Did I call it or what? A deal was struck, both sides saved face, and absolutely nothing was accomplished. Nothing.
No problem was solved. We simply postponed the inevitable.
Quick question: What if next April I send a letter to the IRS telling them that I couldn't get a loan from the bank to pay my taxes? That I continue making my house payments, my credit card payments, my car notes, but I couldn't increase my debt limit any further so Uncle Sam doesn't get his? We all know the answer to that.
Yet, President Obama and his talking points parrots, his mainstream media bullhorn, all would have us believe that if we had failed to increase the debt limit the US would have defaulted on its debt payments. This was perhaps the most dishonest thing ever stated in this whole shameful process.
Let's be clear. The US Treasury brings in about $2 trillion a year in revenue. Our debt service is approximately $400-500 billion a year. The math is simple. We have plenty of money to pay our debts. The President just used his favorite scare tactic to force many spineless Congressmen to cave on this vital issue. Had the debt limit not been raised the US would not have defaulted. Instead, money would have been diverted from one area to another to meet this crucial priority. The President simply didn't want to be inconvenienced in such a way, so he threatened economic disaster, catastrophe, etc. He even told seniors that their social security checks were in danger.
That's Hope and Change?
It's clear to me that there are very few in Washington with guts. Obama leads the herd of the spineless, and John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor and Harry Reid are right there next to him. I outlined a laundry list of things that needed to be done to solve the debt crisis. How many of these things were accomplished? Zero.
What's interesting is the mindset of the caucus of fools in DC. During this discussion, we had a group of Congressmen demand a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution as a requisite for more borrowing. They demanded drastic cuts in government spending to avoid future problems of a similar nature. They demanded true fiscal responsibility with the people's money. And how were these people treated in the debate?
Well, they were painted as radicals. Kooks. Joe Biden even called the Tea Partiers "terrorists". TERRORISTS! Requiring Congress to spend no more than they bring in is akin to terrorism? There was a time in US history when a balanced federal budget was the norm. Now it's considered radical. Yes, that's how far we've drifted from sanity.
Obama said the Tea Party was playing political games, holding the debt hostage to advance their political cause. Politics as usual. But telling the American people that we will default on our debt, that the economy will collapse, that seniors won't get their checks if the debt limit isn't raised, I guess that's all within the realm of Hope and Change. And when you call tax increases "spending cuts in the tax code", I guess that's honest politics, huh?
And before anyone heralds this "deal" as a great thing, let's look at the facts. First, no spending is cut. Well, maybe it depends on what the word "cut" means. To me, a spending cut means we spend less then than we do now. Simple right?
Not to them. In this bill they define a spending cut as a reduction in the INCREASE in spending that is forecast. Congress increases the budget every year. They're just saying they won't increase it as much as they originally planned. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how they define a spending cut. We are now on the brink of $17 trillion in debt, with an annual deficit of $1 trillion a year and upwards of $50 trillion in unfunded obligations to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Congress answers this crisis by saying we won't overspend as much as usual. Yet, we will continue to overspend in jaw-dropping fashion, and still don't have a plan to actually pay our debts or make good on our promises. But dont worry, for the next decade (well, actually we won't start the reduction in overspending until 2013) we will reduce the amount of spending increases that we plan to make. And this is supposed to be a great deal for America? This is what they call a "spending cut"?
In truth, there isn't a dime of ACTUAL spending that will be cut. And the reduction in spending increases won't begin until 2013. Meanwhile, we will implement the largest debt increase in our history. All without cutting one penny of spending.
What else is there? Well, we couldn't pass a bill under Obama without a federal commission right? So, this bill includes forming a commission to discuss more "spending" cuts and finding ways to "raise revenue" (or, if you're Obama, cut spending in the tax code). No one can be sure how effective this commission will be since the last commission Obama formed to make recommendations on the deficit and debt was completely ignored by the President. But it wouldn't be an Obama bill without a commission so it had to be done.
So what happens next? Well, we're gonna have some mighty big bond auctions and borrow A LOT more money. Of course, US bonds aren't exactly the world's greatest investment given the fact that we will soon be $17 trillion in debt with no hope of ever repaying it. So what happens when we can't find enough suckers to invest in America's future? Well, that's when Obama's rich uncle Ben Bernanke steps in and gladly offers to buy our debt. No problem. He can just turn on the printing press and create money out of thin air. Say hello to super-inflation! Say goodbye to the value of your hard-earned money, you're lifetime savings and retirement.
Let's not kid ourselves. America WILL default on our debt. It's a given. Either we will simply not be able to pay our debt service, OR we will simply print the money to pay it creating a de facto default. Since our money has no basis for value we can print as much as we want and poof!!! All debt is gone. Again, it's inevitable. There is nothing that can stop it.
The only sane people in this debate are the ones who recognize that difficult truth. Very hard economic times are bearing down on us and they will become much more treacherous once America finally does default on our debt. The question is, when will it happen? For me, rather than force this sort of hardship on my children a few years down the road, I'd rather go ahead and get it over with. I'd rather it be me who endures the pain than them. I'd rather be the one to suffer so my kids won't have to. So I say let's not postpone the inevitable, while taking drastic steps (Constitutional Amendments) to ensure we never end up in this spot again. That's the Tea Party position.
But, we are called radicals, even terrorists for holding such a position.
And that's how far we've regressed as a nation.
So, go ahead Mr Boehner, gather your caucus, twist your arms. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back Mitch McConnell. Sing your own praises Mr. Obama and Mr.Reid. History will remember you in a much different way. The men who lacked the courage to endure what our children should never have to.
Monday, August 01, 2011
Monday, July 04, 2011
What must be done to solve the debt problem
I'm going to make this as plain and simple as possible so that anyone in Washington can understand. If you want to solve the debt problem then this is what must happen:
1) Pass a Constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget
2) Pass a Constitutional amendment that mandates Congressional oversight of the Fed, including regular audits, and guarantees the right of all citizens to a sound and stable currency based on tangible value
3) Re-establish the gold standard as the basis of value for the US dollar
4) Cut spending across the board - leave no federal program or cabinet department untouched
5) Pass a Constitutional amendment that protects the people from excessive taxation, guaranteeing that no citizen shall be deprived of more than 30% of their income in total goverment taxation.
Do these things and then Congress should move forward to raise the debt ceiling to solve whatever short-term problems may arise. But, if these things aren't done then the vote must be no, we must not raise the debt limit without properly controlling the government excess that brought us to this point.
Any Congressman who fails to abide by this will likely face fierce opposition from Tea Party supporters.
And, to clear things up, there is nothing about the debt limit that is connected to our ability to pay off our loans. The fear-mongerers will tell us that if we don't raise the debt limit we will default on our bond payments.
Bull.
The US Treasury brings in more than enough money to pay our debts. Yes, they'll have to divert from bloated government programs to pay the bill but they can pay it nonetheless. If the US defaults it is by choice, and the lack of courage to cut when cuts are called for.
The alternative is to raise the debt limit without introducing the above measures, and Washington will continue to operate unchecked - devaluing our currency, cheapening our labor, raising our cost of living, eroding our economy - all in the name of political gains and government handouts. That would be disastrous and is unacceptable.
So I'm hoping that our Congessional leaders show courage, show guts. Hopefully these things will happen and the US can finally get on the road to recovery. But, to be honest, I don't think I have that much faith in those people. Except for a small handful, most of them are gutless and uninformed. Most of them lack the courage to choose paper or plastic at the grocery store, much less make a meaningful decision for their constituents.
So my guess is that some deal will be struck, both sides will save face, the issue will be postponed to another day and no actual solution will be implemented, the issue will be kicked down the road for someone else (namely our children) to deal with....and America will continue to plummet into economic despair.
All because no one has the guts to do what must be done.
1) Pass a Constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget
2) Pass a Constitutional amendment that mandates Congressional oversight of the Fed, including regular audits, and guarantees the right of all citizens to a sound and stable currency based on tangible value
3) Re-establish the gold standard as the basis of value for the US dollar
4) Cut spending across the board - leave no federal program or cabinet department untouched
5) Pass a Constitutional amendment that protects the people from excessive taxation, guaranteeing that no citizen shall be deprived of more than 30% of their income in total goverment taxation.
Do these things and then Congress should move forward to raise the debt ceiling to solve whatever short-term problems may arise. But, if these things aren't done then the vote must be no, we must not raise the debt limit without properly controlling the government excess that brought us to this point.
Any Congressman who fails to abide by this will likely face fierce opposition from Tea Party supporters.
And, to clear things up, there is nothing about the debt limit that is connected to our ability to pay off our loans. The fear-mongerers will tell us that if we don't raise the debt limit we will default on our bond payments.
Bull.
The US Treasury brings in more than enough money to pay our debts. Yes, they'll have to divert from bloated government programs to pay the bill but they can pay it nonetheless. If the US defaults it is by choice, and the lack of courage to cut when cuts are called for.
The alternative is to raise the debt limit without introducing the above measures, and Washington will continue to operate unchecked - devaluing our currency, cheapening our labor, raising our cost of living, eroding our economy - all in the name of political gains and government handouts. That would be disastrous and is unacceptable.
So I'm hoping that our Congessional leaders show courage, show guts. Hopefully these things will happen and the US can finally get on the road to recovery. But, to be honest, I don't think I have that much faith in those people. Except for a small handful, most of them are gutless and uninformed. Most of them lack the courage to choose paper or plastic at the grocery store, much less make a meaningful decision for their constituents.
So my guess is that some deal will be struck, both sides will save face, the issue will be postponed to another day and no actual solution will be implemented, the issue will be kicked down the road for someone else (namely our children) to deal with....and America will continue to plummet into economic despair.
All because no one has the guts to do what must be done.
We need courage in the debt and deficit discussion
It's the 4th of July and no better day to talk about courage. Recently, the Texas Legislature dodged an important political issue because they lacked the courage to address it. Governor Perry asked them to take up the illegal federal airport pat-downs and vote on a bill that would ban such pat-downs in the State of Texas without proper cause. There were some Senators and House members who did take up the cause and pledged their vote, but most of them fell short. Even to the point where many House members simply refused to show up for a vote, thus guaranteeing no vote would be taken.
The Justice Dept had threatened Texas with legal action if the bill passed, and instead of standing with the Constitutional rights of Texans, our legislature simply chose not to vote. Is there a better example of cowardice in current political debate?
Well, maybe soon there will be. Congress is discussing the debt ceiling. President Obama and the Dems want to raise the debt ceiling and eliminate the tax break that corporations get for having private jets. The GOP wants something closer to austerity measures before they agree to a new debt limit. However, many Republicans have hinted that they would strike a deal to delay true substantive action until after the next election. Cowards.
