - it's more of a game of hokey-pokey than an effective military strategy.

So this weekend Gates and Hillary were on every talk show saying that the date to withdraw is fixed, but the numbers are not, so the date really means absolutely nothing. Bama can fulfill that promise by taking exactly 1 soldier out of Afghanistan on that date.

Why does anyone believe anything that comes out of Bama's mouth? He talks out of both sides like it was an art form. Meanwhile, the troops get that the message is mixed, so the surge has no effect on morale except to make another 30,000 people miserable living in the dusty mountains of an impoverished country halfway around the globe.

Tell us what we're fighting for! Give the men an objective and the resources they need and then let them go do it! And stay the hell out of the way! Quit dancing, Bama!

The Politics of Science

2009-12-04T06:58:00.000-08:00

Ever since the uncovering of emails two weeks ago indicting the global warmers for misconstruing data and thereby perpetrating perhaps the greatest scientific fraud of all time, the few conservative media outlets, most notably Fox News, have been on a fast-break to make up for years of being put down as being climate-challenged.

Every few hours Fox runs the story again and features another guest-expert who had previously been nothing but a skeptic and now looks like a hero. This is a welcome change in the debate, and now a majority of Americans fall into the skeptics camp, and the warmers are a dwindling if feisty minority.

On the other side, MSNBC has all but ignored the story, but finally this morning they found someone who would take the flag off a fallen comrade whose corpse, like the earth, is cooling, and wave it with the same bravura as if the whole email incident never happened. Indeed, the liberal media has focused on who hacked the emails, as if that was the crime, in a sad attempt to hide the elephant in the room with a washcloth.

The guest on Scarborough this morning eviscerated the Wall Street Journal for linking science to cash, which is a valid point, but he went to the extreme claiming WSJ was only fixated on the money angle, and seemed to be indicting science as a whole, in which case, "This country is doomed." As if an indictment of science could do worse than we're doing for ourselves already.

The obnoxiously biased, liberal pro-warmer was trying to put the skeptics back on the defensive, but what he doesn't realize is that we're really not skeptics anymore. Anyone who is still clinging to the 'earth is warming because of man' line is now the belligerent, or as Bara Bama put it, is like someone clinging to God and guns.

Science is not the problem. Science is a process, and is untainted. It is a pure quest for fact that begins with a theory - The earth's climate is heating up and man's emission of CO2 is to blame - and ends when the facts fail to prove the theory. Science does not allow for the Theory to remain even after the facts have proven otherwise. This problem is with the scientists.

For a long time scientists have been held up because they are just smarter than the rest of us, or so we are led to believe. The truth is that on the whole, the scientific community is only marginally more intelligent than the rest of society and no more capable or driven. Most theoretical climatologists work on the government dime - this is not something WSJ invented, it is fact! As such, these men and women are funded to research projects that titillate politicians, and for the last 10 years that has meant global warming. The scientists, whose livelihood requires continued funding from the same government sources, cannot quickly dispel the myth of warming just because the data doesn't work for them, so they fudge a few things and voila! The planet is warming (even though it's actually cooling). To disguise the obvious discrepancy, the warmer community changed tactics, going for "Climate Change", instead of just warming, thus justifying the fact that they really have no idea what the planet is doing now that all their fancy computer models are broken.

Is it so unlikely to say scientists can be biased or predisposed to support a political ideology over the scientific process? Consider that many of these scientists were environmentally-minded from a very young age, and chose to pursue earth sciences because of their formative experiences. To such a person, Earth is a god and environmentalism the true religion. Liberals blast conservative Christians all the time for our faith and our beliefs, and yet are incredulous when we question theirs. Yes, some people still believe the Earth is only 8,000 years old because the Bible says it's so, but most of us believe in the facts produced by science. Too bad the environmentalists still believe their religion over their science, but the tide has finally turned, and not because the icebergs are melting.

In desperation, the guest on MSNBC this morning appealed to common sense. How can one look at the smog in cities like Los Angeles or Beijing and not think that's harming the environment. This tactic is the warmer's last hope, as even now that the lies have become public, that in fact, the link between man's CO2 emissions and global temperatures is unknown or at worst insignificant, the warmers make their stand and fly in the face of the science they themselves created. I'll be honest, I like fresh air and clean water, but now I also want my due, and I want those nasty warmer bitches like Al Gore to be exposed as the hypocrites they are. What may have started innocently enough as a chance to improve our environment has turned into something very sinister, and following the money is exactly the right thing to do. Al Gore stands to make tens of millions of dollars or more selling worthless carbon offsets if Cap & Trade were to ever materialize, and the rest of us would suffer for it and almost no one would be any better off.

This debate is important for two very big reasons. One, we can bring visibility to the failures of scientists - not science - and expose the politicization of the scientific process. This will lead to better science in the long run. Two, we can expose Gore and his lackeys in the scientific community for the frauds they've always been. This will help restore common sense and intellectual honesty to the nations policy debate, which will align with more conservative principles. Both of these things are good for America and the world.

I read a headline this morning where two of the Oscar committee members demanded Al Gore give his trophy back. That's funny, but I say he keeps it - his performance in An Inconvenient Truth was some fine acting to have fooled so many people!