No one in Congress has the guts to do what must be done. So, chances are, nothing will be done. Imagine if this was the prevailing mindset in the pre-Revolutionary English colonies. I doubt the 4th of July would have any meaning today.
The Justice Dept had threatened Texas with legal action if the bill passed, and instead of standing with the Constitutional rights of Texans, our legislature simply chose not to vote. Is there a better example of cowardice in current political debate?
Well, maybe soon there will be. Congress is discussing the debt ceiling. President Obama and the Dems want to raise the debt ceiling and eliminate the tax break that corporations get for having private jets. The GOP wants something closer to austerity measures before they agree to a new debt limit. However, many Republicans have hinted that they would strike a deal to delay true substantive action until after the next election. Cowards.
No one in Congress has the guts to do what must be done. So, chances are, nothing will be done. Imagine if this was the prevailing mindset in the pre-Revolutionary English colonies. I doubt the 4th of July would have any meaning today.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Texas rebels against govt mandated sexual assault...the justice dept reacts with an abuse of power
The State of Texas remains under assault from an out-of-control federal government. The latest attack on state's rights comes from the TSA.
The Texas Legislature has recently been looking into the TSA full-body patdowns and in response they have put together a bill that would make it a crime to fondle the genitals of any citizen as a requisite for travel. The bill passed the House without a single dissenting vote. No one - Democrat or Republican - voted against this measure. So it was sent to the Senate where they also seemed ready to pass the Bill.
That's when the long arm of the Federal gov't reached in. A Justice Dept attorney sent the Texas Senate a letter that essentially threatened legal action, AND threatened to cancel all flights to and from Texas if this bill passed. In other words, the Justice Dept abused its power by using it to coerce a State Legislature into doing its bidding. Keep in mind, the TSA groping is not a federal law. This is all part of the executive branch where they have enacted homeland security standards that calls for sexually assaulting random airline passengers before they can fly. If Congress had passed a law allowing govt officials to sexually assault random passengers prior to travel then Texas may not have the Constitutional authority to act (however, a court challenge would certainly be in order). But I digress.
At any rate, the TSA is violating random citizens without probable cause, the Texas legislature took a stand and the Justice Dept threatened them with severe penalties if they proceeded.
The Texas Senate folded like a cheap suit. They failed to pass the bill. Now, government agents continue to have the authority to sexually assault you and your children on a whim, and the citizens of this country are powerless to stop it. This is all because of a federal agency - the TSA - that has no clue how to actually protect US citizens. It is because a State's elected representatives don't know the meaning of the word 'courage'. It is because we have a Justice Dept that is infected with unprecedented levels of corruption.
There are many things this presidential administration has screwed up. But I think once it is finally over, few of those mistakes will measure up against the foul management of the Justice Dept. Eric Holder is a disgrace.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting tired of this President's mafia-like way of doing business. Issuing threats, knee-capping your enemies, granting healthcare waivers to your friends, this is not "hope and change" for D.C. This is Chicago thuggery come to Washington. He'll cancel an overseas trip to save his healthcare bill, but when a Missouri town gets wiped off the map he won't be inconvenienced by it...there's beer to drink in Ireland. Barack Obama is an embarrassment to our Republic.
And now the great state of Texas cowers before the federal gov't because a justice department pimp sends a threatening letter. How sad.
Rest assured, my fellow Texans won't forget this. There are Senators in Austin who pill pay a hefty political price for not standing against Holder and his goons. We're in a situation where citizens' rights are being threatened and the Texas Senate has decided to stand on the wrong side.
The Texas Legislature has recently been looking into the TSA full-body patdowns and in response they have put together a bill that would make it a crime to fondle the genitals of any citizen as a requisite for travel. The bill passed the House without a single dissenting vote. No one - Democrat or Republican - voted against this measure. So it was sent to the Senate where they also seemed ready to pass the Bill.
That's when the long arm of the Federal gov't reached in. A Justice Dept attorney sent the Texas Senate a letter that essentially threatened legal action, AND threatened to cancel all flights to and from Texas if this bill passed. In other words, the Justice Dept abused its power by using it to coerce a State Legislature into doing its bidding. Keep in mind, the TSA groping is not a federal law. This is all part of the executive branch where they have enacted homeland security standards that calls for sexually assaulting random airline passengers before they can fly. If Congress had passed a law allowing govt officials to sexually assault random passengers prior to travel then Texas may not have the Constitutional authority to act (however, a court challenge would certainly be in order). But I digress.
At any rate, the TSA is violating random citizens without probable cause, the Texas legislature took a stand and the Justice Dept threatened them with severe penalties if they proceeded.
The Texas Senate folded like a cheap suit. They failed to pass the bill. Now, government agents continue to have the authority to sexually assault you and your children on a whim, and the citizens of this country are powerless to stop it. This is all because of a federal agency - the TSA - that has no clue how to actually protect US citizens. It is because a State's elected representatives don't know the meaning of the word 'courage'. It is because we have a Justice Dept that is infected with unprecedented levels of corruption.
There are many things this presidential administration has screwed up. But I think once it is finally over, few of those mistakes will measure up against the foul management of the Justice Dept. Eric Holder is a disgrace.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting tired of this President's mafia-like way of doing business. Issuing threats, knee-capping your enemies, granting healthcare waivers to your friends, this is not "hope and change" for D.C. This is Chicago thuggery come to Washington. He'll cancel an overseas trip to save his healthcare bill, but when a Missouri town gets wiped off the map he won't be inconvenienced by it...there's beer to drink in Ireland. Barack Obama is an embarrassment to our Republic.
And now the great state of Texas cowers before the federal gov't because a justice department pimp sends a threatening letter. How sad.
Rest assured, my fellow Texans won't forget this. There are Senators in Austin who pill pay a hefty political price for not standing against Holder and his goons. We're in a situation where citizens' rights are being threatened and the Texas Senate has decided to stand on the wrong side.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
This is not a federal disaster...because it's Texas.
I'm sure the President's denial has nothing to do with the fact that Texas is one of the most conservative states in America. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Texas has not voted for a democrat President since the 70s. No.
For comparison, let's look at some things that President Obama DOES consider a federal disaster.
April 2011, the harbor at Crescent City, California was destroyed by tsunami waves after the Japanese earthquake. President Obama declared this a federal disaster...a harbor.
April 2011, a similar declaration was made regarding Brookings Harbor in Oregon.
March 2011, 60 counties in Illinois were declared federal disaster areas after a blizzard.
March 2011, 7 counties in Connecticut declared federal disaster areas after a blizzard.
March 2010, Obama declared parts of California federal disasters after wildfires in 2009. Those fires destroyed 300,000 acres, one-eigth of what has been destroyed in Texas, and yet the President does not feel the Texas fires meet the criteria for disaster money. I'm sure the President isn't playing politics with peoples lives and homes. I'm sure there is a logical reason why he considers a wildfire in California to be a federal disaster, but does not feel the same about a wildfire 8 times bigger in Texas.
Today, the President is in Texas to discuss immigration. Of course. Election time is right around the corner and it's never too soon to pander to racial minorities. I wonder if someone will question him about his lack of empathy for those who have suffered greatly from these terrible fires.
And if he needs to declare another federal disaster anytime soon, I would suggest he start with his own presidency.
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Obama's victory parade
Yesterday the White House announced no photos of a dead Usama will be released for public view. President Obama said Bin Laden was not a "trophy" and that there was no need to "spike the football".
Then he packed up and headed to Ground Zero.
Today is May the 5th. Why is the President at Ground Zero? I remind you all that President Obama has NEVER visited Ground Zero as President. Why now?
Mind you, I don't have a problem with the President of the United States pausing at Ground Zero to honor the fallen. But I do find it odd - and more than coincidental - that this President chose to make his first visit in two and a half years just days after Bin Laden was killed. There is no explanation from the White House about why this day was chosen and if it was scheduled before or after the death of Bin Laden.
Is it possible that President Obama is politicizing the death of Osama Bin Laden?
He invited George W Bush to join him. Bush declined. I'm sure the former president was wondering the same thing as I. Even Bill Clinton declined the invite.
Here's the thing. Regardless of Obama's intentions it looks tacky. It looks like a victory parade for himself. It looks like he's spiking the football. But no photos of dead Bin Laden.
In related news, the UN is now demanding all of the information regarding the assault into Pakistan that killed Bin Laden. They want to know if our action was legal according to international standards. That's funny.
It's funny that the UN portrays itself as a defender of international justice, even when it's the death of a homicidal maniac in question. Does anyone remember the last time the UN demanded information from the Palestinians for their attacks on Israel? Me neither. It's funny that the UN thinks they can demand anything from America. I would promptly tell them what they could do with their demands but I doubt Obama has the courage.
And in Pakistan, there are protests against America. You know, flag burning, we're the devil, etc. Apparently the Pakistani people have a problem with America killing one of the most evil human beings to ever draw breath. Isn't it about time we started calling it as we see it? Pakistan is a terrorist state. Yes, I said it.
They harbored the most notorious terrorist in world history. And now they are enraged over America's action to kill that terrorist. Yes, Pakistan is a terrorist state. And, by the way, they are also a nuclear state. Scary.
Then he packed up and headed to Ground Zero.
Today is May the 5th. Why is the President at Ground Zero? I remind you all that President Obama has NEVER visited Ground Zero as President. Why now?
Mind you, I don't have a problem with the President of the United States pausing at Ground Zero to honor the fallen. But I do find it odd - and more than coincidental - that this President chose to make his first visit in two and a half years just days after Bin Laden was killed. There is no explanation from the White House about why this day was chosen and if it was scheduled before or after the death of Bin Laden.
Is it possible that President Obama is politicizing the death of Osama Bin Laden?
He invited George W Bush to join him. Bush declined. I'm sure the former president was wondering the same thing as I. Even Bill Clinton declined the invite.
Here's the thing. Regardless of Obama's intentions it looks tacky. It looks like a victory parade for himself. It looks like he's spiking the football. But no photos of dead Bin Laden.
In related news, the UN is now demanding all of the information regarding the assault into Pakistan that killed Bin Laden. They want to know if our action was legal according to international standards. That's funny.
It's funny that the UN portrays itself as a defender of international justice, even when it's the death of a homicidal maniac in question. Does anyone remember the last time the UN demanded information from the Palestinians for their attacks on Israel? Me neither. It's funny that the UN thinks they can demand anything from America. I would promptly tell them what they could do with their demands but I doubt Obama has the courage.
And in Pakistan, there are protests against America. You know, flag burning, we're the devil, etc. Apparently the Pakistani people have a problem with America killing one of the most evil human beings to ever draw breath. Isn't it about time we started calling it as we see it? Pakistan is a terrorist state. Yes, I said it.
They harbored the most notorious terrorist in world history. And now they are enraged over America's action to kill that terrorist. Yes, Pakistan is a terrorist state. And, by the way, they are also a nuclear state. Scary.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
No photos of dead Usama
The White House says they will not release any photos of the dead Bin Laden. The concern is that such a publication would offend the Muslim world. It would be inflammatory.
"There is no need to spike the football," says President Obama. Hillary Clinton agrees, as do many in the Obama administration.
Then I pulled some old headlines off of Drudge reminding us all of what the President is okay with showing us.
Here's a headline about the Obama administration allowing the release of hundreds of photos of US troops engaged in torture and prisoner abuse.
And here's another where a policy is changed allowing photographs of military caskets and body bags as they are unloaded from overseas flights.
Oh, I see.
Oh, I get it.
It's okay for us to see photos of US troops engaged in prisoner abuse. Of course those photos will inflame the Muslim world and put other US troops in danger...but more importantly they will embarrass Obama's political enemies and his presidential predecessor. Yes, by all means, LET'S RELEASE THOSE PHOTOS!
And we must have photos of dead US troops in their coffins. Because that's SOOOO important. Otherwise, we may not actually know how terrible war is if we don't see photos of dead US soldiers in coffins. By all means, snap away.
But dead Usama? Absolutely not. A photo of one of America's most hated enemies. That's where the President draws the line. It would be way too offensive.
"There is no need to spike the football," says President Obama. Hillary Clinton agrees, as do many in the Obama administration.
Then I pulled some old headlines off of Drudge reminding us all of what the President is okay with showing us.
Here's a headline about the Obama administration allowing the release of hundreds of photos of US troops engaged in torture and prisoner abuse.
And here's another where a policy is changed allowing photographs of military caskets and body bags as they are unloaded from overseas flights.
Oh, I see.
Oh, I get it.
It's okay for us to see photos of US troops engaged in prisoner abuse. Of course those photos will inflame the Muslim world and put other US troops in danger...but more importantly they will embarrass Obama's political enemies and his presidential predecessor. Yes, by all means, LET'S RELEASE THOSE PHOTOS!
And we must have photos of dead US troops in their coffins. Because that's SOOOO important. Otherwise, we may not actually know how terrible war is if we don't see photos of dead US soldiers in coffins. By all means, snap away.
But dead Usama? Absolutely not. A photo of one of America's most hated enemies. That's where the President draws the line. It would be way too offensive.
Monday, May 02, 2011
Bin Laden is dead...the good and the bad
Good: Osama Bin Laden is dead. I hope he roasts in hell for an eternity. Yes, I said it. No one deserves it more. No capture. No trial. No media circus like we see with KSM. Double tap to the head, lights out. Lets party.
Bad: The reaction from the Muslim world is lukewarm at best. Sad. This maniac murders 3000 Americans in cold blood and they're dancing in the streets. We eliminate the man who is responsible for thousands of innocent Muslim deaths and not a peep from the Middle East (except for Saudi Arabia). What is wrong with these people? Can somebody explain to me why the Muslim world wouldn't welcome the death of someone who has done so much damage to their religion?
Good: We took him out in a brilliantly executed mission, and we took control of his body. Further proof of his death.
Bad: For some reason, President Obama felt obliged to honor Bin Laden's death by granting him Muslim burial rights. I understand the need to be sensitive toward Muslim customs, but again this man was a menace to the Muslim religion. He did not represent Islam. He murdered Muslims by the score. Did he really deserve to have his body treated with respect as to Muslim custom? No. Bring the body to the USA. Have it examined by military and private sector pathologists for further confirmation of his death, incinerate it, then scatter the ashes over the sea.
Good: President Obama gave the order that had to be given. We had to infiltrate Pakistan to carry out the attack. That's not easy when we're supposed to be working with them. But Obama didn't hesitate. Give him credit. He has picked up where Bush left off and has done some very good things in the war on terror. I applaud him for it, and I applaud Bush for laying the groundwork.
Bad: Pakistan can't be trusted. Period. I say withdraw all foreign aid from them and wish them luck fighting off the Taliban.
Good: Americans reacted with jubilation at the news, joining together to celebrate in the streets. It was good to see. For a moment, it was 9/12 all over again. For a moment, we were united as a nation. No divisions. No partisans. No political ideology. And then...
Bad: Many of those celebrating carried Obama-Biden 2012 signs. Many were chanting "four more years". Many were chanting Obama's name. While the majority of people were singing God Bless America and the national anthem, these idiots were turning it into an Obama political rally.
Really? You're going to inject politics into this moment? Sickening.
What I like most is that we proved our resolve as a nation. It took us a while, but we got him. There were times we thought about quitting, and many people wanted to give up and bring the troops home. But more determined minds prevailed. Despite the political pressure, we kept up the fight. We refused to give up. Bill Chrystal said it best when he said "the wheels of justice may turn slowly, but turn they do". Indeed. We proved that no matter where you hide, no matter how long it takes, no matter the cost, when you attack us we will hunt you down. We will find you. And we will kill you. It's quite a testament to our strength as a nation.
Many evil human beings have met their end in similar ways, defying liberty, challenging our God given rights. We have stood our ground against them all, and triumphed. Bin Laden is dead. He is the latest in a long line of tyrants who have assaulted liberty and lost. Perhaps one day, the tyrants will learn.
Bad: The reaction from the Muslim world is lukewarm at best. Sad. This maniac murders 3000 Americans in cold blood and they're dancing in the streets. We eliminate the man who is responsible for thousands of innocent Muslim deaths and not a peep from the Middle East (except for Saudi Arabia). What is wrong with these people? Can somebody explain to me why the Muslim world wouldn't welcome the death of someone who has done so much damage to their religion?
Good: We took him out in a brilliantly executed mission, and we took control of his body. Further proof of his death.
Bad: For some reason, President Obama felt obliged to honor Bin Laden's death by granting him Muslim burial rights. I understand the need to be sensitive toward Muslim customs, but again this man was a menace to the Muslim religion. He did not represent Islam. He murdered Muslims by the score. Did he really deserve to have his body treated with respect as to Muslim custom? No. Bring the body to the USA. Have it examined by military and private sector pathologists for further confirmation of his death, incinerate it, then scatter the ashes over the sea.
Good: President Obama gave the order that had to be given. We had to infiltrate Pakistan to carry out the attack. That's not easy when we're supposed to be working with them. But Obama didn't hesitate. Give him credit. He has picked up where Bush left off and has done some very good things in the war on terror. I applaud him for it, and I applaud Bush for laying the groundwork.
Bad: Pakistan can't be trusted. Period. I say withdraw all foreign aid from them and wish them luck fighting off the Taliban.
Good: Americans reacted with jubilation at the news, joining together to celebrate in the streets. It was good to see. For a moment, it was 9/12 all over again. For a moment, we were united as a nation. No divisions. No partisans. No political ideology. And then...
Bad: Many of those celebrating carried Obama-Biden 2012 signs. Many were chanting "four more years". Many were chanting Obama's name. While the majority of people were singing God Bless America and the national anthem, these idiots were turning it into an Obama political rally.
Really? You're going to inject politics into this moment? Sickening.
What I like most is that we proved our resolve as a nation. It took us a while, but we got him. There were times we thought about quitting, and many people wanted to give up and bring the troops home. But more determined minds prevailed. Despite the political pressure, we kept up the fight. We refused to give up. Bill Chrystal said it best when he said "the wheels of justice may turn slowly, but turn they do". Indeed. We proved that no matter where you hide, no matter how long it takes, no matter the cost, when you attack us we will hunt you down. We will find you. And we will kill you. It's quite a testament to our strength as a nation.
Many evil human beings have met their end in similar ways, defying liberty, challenging our God given rights. We have stood our ground against them all, and triumphed. Bin Laden is dead. He is the latest in a long line of tyrants who have assaulted liberty and lost. Perhaps one day, the tyrants will learn.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Phony austerity protests
The latest trend among the mainstream media is to show video of town hall meetings across America. The videos typical show Congressmen being yelled at, booed, harassed, etc by their constituents who seemingly appear angry about the GOPs recent budget proposal. Specifically, they are angry over the proposed cuts in Medicare.
It's all phony.
When the Tea Party first exploded onto the scene the Left brushed it off as astroturf. They said it was false, fabricated by the right. The reason why they said such things is because fabricating false grassroots movements is the Left's M.O. It's what they do. They have access to the organized so anytime they need a flash mob of protestors they puch a button and the mob appears. So, naturally, when they see such a protest from the right they assume it's a similar situation.
They were wrong about the Tea Party as we all know. But they still have the ability to fabricate a grassroots movement. They still have the ability to agitate. We saw it in Wisconsin. We've heard about efforts by SEIU executives organizing an attack on Wall Street. And we see it at these town hall meetings. The organized are doing what they do best. Nothing can display this better than their universal chant at these events: "rich pay more".
It's a fake. But rest assured the Left will champion it as a genuine grassroots effort to oppose the GOPs budget.
That's why I find this recent Gallup poll interesting. It shows that the majority of seniors favor Paul Ryan's budget over President Obama's (even though President Obama has yet to issue a detailed plan on dealing with the deficit and debt). Despite the cuts in Medicare and other entitlements, most seniors understand that austerity measures as necessary. So the agitators will agitate but, unlike the Tea Party protests, their sentiments aren't shared by most Americans. The agitators are just thugs and looters providing the muscle behind the Marxist movement in America. They don't believe in what we true Americans believe.
The other thing interesting about this poll is that younger voters overwhelmingly favor President Obama's plan - again, even though he has no actual plan. Funny. The group that stands to lose the most if Obama has his way is the very group that supports him the most. Odd.
Is this ignorance? Stupidity? A manifestation of indoctrination? Is it because younger voters don't pay taxes? Is it naivety? Is it because Obama is "cool" and "hip"? I don't konw. Probably a combination of all. But I do know that the next generation had better pay attention. The seniors in America have seen a lot. They are wiser and more experienced and they get it. The youth don't. Their future is being wasted. It's being destroyed. And they don't even realize it.
Well, they better wise up real fast. If America is going to dig out of this hole we will need to next generation to do some heavy lifting. We'll need them to take some responsibility, take some initiative, be more proactive. We'll need them to own their future and not outsource it to the State.
...then again, that's asking a lot of them. Perhaps that's why they support the President so much.
It's all phony.
When the Tea Party first exploded onto the scene the Left brushed it off as astroturf. They said it was false, fabricated by the right. The reason why they said such things is because fabricating false grassroots movements is the Left's M.O. It's what they do. They have access to the organized so anytime they need a flash mob of protestors they puch a button and the mob appears. So, naturally, when they see such a protest from the right they assume it's a similar situation.