On Political Discourse

2009-12-03T07:20:00.000-08:00

More and more we hear from the media that the political discourse in this country is nastier and more partisan than ever before. This is typically attributed to the awfulness of the Bush administration - God knows Bush deserved all the shrill hateful fervor directed toward him on websites such as MoveOn, DemocratUndreground, DailyKOS, and other completely partisan liberal hate sites. The message is that Americans' failures to communicate is the fault of Bush and Republicans.

Honestly, I don't mind sharing some of the blame with my liberal counterparts - this blog is my place to vent and I have made my positions more than obvious. I'm also not in denial that on many things politic I think I'm right, and that's true for most of us. The problem today is that people just cannot accept being wrong, and too often many out there have no interest in listening to the other side and risking challenging their worldview. In that regard I have the great fortune of being married to a wonderful woman with many opposing viewpoints who challenges me to refine my ideology every day.

I don't believe the level of vitriol has changed much - if you read transcripts from political encounters from a hundred or even two hundred years ago you'll find plenty of name-calling and incivility. What's changed is that despite what many would claim, Americans now expend a lot less effort educating themselves and will often take the first thing they read and form an opinion based off it. Add to that the traditional media is now in its death throes, and is selling out to specific ideologies just to sell copy instead of spending the time to provide accurate, diverse, and unbiased journalism.

That's a real shame, but it's also the nature of this changing world where information is in great supply and often unfiltered. More than ever, people need to shut up and absorb several sources before regurgitating anyone else's talking points.

What Do You Mean, No Global Warming???

2009-12-02T10:03:00.000-08:00

Well this blows. I was really in favor of global warming - I'm pretty tired of these endless Wisconsin winters. And lately every year has been more bitter cold than the last. I guess I shoulda seen it coming. Now that I think back, it's been getting cooler every year where I live; I'm not sure we had even one 90 degree day this summer.

It's not all my fault - at some point the smart people who told us about the global warming changed the dialog to "Global climate change." I don't know what that means, I guess it's when some days it's warmer and some days it's cooler. Or like early in the year it's usually cold, and then the climate changes and it gets warmer and by the middle of the year it's very warm, but then the climate changes again and it gets cooler until by the end of the year it's cold again. That's all very complicated, so I don't worry too much about it.

Then they were saying the ice could melt and the oceans could rise, and I figured that wouldn't be too bad, because then there would be more water, and water is good. I don't live anywhere near an ocean, so if they rose I wouldn't be too upset.

Well now it turns out that these smart people weren't so smart, and the earth is either not warming or is actually cooling. So this really ticks me off, because of those Wisconsin winters.

I'm gonna try to make it right, though, and start burning tires in my backyard. I'll be encouraging my neighbors to do the same. Those scientists couldn't have been all wrong, so if everyone starts burning tires in their backyards maybe we can still get global warming back on track.

So please do your part! Start burning tires in your backyard so the earth will get warmer and I can be saved from more cold Wisconsin winters!

The Problem With Academia

2009-11-24T11:52:00.000-08:00

On NPR yesterday the morning show host interviewed yet another Ivy League professor on the merits of health care reform, under the accepted premise that not only is it inevitable but absolutely necessary. At one point in the discussion the professor made the statement that the prime motivator needs to be cost reduction, as recent history has shown a dramatic increase in the average cost of care per capita in this country.

If he had stopped there I could have agreed with him - the evidence is overwhelming, and on the face of it a person with lackluster deductive ability and a bug in his ear might assume that this is some sort of effort on the part of the industry to gouge customers. Such was the professor's premise. He continued that without reform and government controls, costs would continue to escalate and become cost prohibitive for anyone but the super rich.

This point of view is obnoxious and demonstrates again that those mired in establishment academia have little contact or concept of the real world outside. The obvious problem with his argument is that health care is a private sector business entity, not some monster that exists to consume wealth. As I detailed in my very first post, Organizations in the business of health care exist to make money, and although it may seem to someone who's health care is paid for by the same Americans he turns his nose up at that that goal is accomplished by continually raising prices without regard to its customers ability to pay, that's simply not how successful businesses operate.

Health care providers must balance prices against costs while tip-toeing the line on government regulations and requirements unique to its sector. Its a herculean task, and many of these businesses do fail. But if a hospital increased prices just for the sake of making more profit, they would quickly price out many of their customers, who would then find a less expensive source for similar services.

THAT'S HOW CAPITALISM WORKS!

I know this is hard for most of academia to understand, but it is regulation and government interference limiting competition that leads to out of control costs and price inflation. If we could roll back a substantial amount of the taxes that get funneled through the health care sector and which escalate cost, and then charge people based on need instead of what's fair (with some easily identifiable exceptions), the average cost of health care would be lower, and the mean would be substantially less.

If 95% of health care costs are accrued by the elderly and the overweight, then why do I need to support people who either planned poorly during their lives or led a self-destructive lifestyle. That's the real problem, so call a like it is; old is old and fat is fat, and they can figure out for themselves whether they can afford the treatments they need to live or let live, but leave my paycheck out of it.

There's your thesis, professor.