They were wrong about the Tea Party as we all know. But they still have the ability to fabricate a grassroots movement. They still have the ability to agitate. We saw it in Wisconsin. We've heard about efforts by SEIU executives organizing an attack on Wall Street. And we see it at these town hall meetings. The organized are doing what they do best. Nothing can display this better than their universal chant at these events: "rich pay more".
It's a fake. But rest assured the Left will champion it as a genuine grassroots effort to oppose the GOPs budget.
That's why I find this recent Gallup poll interesting. It shows that the majority of seniors favor Paul Ryan's budget over President Obama's (even though President Obama has yet to issue a detailed plan on dealing with the deficit and debt). Despite the cuts in Medicare and other entitlements, most seniors understand that austerity measures as necessary. So the agitators will agitate but, unlike the Tea Party protests, their sentiments aren't shared by most Americans. The agitators are just thugs and looters providing the muscle behind the Marxist movement in America. They don't believe in what we true Americans believe.
The other thing interesting about this poll is that younger voters overwhelmingly favor President Obama's plan - again, even though he has no actual plan. Funny. The group that stands to lose the most if Obama has his way is the very group that supports him the most. Odd.
Is this ignorance? Stupidity? A manifestation of indoctrination? Is it because younger voters don't pay taxes? Is it naivety? Is it because Obama is "cool" and "hip"? I don't konw. Probably a combination of all. But I do know that the next generation had better pay attention. The seniors in America have seen a lot. They are wiser and more experienced and they get it. The youth don't. Their future is being wasted. It's being destroyed. And they don't even realize it.
Well, they better wise up real fast. If America is going to dig out of this hole we will need to next generation to do some heavy lifting. We'll need them to take some responsibility, take some initiative, be more proactive. We'll need them to own their future and not outsource it to the State.
...then again, that's asking a lot of them. Perhaps that's why they support the President so much.
Monday, April 25, 2011
President Obama's Easter message
Is this significant? Well, you can decide that for yourself. But you should know that Obama has issued statements for every major Muslim holiday in the past year. And he also issued a statement for earth day, which happened to be Good Friday this year.
Last year's Easter message was "all-inclusive", acknowledging all major world religions during Christianity's most holy day. And then there was his Passover greeting that I posted about earlier.
Is any of this significant?
Is lightning striking the White House on Easter night a simple coincidence (photo above)?
You can decide that for yourself.
Friday, April 22, 2011
He is Risen!
Let every man and woman count himself immortal. Let him catch the revelation of Jesus in his resurrection. Let him say not merely, "Christ is risen," but "I shall rise." ~Phillips Brooks
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Liberals attacking children, two examples
Pulled these stories off of The Blaze today. Had to repost.
The Wonkette (some sort of Liberal - Marxist propaganda website) posted a "tribute" to Trig Palin on the little boy's 3rd birthday this past Monday. Trig is the youngest son of Sarah Palin. He suffers from Down Syndrome. Here are a few highlights of the Liberal website's birthday greeting:
"...we are privileged to live in a time when we can witness the greatest prop in world political history...What’s he dreaming about? Nothing. He’s retarded...Sarah went to a whole lot of trouble to name him ‘Van Palin,’ a ‘Van Halen’ reference he will never get..."
You get the point. Normally, I wouldn't post such mindless hate. But in this case I have a point to make about it. Why would a Liberal (or any human being for that matter) viciously attack a 3 year old child who suffers from a mental disability? Aren't Liberals supposed to be the ones who stand up for and protect people like this?
No. For several reasons. Liberals basically find it repulsive that Trig was given the chance at life. Some think it is selfish, and somehow unfair to the child. Some (especially the feminists) absolutely hate seeing genuine motherhood on display, hate seeing a woman love her children so much because motherhood is viewed by them as oppressive. And still others think Palin exploits the little boy for political gain.
And there's the Marxists like Wonkette. These are the people who like to act the part of helping the needy. They like to claim that they want to help those who can't help themselves. But, in truth, Marxists don't want that at all. Marxists view the needy as a power base. Anything we can give them will be returned by "grassroots" support, power to the people, workers of the world unite, etc, which ultimately means political power. So their "help" for the needy is nothing more than political bribery. That's why they don't particularly like those who are in true need of help. Marxists will give lots of money to welfare brood mares, but hate the idea of helping or loving someone like Trig Palin.
The fact is Marxists believe that all humans exist to serve the State and nothing else. Anyone who is unfit or incapable of serving the State really doesn't have a reason to live. That's primarily why they hate people like Trig Palin. And that's why Marxist regimes are known for "eliminating" the imperfect citizens. Abortion is just the Americanized version of it.
In another story, The Blaze posted a video of a 14 year old girl who recently spoke on stage at the Wisconsin Tea Party rally. The video is impressive because for one the girl is well spoken, displaying excellent grammar and stage presence. She is homeschooled, so that explains that. No union teacher has had an opportunity to get his/her filthy paws on this well-polished young lady and as a result her intelligence clearly shows.
But equally impressive is the reaction of the Wisconsin public union workers protesting the rally - you know, those wonderful teachers that Governor Walker was trying to stiff. They screamed profanities at the girl, gave her numerous hand gestures, and of course attempted to shout her down. One union protestor was filmed yelling "go home you f&#*ing brat". Then they all booed her as she finished her speech with God bless America.
Ah yes, those wonderful public unions, just trying to earn an honest living. Just imagine how bad they would've treated her if she had some sort of mental or physical disability.
The Wonkette (some sort of Liberal - Marxist propaganda website) posted a "tribute" to Trig Palin on the little boy's 3rd birthday this past Monday. Trig is the youngest son of Sarah Palin. He suffers from Down Syndrome. Here are a few highlights of the Liberal website's birthday greeting:
"...we are privileged to live in a time when we can witness the greatest prop in world political history...What’s he dreaming about? Nothing. He’s retarded...Sarah went to a whole lot of trouble to name him ‘Van Palin,’ a ‘Van Halen’ reference he will never get..."
You get the point. Normally, I wouldn't post such mindless hate. But in this case I have a point to make about it. Why would a Liberal (or any human being for that matter) viciously attack a 3 year old child who suffers from a mental disability? Aren't Liberals supposed to be the ones who stand up for and protect people like this?
No. For several reasons. Liberals basically find it repulsive that Trig was given the chance at life. Some think it is selfish, and somehow unfair to the child. Some (especially the feminists) absolutely hate seeing genuine motherhood on display, hate seeing a woman love her children so much because motherhood is viewed by them as oppressive. And still others think Palin exploits the little boy for political gain.
And there's the Marxists like Wonkette. These are the people who like to act the part of helping the needy. They like to claim that they want to help those who can't help themselves. But, in truth, Marxists don't want that at all. Marxists view the needy as a power base. Anything we can give them will be returned by "grassroots" support, power to the people, workers of the world unite, etc, which ultimately means political power. So their "help" for the needy is nothing more than political bribery. That's why they don't particularly like those who are in true need of help. Marxists will give lots of money to welfare brood mares, but hate the idea of helping or loving someone like Trig Palin.
The fact is Marxists believe that all humans exist to serve the State and nothing else. Anyone who is unfit or incapable of serving the State really doesn't have a reason to live. That's primarily why they hate people like Trig Palin. And that's why Marxist regimes are known for "eliminating" the imperfect citizens. Abortion is just the Americanized version of it.
In another story, The Blaze posted a video of a 14 year old girl who recently spoke on stage at the Wisconsin Tea Party rally. The video is impressive because for one the girl is well spoken, displaying excellent grammar and stage presence. She is homeschooled, so that explains that. No union teacher has had an opportunity to get his/her filthy paws on this well-polished young lady and as a result her intelligence clearly shows.
But equally impressive is the reaction of the Wisconsin public union workers protesting the rally - you know, those wonderful teachers that Governor Walker was trying to stiff. They screamed profanities at the girl, gave her numerous hand gestures, and of course attempted to shout her down. One union protestor was filmed yelling "go home you f&#*ing brat". Then they all booed her as she finished her speech with God bless America.
Ah yes, those wonderful public unions, just trying to earn an honest living. Just imagine how bad they would've treated her if she had some sort of mental or physical disability.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Obama's Passover message
Perhaps the most insulting thing this President has ever done. Excerpts from his Passover message:
"This year, that ancient instruction is reflected in the daily headlines as we see modern stories of social transformation and liberation unfolding in the Middle East and North Africa...
...world must work to "alleviate the suffering, poverty, injustice, and hunger of those who are not yet free."
In his Passover message the President, our President, congratulated the Islamic extremists on toppling multiple governments in the Middle East (although he failed to mention the new governments are already threatening Israel with violence).
He also included a veiled reference to the Palestinians - "those who are not yet free".
I'm not exactly sure why President Obama chose the Passover message to once again slap Israel across the face. But I do know that this is the most anti-Israel President we've had since, maybe, Jimmy Carter. The wolves are circling to attack and the President is patting them on the back during a sacred Jewish holiday.
May we always stand firm beside our Israeli allies, even if our leadership refuses to do so.
"This year, that ancient instruction is reflected in the daily headlines as we see modern stories of social transformation and liberation unfolding in the Middle East and North Africa...
...world must work to "alleviate the suffering, poverty, injustice, and hunger of those who are not yet free."
In his Passover message the President, our President, congratulated the Islamic extremists on toppling multiple governments in the Middle East (although he failed to mention the new governments are already threatening Israel with violence).
He also included a veiled reference to the Palestinians - "those who are not yet free".
I'm not exactly sure why President Obama chose the Passover message to once again slap Israel across the face. But I do know that this is the most anti-Israel President we've had since, maybe, Jimmy Carter. The wolves are circling to attack and the President is patting them on the back during a sacred Jewish holiday.
May we always stand firm beside our Israeli allies, even if our leadership refuses to do so.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Happy tax day, America!
How about a few tax day statistics brought to you by the Wall Street Journal.
Intelligent people know that you can't balance the budget through taxation, and certainly not by soaking the rich. But the WSJ proves it with actual numbers.
For instance, according to the IRS, if you taxed the top 2% (the evil rich that Obama targets with his recent proposal) and jacked their tax rates all the way up to 100%. That is, you take every penny they make. You will end up with about $940 billion dollars. Laughable. Not nearly enough to dent Obama's $4 trillion budget.
Then, you go after the top 10% (those making >$100,000 a year) of income earners and you take 100% of their income. That gets you $3.4 trillion. Still running a deficit if Obama's spending budget is passed.
The point is, there is no way this budget can be balanced by taxing the rich. Impossible. I hope the middle class is watching because, rest assured, they're coming after your wallet too!
Meanwhile, a related dive into statistics show that 45% of Americans don't pay any income tax at all. Surprise, surprise. But don't worry, we also have poll numbers that say 43% of all Americans believe that current tax rates are "just about right" and don't see a need to change.
45% don't pay
43% say taxes are fine as they are
Duh!
Intelligent people know that you can't balance the budget through taxation, and certainly not by soaking the rich. But the WSJ proves it with actual numbers.
For instance, according to the IRS, if you taxed the top 2% (the evil rich that Obama targets with his recent proposal) and jacked their tax rates all the way up to 100%. That is, you take every penny they make. You will end up with about $940 billion dollars. Laughable. Not nearly enough to dent Obama's $4 trillion budget.
Then, you go after the top 10% (those making >$100,000 a year) of income earners and you take 100% of their income. That gets you $3.4 trillion. Still running a deficit if Obama's spending budget is passed.
The point is, there is no way this budget can be balanced by taxing the rich. Impossible. I hope the middle class is watching because, rest assured, they're coming after your wallet too!
Meanwhile, a related dive into statistics show that 45% of Americans don't pay any income tax at all. Surprise, surprise. But don't worry, we also have poll numbers that say 43% of all Americans believe that current tax rates are "just about right" and don't see a need to change.
45% don't pay
43% say taxes are fine as they are
Duh!
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Shared Sacrifice
I watched President Obama give his speech the other night about his plan for reducing the debt. Seems the community organizer has decided that our deficit and debt are indeed a problem and now he wants to fix it. Nevermind that just two months ago he proposed a budget that completely ignored the deficit. The important thing is that he is at least acknowledging there is a problem. That's progress. During his speech, he called for "shared sacrifice" to end our deficit problems. Even better!
Since the government already seizes 4 months of my labor every year, not including what is taken by state and local authorities along with licenses and fees, I'm all for sharing the sacrifice in this country to get back to our economic glory days. So I figure those who don't pay will now be asked to make a few sacrifices. Nope.
Apparently, Obama's idea of "shared sacrifice" is to tax people like me even more. Keep in mind, half of all Americans don't pay income taxes. We are facing a debt crisis unmatched in our history. Our currency is on the brink of collapse. Yet, shared sacrifice means that we who pay must now pay more.
Let me tell you about my sacrifice. Obama and his friends like to refer to people like me as "fortunate", as though my position in life was a roll of the dice and I hit seven. It was just luck, a twist of fate. No. I have been sacrificing for decades. I'm not special. I wasn't born into money. My road wasn't paved for me. I'm no different than any other American. We all have the same opportunity, but who succeeds at it depends on who works for and earns it.
Beginning in high school I devoted myself to my future. This carried into college and medical school. It was a constant string of one sacrifice after another. While those around me goofed off and pissed away their future, I buckled down and sacrificed for mine. I gave up a lot of things to get where I am now, and I took on a lot of debt. I took risks. I sacrificed my time, my money, and my personal life. It wasn't luck. It was hard work and dedication. That paid off and now I am reaping the rewards. That's how it's supposed to be. Sacrifice and work hard, take risks, and you will be rewarded.
Not in Obama's world. In his mind I am "fortunate", as if it just happened to me. And those who didn't work hard, didn't take risks, didn't dedicate themselves, pissed away their future and opportunity, well they're "less fortunate". So it is up to me to surrender my luck to the less fortunate in order to make America more just. What a twisted interpretation of the American dream.
The point is that I already sacrifice and have been for decades. I surrender a large percentage of my hard labor to the government so they can waste it as they please. I surrender my labor so it can be redistributed to those who haven't earned it and don't appreciate it. I've been sacrificing my entire life, they haven't. So I'm supposed to surrender more? This is Obama's idea of shared sacrifice.
I surrender money to my local school district and they mismanage it just as bad as the Feds. The public schools are a joke and the "education" they provide is worse. So, despite the money I surrender to them, they are useless to me. I have to pay substantially more for private schools just so my kids will be able to read and write before high school. That requires sacrifice. I don't mind doing it. Their education is my responsibility. But paying for my kids' education and paying for someone else's education takes its toll.
And retirement? Well, I have to save for that. The ponzi scheme we call social security takes a lot of my money but is on the verge of bankruptcy. Soon people like me will not be able to draw from it, if there's any money left to be drawn. So, knowing the incompetence of Washington, I'm planning ahead. I'm putting money away for retirement so I won't be destitute in those times. This requires sacrifice. I don't mind doing it. My retirement is my responsibility. But paying for my retirement as well as someone's else's via social security is hard to do and takes a lot of money.
And my kids will need money for college. The government feels that since I'm "rich" they shouldn't be given federal student aid. This means I have to save for their college education. That requires even more sacrifice. I don't mind doing it. That's how it's supposed to be. But paying for my kids college is a lot more difficult with a government gorilla on my back and in my pockets nonstop.
And healthcare? I pay for it monthly. That requires sacrifice. I'm fine with paying for my healthcare, that's how it's supposed to be. But it's hard to pay for my healthcare AND the healthcare of others.
Meanwhile, the parasites and looters get all of this provided for them, at my cost. They contribute nothing. They own no part of it. They don't work for it, they do nothing to earn it. They haven't sacrificed anything to get this stuff and they give me nothing in return. It's just given to them because they are "less fortunate" than me. Obama has asked for no sacrifice from these people, only from me. And this is how he describes "shared sacrifice".
I'm not talking about those who need help. There's a difference between people truly in need and people with no desire to work for a living and support themselves. I give money to those in need every month and the tax breaks for charity helps me do so. But sadly Mr Obama has decided that what I give should no longer by credited on my taxes making my donations even that much more difficult. Apparently, he wishes to continue subsidizing the lazy while taking measures to cut off genuine charity for those truly in need. That's more than just politics. It's diabolical.
Unlike many Americans, I pay my mortgage. Sure, it would be easy not to. It's a tough economy and many have defaulted. Not me. I pay it on time, and the tax benefits help me afford some of the things above. Unfortunately, Mr Obama now wants to stop people like me - the responsible class - from deducting our mortgage interest from our taxes. This is shared sacrifice.
It's disgusting.
He says I'm rich. He says millionaires shouldn't get tax breaks at the expense of the elderly. Well, I'm no millionaire and I'm certainly not rich. I drive a '93 Toyota with 250,000 miles and in need of a new paint job. We buy off brand food on a very strict grocery budget. We don't take vacations, we don't own fancy jewelry or designer clothes. Often, we live paycheck to paycheck just to meet the needs I speak of. Something I call sacrificing. We pay our bills. We give to charity. We sacrifice for our children. I work a second job so we can save for retirement and college. But he thinks I'm rich and should therefore pay more.
And speaking of that second job, as an example of how high taxes ultimately hurts an economy, I'll detail my situation further. I've already crunched the numbers. My second job is working as a medical consultant for a local behavioral and drug rehab facility. Basically, I am there to treat patients' blood pressure and diabetes and other health problems while they're getting drug treatment. I get paid for it and this is the money I use to save for our future. However, if the community organizer gets his way I've determined that I will actually end up making LESS money. Yes, I'll be working two jobs but - because of tax brackets and soaking the "rich" - I will bring home less money. I will actually have to PAY to work my second job. Obviously, I won't do that. So that will be less money in the economy, less money spent, less money saved or invested. And it will mean that there will be people who need a physician and won't have one. Think my situation is unique? Think I'm the only one who would have to reduce his production of goods and services to save on taxes? Think again.
This is why higher taxes doesn't work. It is an idea that has failed time and again. High taxes mean less revenue for the government. It means economic slowdown. It means people have less access to goods and services. It doesn't work. It never has. But Obama doesn't care. He wants more. He wants shared sacrifice. He wants envy. He wants class warfare. We wants people to think that us "rich" are rolling in dough and have plenty to fork over for their "less fortunate" situation.
What a ridiculous and foolish man he is.
Since the government already seizes 4 months of my labor every year, not including what is taken by state and local authorities along with licenses and fees, I'm all for sharing the sacrifice in this country to get back to our economic glory days. So I figure those who don't pay will now be asked to make a few sacrifices. Nope.
Apparently, Obama's idea of "shared sacrifice" is to tax people like me even more. Keep in mind, half of all Americans don't pay income taxes. We are facing a debt crisis unmatched in our history. Our currency is on the brink of collapse. Yet, shared sacrifice means that we who pay must now pay more.
Let me tell you about my sacrifice. Obama and his friends like to refer to people like me as "fortunate", as though my position in life was a roll of the dice and I hit seven. It was just luck, a twist of fate. No. I have been sacrificing for decades. I'm not special. I wasn't born into money. My road wasn't paved for me. I'm no different than any other American. We all have the same opportunity, but who succeeds at it depends on who works for and earns it.
Beginning in high school I devoted myself to my future. This carried into college and medical school. It was a constant string of one sacrifice after another. While those around me goofed off and pissed away their future, I buckled down and sacrificed for mine. I gave up a lot of things to get where I am now, and I took on a lot of debt. I took risks. I sacrificed my time, my money, and my personal life. It wasn't luck. It was hard work and dedication. That paid off and now I am reaping the rewards. That's how it's supposed to be. Sacrifice and work hard, take risks, and you will be rewarded.
Not in Obama's world. In his mind I am "fortunate", as if it just happened to me. And those who didn't work hard, didn't take risks, didn't dedicate themselves, pissed away their future and opportunity, well they're "less fortunate". So it is up to me to surrender my luck to the less fortunate in order to make America more just. What a twisted interpretation of the American dream.
The point is that I already sacrifice and have been for decades. I surrender a large percentage of my hard labor to the government so they can waste it as they please. I surrender my labor so it can be redistributed to those who haven't earned it and don't appreciate it. I've been sacrificing my entire life, they haven't. So I'm supposed to surrender more? This is Obama's idea of shared sacrifice.
I surrender money to my local school district and they mismanage it just as bad as the Feds. The public schools are a joke and the "education" they provide is worse. So, despite the money I surrender to them, they are useless to me. I have to pay substantially more for private schools just so my kids will be able to read and write before high school. That requires sacrifice. I don't mind doing it. Their education is my responsibility. But paying for my kids' education and paying for someone else's education takes its toll.
And retirement? Well, I have to save for that. The ponzi scheme we call social security takes a lot of my money but is on the verge of bankruptcy. Soon people like me will not be able to draw from it, if there's any money left to be drawn. So, knowing the incompetence of Washington, I'm planning ahead. I'm putting money away for retirement so I won't be destitute in those times. This requires sacrifice. I don't mind doing it. My retirement is my responsibility. But paying for my retirement as well as someone's else's via social security is hard to do and takes a lot of money.
And my kids will need money for college. The government feels that since I'm "rich" they shouldn't be given federal student aid. This means I have to save for their college education. That requires even more sacrifice. I don't mind doing it. That's how it's supposed to be. But paying for my kids college is a lot more difficult with a government gorilla on my back and in my pockets nonstop.
And healthcare? I pay for it monthly. That requires sacrifice. I'm fine with paying for my healthcare, that's how it's supposed to be. But it's hard to pay for my healthcare AND the healthcare of others.
Meanwhile, the parasites and looters get all of this provided for them, at my cost. They contribute nothing. They own no part of it. They don't work for it, they do nothing to earn it. They haven't sacrificed anything to get this stuff and they give me nothing in return. It's just given to them because they are "less fortunate" than me. Obama has asked for no sacrifice from these people, only from me. And this is how he describes "shared sacrifice".
I'm not talking about those who need help. There's a difference between people truly in need and people with no desire to work for a living and support themselves. I give money to those in need every month and the tax breaks for charity helps me do so. But sadly Mr Obama has decided that what I give should no longer by credited on my taxes making my donations even that much more difficult. Apparently, he wishes to continue subsidizing the lazy while taking measures to cut off genuine charity for those truly in need. That's more than just politics. It's diabolical.
Unlike many Americans, I pay my mortgage. Sure, it would be easy not to. It's a tough economy and many have defaulted. Not me. I pay it on time, and the tax benefits help me afford some of the things above. Unfortunately, Mr Obama now wants to stop people like me - the responsible class - from deducting our mortgage interest from our taxes. This is shared sacrifice.
It's disgusting.
He says I'm rich. He says millionaires shouldn't get tax breaks at the expense of the elderly. Well, I'm no millionaire and I'm certainly not rich. I drive a '93 Toyota with 250,000 miles and in need of a new paint job. We buy off brand food on a very strict grocery budget. We don't take vacations, we don't own fancy jewelry or designer clothes. Often, we live paycheck to paycheck just to meet the needs I speak of. Something I call sacrificing. We pay our bills. We give to charity. We sacrifice for our children. I work a second job so we can save for retirement and college. But he thinks I'm rich and should therefore pay more.
And speaking of that second job, as an example of how high taxes ultimately hurts an economy, I'll detail my situation further. I've already crunched the numbers. My second job is working as a medical consultant for a local behavioral and drug rehab facility. Basically, I am there to treat patients' blood pressure and diabetes and other health problems while they're getting drug treatment. I get paid for it and this is the money I use to save for our future. However, if the community organizer gets his way I've determined that I will actually end up making LESS money. Yes, I'll be working two jobs but - because of tax brackets and soaking the "rich" - I will bring home less money. I will actually have to PAY to work my second job. Obviously, I won't do that. So that will be less money in the economy, less money spent, less money saved or invested. And it will mean that there will be people who need a physician and won't have one. Think my situation is unique? Think I'm the only one who would have to reduce his production of goods and services to save on taxes? Think again.
This is why higher taxes doesn't work. It is an idea that has failed time and again. High taxes mean less revenue for the government. It means economic slowdown. It means people have less access to goods and services. It doesn't work. It never has. But Obama doesn't care. He wants more. He wants shared sacrifice. He wants envy. He wants class warfare. We wants people to think that us "rich" are rolling in dough and have plenty to fork over for their "less fortunate" situation.
What a ridiculous and foolish man he is.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Stern: Get rid of checks and balances
Here is an interesting column on Andy Stern.
In a recent op-ed in the Huffington Post, Andy Stern delves into the topic of checks and balances. He discusses James Madison and the structure of dividing our government power between state and federal, and the division of power within the federal government among the three branches.
He then calls these checks and balances an "impediment to making the necessary changes" in a global economy. An impediment.
That darn division of power. If only that could be consolidated into one branch or one person.
Say, I'm no expert but isn't that tyranny?
This is Andy Stern, former head of the SEIU, one of the largest...yes...LABOR UNIONS in the US.
Andy Stern, the man who has been to the White House as a guest of the community organizer more than anyone else.
Andy Stern, whose deputy Stephen Lerner is planning a coordinated attack on Wall Street in May with hopes of crashing the US stock market.
Andy Stern, now on record advocating despotism, tyranny, dictatorial power.
Remember, it was the community organizer who - on the eve of the 2008 election - said they were mere days from "fundamentally transforming" this country. Fundamentally transforming?
In a recent op-ed in the Huffington Post, Andy Stern delves into the topic of checks and balances. He discusses James Madison and the structure of dividing our government power between state and federal, and the division of power within the federal government among the three branches.
He then calls these checks and balances an "impediment to making the necessary changes" in a global economy. An impediment.
That darn division of power. If only that could be consolidated into one branch or one person.
Say, I'm no expert but isn't that tyranny?
This is Andy Stern, former head of the SEIU, one of the largest...yes...LABOR UNIONS in the US.
Andy Stern, the man who has been to the White House as a guest of the community organizer more than anyone else.
Andy Stern, whose deputy Stephen Lerner is planning a coordinated attack on Wall Street in May with hopes of crashing the US stock market.
Andy Stern, now on record advocating despotism, tyranny, dictatorial power.
Remember, it was the community organizer who - on the eve of the 2008 election - said they were mere days from "fundamentally transforming" this country. Fundamentally transforming?
Saturday, April 09, 2011
Boehner...so close to actually showing some courage.
Just when I thought John Boehner and the GOP leadership has grown a backbone. Just when I thought that the mockery of conservativism displayed by Republicans of the Bush era was over. Just when I thought the GOP in Washington was beginning to understand. Just when I think there may be hope, a deal is struck.
Boehner folded like a lawn chair. How pathetic. This is NOT the guy who can fix our debt problems. This is not the guy we need as speaker.
Today, I'm writing my Congressman and asking for an effort to remove Boehner as Speaker. The last thing conservatives need representing us is a gutless politician interested in "making deals".
He promised $100 billion in cuts. He gives us $38 billion, proving that he is willing to be railroaded for 62% of what he requests.
Did NPR get defunded?
Did Obamacare get defunded?
Did planned parenthood get defunded?
$38 billion in cuts. We overspend $4 billion a day. $4 billion in deficit spending daily. So our brilliant House speaker succeeded in solving our deficit problem for 10 days.
Awesome.
Get rid of him. We need a new speaker, someone with courage.
Boehner folded like a lawn chair. How pathetic. This is NOT the guy who can fix our debt problems. This is not the guy we need as speaker.
Today, I'm writing my Congressman and asking for an effort to remove Boehner as Speaker. The last thing conservatives need representing us is a gutless politician interested in "making deals".
He promised $100 billion in cuts. He gives us $38 billion, proving that he is willing to be railroaded for 62% of what he requests.
Did NPR get defunded?
Did Obamacare get defunded?
Did planned parenthood get defunded?
$38 billion in cuts. We overspend $4 billion a day. $4 billion in deficit spending daily. So our brilliant House speaker succeeded in solving our deficit problem for 10 days.
Awesome.
Get rid of him. We need a new speaker, someone with courage.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Non-essential workers
We are one day from a government shutdown. The GOP House has passed a continuing resolution that will fund the government for one more week, will continue to fund the military and includes an additional $12 billion in spending cuts. Again, this is the 2011 budget. The budget that should have been passed last year but never was for lack of political courage in Washington. So now we're dealing with "old" business. Chances are this latest attempt will fail. Chances are the government will shut down. Fine with me. I'm willing to wager that I won't even notice. Most Americans won't, except for those who are attached to the government teet.
If the government shuts down, all non-essential federal employees will be furloughed. There are approximately 800,000 workers that will be affected.
800,000 ?
Seriously?
We actually employ 800,000 people on the taxpayer payroll who are not essential for government function? Is it just me or does this number alone reflect just how wasteful we've become? 800,000 people who do jobs that are basically unnecessary. Call me reactionary, or antiquated, or whatever, but I think this may be part of the problem.
So I say how about we start with these jobs whenever someone in Washington decides to cut the budget. 800,000 nonessential jobs sounds like a lot of fat that could be trimmed. When you consider the average federal employee receives $81,259.00 a year in wages and benefits then you're talking about over $65 billion annually to pay for jobs that are "NON-ESSENTIAL"!
So cut them. Let these people work for a living. If we're paying someone to do a non-essential job then, by definition, we can afford to cut these jobs. Every penny counts at this moment, so cut them.
At the very least it would be a good start.
If the government shuts down, all non-essential federal employees will be furloughed. There are approximately 800,000 workers that will be affected.
800,000 ?
Seriously?
We actually employ 800,000 people on the taxpayer payroll who are not essential for government function? Is it just me or does this number alone reflect just how wasteful we've become? 800,000 people who do jobs that are basically unnecessary. Call me reactionary, or antiquated, or whatever, but I think this may be part of the problem.
So I say how about we start with these jobs whenever someone in Washington decides to cut the budget. 800,000 nonessential jobs sounds like a lot of fat that could be trimmed. When you consider the average federal employee receives $81,259.00 a year in wages and benefits then you're talking about over $65 billion annually to pay for jobs that are "NON-ESSENTIAL"!
So cut them. Let these people work for a living. If we're paying someone to do a non-essential job then, by definition, we can afford to cut these jobs. Every penny counts at this moment, so cut them.
At the very least it would be a good start.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Collective bargaining...a VITAL protection for the "little guy"
Ever wonder why conservatives like myself have such a big problem with the unions? Why we oppose collective bargaining "rights"? Why the teachers' unions in particular have drawn so much criticism from us?
Here's a story you should read.
"In 2010, Megan Sampson was named an Outstanding First Year Teacher in Wisconsin. A week later, she got a layoff notice from the Milwaukee Public Schools. Why would one of the best new teachers in the state be one of the first let go? Because her collective-bargaining contract requires staffing decisions to be made based on seniority..."
You see, we understand that collective bargaining has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the little guy, or leveling the playing field, or keeping the evil corporate capitalists at bay. No, collective bargaining serves one purpose and one purpose only...protecting the union.
Because of collective bargaining a good teacher lost her job and Wisconsin lost a good teacher. Rest assured, her story is not unique. There's a reason why our public school system has become an enterprise of failure.
Here's a story you should read.
"In 2010, Megan Sampson was named an Outstanding First Year Teacher in Wisconsin. A week later, she got a layoff notice from the Milwaukee Public Schools. Why would one of the best new teachers in the state be one of the first let go? Because her collective-bargaining contract requires staffing decisions to be made based on seniority..."
You see, we understand that collective bargaining has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the little guy, or leveling the playing field, or keeping the evil corporate capitalists at bay. No, collective bargaining serves one purpose and one purpose only...protecting the union.
Because of collective bargaining a good teacher lost her job and Wisconsin lost a good teacher. Rest assured, her story is not unique. There's a reason why our public school system has become an enterprise of failure.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
There is no inflation
A few days ago I read an interesting financial report. For context, it's important that everyone understands that the Fed continues to print money and dump it into the US economy at zero interest rates. This money printing will supposedly end this summer, unless they decide to go another round which isn't completely out of the question. They have kept interest rates at zero in order to stimulate the economy. And they also tell us not to worry because there are no signs of inflation. Repeat...don't worry (says the Fed) there are no signs of inflation.
Now, back to the report. The author did some price comparisons. He recorded the current price for 88 different commodities and compared today's price to one year ago. Of those 88 commodities, 85 of them have increased significantly in price. Only three: natural gas, eggs and chickens - have dropped in price. Food prices are going up. And since every commodity is priced in US dollars, the increase in price suggests either: 1) increased demand, 2) decreased supply or 3) declining value of the dollar. There is no reason or evidence to support #1 or #2, so what does that leave to explain the rising price of food? Remember, the Fed says inflation is not a worry.
Personally, I can verify the cost increase for food. My family has seen our grocery bill jump 25% over the past year. There are no major changes in this household to explain such a jump in cost.
The financial report goes on to discuss the stock market. The market has done well since the housing collapse. Rebounded nicely. But a crunch of the numbers reveals some interesting facts. The sector that has driven the market rebound has been the financial sector...the banks. They are making big profits right now mainly because they are essentially getting free money from the central bank and turning around to lend it at a substantial profit. What's concerning is that when you factor out the financial sector, the remainder of the stock market has actually dropped.
So when it comes to productivity, making things, providing services, and paying for those goods and services, the market is down. The banks are keeping things afloat by moving money from the Fed to the economy. So, is this economic growth real?
But enough of that, let's get back to food prices and inflation. The fact about rising food prices and inflation is that those who get hit hardest are those with the least money. I find it ironic that the Dems love to think of themselves as champions for the poor because of their government programs, yet fail to realize that their economic policies that drive inflation hit the poor the hardest. Either they fail to realize it, or they just don't care. Yet, they are the champions for the poor.
And since it's the poor who get hurt the most by rising food prices, where would we see such an impact first? Yes, we have poverty here but our "poverty" is nothing compared to the poverty of the third world. So it seems that when food prices jump the people of the third world will feel it the hardest. Perhaps it would even cause some unrest. Perhaps maybe a revolution.
We aren't seeing anything like that in the world right now are we?
Remember, the Fed says don't worry about inflation. And if anyone out there is taking them for their word then you have some very hard times coming your way. Protect yourselves. The dollar is on life-support.
Now, back to the report. The author did some price comparisons. He recorded the current price for 88 different commodities and compared today's price to one year ago. Of those 88 commodities, 85 of them have increased significantly in price. Only three: natural gas, eggs and chickens - have dropped in price. Food prices are going up. And since every commodity is priced in US dollars, the increase in price suggests either: 1) increased demand, 2) decreased supply or 3) declining value of the dollar. There is no reason or evidence to support #1 or #2, so what does that leave to explain the rising price of food? Remember, the Fed says inflation is not a worry.
Personally, I can verify the cost increase for food. My family has seen our grocery bill jump 25% over the past year. There are no major changes in this household to explain such a jump in cost.
The financial report goes on to discuss the stock market. The market has done well since the housing collapse. Rebounded nicely. But a crunch of the numbers reveals some interesting facts. The sector that has driven the market rebound has been the financial sector...the banks. They are making big profits right now mainly because they are essentially getting free money from the central bank and turning around to lend it at a substantial profit. What's concerning is that when you factor out the financial sector, the remainder of the stock market has actually dropped.
So when it comes to productivity, making things, providing services, and paying for those goods and services, the market is down. The banks are keeping things afloat by moving money from the Fed to the economy. So, is this economic growth real?
But enough of that, let's get back to food prices and inflation. The fact about rising food prices and inflation is that those who get hit hardest are those with the least money. I find it ironic that the Dems love to think of themselves as champions for the poor because of their government programs, yet fail to realize that their economic policies that drive inflation hit the poor the hardest. Either they fail to realize it, or they just don't care. Yet, they are the champions for the poor.
And since it's the poor who get hurt the most by rising food prices, where would we see such an impact first? Yes, we have poverty here but our "poverty" is nothing compared to the poverty of the third world. So it seems that when food prices jump the people of the third world will feel it the hardest. Perhaps it would even cause some unrest. Perhaps maybe a revolution.
We aren't seeing anything like that in the world right now are we?
Remember, the Fed says don't worry about inflation. And if anyone out there is taking them for their word then you have some very hard times coming your way. Protect yourselves. The dollar is on life-support.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Shut it down!
As the latest budget "deadline" approaches it is becoming more apparent that the Republican "leaders", those professional politicians, have learned little from the last election. John Boehner is proving that he has no courage.
When swept into office, the GOP promised $100 billion in spending cuts. Two months later they have delivered $10 billion. They're latest proposal is to cut an additional $61 billion. Ten plus sixty one does NOT equal 100. And worse, Boehner and his rhino cronies (are you listening Mr. Cantor) are now signaling that they may be willing to compromise on that.
For perspective, in February the federal government overspent their budget by $220 billion. That's one month, $220 billion in the red. So even if the GOP somehow finds the guts to make good on their $100 billion promise they will have managed to balance the federal budget for about 2 weeks. That's it.
The Dems, as usual, have resorted to scare tactics. The latest is to fill people with fear about a government shutdown and clear intent to blame the GOP for it. Boehner and the others are falling for it. In his latest statement he said his intent is "to cut spending, not shut down the government."
Well, Mr Boehner, I have some advice for you. Shut it down! You're operating in a cess pool of corruption and greed, of special interests all with their hands in the people's piggy bank. Shut it down! You run a government that overspends $5-10 billion a DAY, with no plan or intention to balance the budget or pay off the debt. Shut it down! You operate a ponzi scheme for retirees, a substandard healthcare payor system for the elderly, and devote billions of dollars to a failed educational system. Shut it down! You operate a flawed tax system that punishes achievement while subsidizing the laziness and lack of motivation in the unemployed. Shut it down! You send billions of dollars overseas to nations that hate us. Shut it down!
Most of all, you run a government that is bloated, incompetent, inefficient and ineffective at doing any of the things that the Consitution demands of it. It is a government run by people with no comprehension of the everyday life in America, by people with no business sense and no integrity, by people who care only about buying votes through entitlement spending and goverment handouts. And you do all these things while shaking down the American taxpayer and the job creators for every penny we have. If you don't have the marbles to reform this failed system then your only option is to SHUT IT DOWN!
Mr Boehner, the Tea Party may not be storming the capital building of Wisconsin, but I assure you we haven't gone away. We are strong and we are watching closely. We graced you with the office of the speakership. It is an honor for you, and a great responsibility. But we expect results. If those results aren't delivered, then this Congressional term will be your last as you will be sent back to Ohio unemployed.
If they give you no other option...SHUT IT DOWN!
When swept into office, the GOP promised $100 billion in spending cuts. Two months later they have delivered $10 billion. They're latest proposal is to cut an additional $61 billion. Ten plus sixty one does NOT equal 100. And worse, Boehner and his rhino cronies (are you listening Mr. Cantor) are now signaling that they may be willing to compromise on that.
For perspective, in February the federal government overspent their budget by $220 billion. That's one month, $220 billion in the red. So even if the GOP somehow finds the guts to make good on their $100 billion promise they will have managed to balance the federal budget for about 2 weeks. That's it.
The Dems, as usual, have resorted to scare tactics. The latest is to fill people with fear about a government shutdown and clear intent to blame the GOP for it. Boehner and the others are falling for it. In his latest statement he said his intent is "to cut spending, not shut down the government."
Well, Mr Boehner, I have some advice for you. Shut it down! You're operating in a cess pool of corruption and greed, of special interests all with their hands in the people's piggy bank. Shut it down! You run a government that overspends $5-10 billion a DAY, with no plan or intention to balance the budget or pay off the debt. Shut it down! You operate a ponzi scheme for retirees, a substandard healthcare payor system for the elderly, and devote billions of dollars to a failed educational system. Shut it down! You operate a flawed tax system that punishes achievement while subsidizing the laziness and lack of motivation in the unemployed. Shut it down! You send billions of dollars overseas to nations that hate us. Shut it down!
Most of all, you run a government that is bloated, incompetent, inefficient and ineffective at doing any of the things that the Consitution demands of it. It is a government run by people with no comprehension of the everyday life in America, by people with no business sense and no integrity, by people who care only about buying votes through entitlement spending and goverment handouts. And you do all these things while shaking down the American taxpayer and the job creators for every penny we have. If you don't have the marbles to reform this failed system then your only option is to SHUT IT DOWN!
Mr Boehner, the Tea Party may not be storming the capital building of Wisconsin, but I assure you we haven't gone away. We are strong and we are watching closely. We graced you with the office of the speakership. It is an honor for you, and a great responsibility. But we expect results. If those results aren't delivered, then this Congressional term will be your last as you will be sent back to Ohio unemployed.
If they give you no other option...SHUT IT DOWN!
Monday, March 28, 2011
No. 11: Order
Over the next few weeks I will be performing my own little political countdown. It's more for my amusement than anything else, but I also feel that it's a good way to glimpse into the mind of the average Liberal. Such humorous creatures these Liberals, and yet so mysterious. This is my list of the top 20 things Liberals don't believe. We'll say it's in the interest of understanding one another.
"In the beginning the organizer's first job is to create the issues or the problems" - Saul Alinsky
"The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall" - Che Guevara
"Peace is the absence of opposition to socialism" - Karl Marx
Common sense Americans understand that utopia on earth is a fantasy, a myth. This understanding may be based on religious beliefs for some, and for others it is based on, well, common sense. Whatever the basis, those of us anchored in reality understand the reality of the world. Heaven on earth cannot be engineered by man.
The Liberal rejects this. The Liberal believes in a man-made utopia and aggressively pursues it. How is their utopia defined? Well, you can reference many different Liberal thinkers. John Lennon said "Imagine no possessions". Karl Marx described the absence of opposition to socialism. Barack Obama said "spread the wealth". I could cite other examples but the basic formula is there...social justice. That is the root of the Liberal utopia, first crafted by Karl Marx and championed by many who came after him. In a word, utopia is socialism.
But the Liberal understands that socialism is not attractive to the common sense American. We are a nation that is built on the traditions of self-reliance, hard work, and overcoming adversity. We are not a nation of handouts. We are generous to those in need, but we abhore laziness and sloth. And common sense Americans understand that a socialist system breeds laziness, that social justice rewards looters, those who take from the ones who work hard for a living. Because of this, Americans reject Karl Marx and his socialist theory.
This poses a problem for the Liberal, and therefore a strategy has developed. The Liberal knows that in an ordered society, a society in which Americans are content, the common sense folks will always reject socialism. But take away that order, create chaos, and you create an environment that is ripe for breeding collectivism. The Liberal understands that humans will never surrender their basic rights unless life has become miserable. When fear rules the day, liberty is often the first to be sacrificed. Therefore, the Liberal seeks to destroy the ordered society and replace it with fear and chaos, the objective being a slow transition to collectivism and, ultimately, utopia.
It is no coincidence that all well-known Liberal thinkers share the common theme of revolution. Whether it's Joseph Stalin or Vlad Lenin, or Mao Tse Tung, or Fidel Castro, or Alinsky, Louis Farrakhan, Che Guevara, Malcolm X, even the lesser known liberal thinkers like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. They all speak of revolution.
Revolution (defined partly as) - a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.
Revolution is an idea readily embraced by all who hold Liberal ideals.
Saul Alinsky spoke of it in "Rules for Radicals" and his tactics have been adopted by the radicals worldwide. This past weekend in the UK you see this on display. Radicals smashing windows, vandalizing buildings, threatening violence. You saw it in Wisconsin with radicals obstructing the democratic process and threatening the lives of several GOP lawmakers.
George Soros produces revolution by attacking the US currency, taking extreme measures to devalue the dollar and create economic chaos. Just as Lenin said, "the best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency". This is revolution.
Recently, a story broke (ignored by the MSM) about an SEIU big-wig plotting the economic destruction of America. Stephen Lerner was caught on tape encouraging his followers to stop paying their mortgages with the intent to ultimately crash the US stock market.
In Greece, protests erupted the moment the government began cutting public benefits. Those protests transformed into riots; eventually fires and destruction spread throughout Greek cities. Similar protests have been seen in France and Portugal as well as the UK.
The point is this: Create chaos, create suffering, create fear, and the masses will surrender their liberty. This is how revolution is achieved. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
You can see it in the Liberal assault on the family. His hatred of religion. His rejection of motherhood. His economic policies that create fiscal deterioration. His efforts in bypassing the democratic process through the judiciary. His overall lack of morality. His class warfare and use of envy as a weapon, organizing the non-producers to oppose and rebel against those who produce. All of these things lead to social chaos and it is this that feeds the Liberal cause.
Order is a product of a civil society. A civil society will always be one of basic conservative principles and will always reject collectivism. So the Liberal understands that the civil society must be destroyed and this is best done by attacking conservative principles and eliminating order.
Never let a good crisis go to waste. Order must be destroyed for collectivism to emerge.
"In the beginning the organizer's first job is to create the issues or the problems" - Saul Alinsky
"The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall" - Che Guevara
"Peace is the absence of opposition to socialism" - Karl Marx
Common sense Americans understand that utopia on earth is a fantasy, a myth. This understanding may be based on religious beliefs for some, and for others it is based on, well, common sense. Whatever the basis, those of us anchored in reality understand the reality of the world. Heaven on earth cannot be engineered by man.
The Liberal rejects this. The Liberal believes in a man-made utopia and aggressively pursues it. How is their utopia defined? Well, you can reference many different Liberal thinkers. John Lennon said "Imagine no possessions". Karl Marx described the absence of opposition to socialism. Barack Obama said "spread the wealth". I could cite other examples but the basic formula is there...social justice. That is the root of the Liberal utopia, first crafted by Karl Marx and championed by many who came after him. In a word, utopia is socialism.
But the Liberal understands that socialism is not attractive to the common sense American. We are a nation that is built on the traditions of self-reliance, hard work, and overcoming adversity. We are not a nation of handouts. We are generous to those in need, but we abhore laziness and sloth. And common sense Americans understand that a socialist system breeds laziness, that social justice rewards looters, those who take from the ones who work hard for a living. Because of this, Americans reject Karl Marx and his socialist theory.
This poses a problem for the Liberal, and therefore a strategy has developed. The Liberal knows that in an ordered society, a society in which Americans are content, the common sense folks will always reject socialism. But take away that order, create chaos, and you create an environment that is ripe for breeding collectivism. The Liberal understands that humans will never surrender their basic rights unless life has become miserable. When fear rules the day, liberty is often the first to be sacrificed. Therefore, the Liberal seeks to destroy the ordered society and replace it with fear and chaos, the objective being a slow transition to collectivism and, ultimately, utopia.
It is no coincidence that all well-known Liberal thinkers share the common theme of revolution. Whether it's Joseph Stalin or Vlad Lenin, or Mao Tse Tung, or Fidel Castro, or Alinsky, Louis Farrakhan, Che Guevara, Malcolm X, even the lesser known liberal thinkers like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. They all speak of revolution.
Revolution (defined partly as) - a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.
Revolution is an idea readily embraced by all who hold Liberal ideals.
Saul Alinsky spoke of it in "Rules for Radicals" and his tactics have been adopted by the radicals worldwide. This past weekend in the UK you see this on display. Radicals smashing windows, vandalizing buildings, threatening violence. You saw it in Wisconsin with radicals obstructing the democratic process and threatening the lives of several GOP lawmakers.
George Soros produces revolution by attacking the US currency, taking extreme measures to devalue the dollar and create economic chaos. Just as Lenin said, "the best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency". This is revolution.
Recently, a story broke (ignored by the MSM) about an SEIU big-wig plotting the economic destruction of America. Stephen Lerner was caught on tape encouraging his followers to stop paying their mortgages with the intent to ultimately crash the US stock market.
In Greece, protests erupted the moment the government began cutting public benefits. Those protests transformed into riots; eventually fires and destruction spread throughout Greek cities. Similar protests have been seen in France and Portugal as well as the UK.
The point is this: Create chaos, create suffering, create fear, and the masses will surrender their liberty. This is how revolution is achieved. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
You can see it in the Liberal assault on the family. His hatred of religion. His rejection of motherhood. His economic policies that create fiscal deterioration. His efforts in bypassing the democratic process through the judiciary. His overall lack of morality. His class warfare and use of envy as a weapon, organizing the non-producers to oppose and rebel against those who produce. All of these things lead to social chaos and it is this that feeds the Liberal cause.
Order is a product of a civil society. A civil society will always be one of basic conservative principles and will always reject collectivism. So the Liberal understands that the civil society must be destroyed and this is best done by attacking conservative principles and eliminating order.
Never let a good crisis go to waste. Order must be destroyed for collectivism to emerge.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
No. 12: Global Warming
Over the next few weeks I will be performing my own little political countdown. It's more for my amusement than anything else, but I also feel that it's a good way to glimpse into the mind of the average Liberal. Such humorous creatures these Liberals, and yet so mysterious. This is my list of the top 20 things Liberals don't believe. We'll say it's in the interest of understanding one another.
I am not a climatologist. I know nothing about meteorology, geology or astronomy. Ask me when the last ice age occured and I'll have to do an internet search to answer. So I readily admit that I don't have the scientific expertise to debate the global warming theorists from a scientific perspective.
But, I am a common sense American. I tend to see things in simple terms. Keeping it simple adds clarity and understanding and is the easiest way to solve problems. So like other common sense Americans I see the global warming theory and apply what we call the "whiff" test. If it doesn't smell right then it probably came from the malodorous end of a male bovine.
The theorists tell me that the earth is warming because of the horrible things we humans are doing. But I know for a fact that over the past decade global temperatures have actually declined. They don't comment on that fact but instead tell me that just about any natural phenomena can be attributed to our horrible behavior, and they use the occurrence of these events to strengthen their argument.
If a terrible hurrican strikes New Orleans, it's due to global warming.
If there is a brush fire in California, it's due to global warming.
If there is a dust storm in Oklahoma, or a drought in Texas, it's all global warming.
If Buffalo gets buried in snow, or Florida gets drenched in rain, it's global warming.
If it's hot outside it's global warming. But if it's too cold then we must also blame global warming. If there is starvation in the world, horrible tsunamis, catastrophic earthquakes, dead birds, dead fish, a bear attack in Alaska, too few deer, too many frogs...it is ALL due to global warming.
Hmmm. I scratch my head a bit.
What's really interesting about all of this isn't the theory itself. There can be some validity to what these people are saying. No, what bothers me is the solution and those who offer it. Driven mainly by the UN the focus on solving this global crisis seems to be targeted towards the US. Basically, we burn too many fossil fuels and therefore we're the reason why the planet is dying.
"What about China and India," a common sense American might ask.
Well, they are basically ignored. There is no international pressure on those two countries - both of which produce very large amounts of greenhouse gases - to reduce their fossil fuel consumption. Instead, it's all about America. And that's when I start to get skeptical.
"OK, so we need to build more nuclear plants. Switching from coal power to nuclear power will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions," says the common sense American.
No. That's not acceptable. Nuclear is too dangerous, meltdowns and such. Not an option.
"OK, so lets build a bunch of windmills."
No. They kill birds and they are an eyesore. We can't have the beautiful countryside marred by these ugly things.
"So what do you want us to do."
For starters, we need to burn corn alcohol instead of oil. Yes, it is a less efficient fuel. Yes, when you account for the production process AND the lack of efficiency you find that using corn alcohol actually produces a net INCREASE in greenhouse gases. Yes, corn is food and perhaps could be put to better use by feeding those mouths who starve because of global warming. Nevermind all of that. We need to just burn more corn alcohol and less oil.
Hmmm. The common sense American scratches his head some more.
But that's not all. And here we get to the chewy center of what global warming is all about. They tell us that the only way...the ONLY WAY we can save the planet is if America reduces its consumption of resources. We must slow our economy down. We must regress. We must contract. We must get smaller.
Hmmm. The skepticism builds.
But not only that. They also tell us that we should pay those countries who don't produce so much pollution in order to offset the "cost" of the damage we are doing to the planet.
Hmmm. So those who produce must pay those who don't produce to balance the inequality and bring justice to the planet. Does anyone else hear the voice of Karl Marx?
Here's the deal, folks. Global warming is a fantasy. It's a cooked-up theory without any solid scientific evidence. Liberals don't actually believe that we humans are killing the planet by burning coal and oil. If they did, then they would support more nuclear energy. They would support more wind farms. And, most importantly, they would live their lives accordingly. Anyone remember the last time Al Gore did something that would be considered "green"? Do you see any of those green Hollywood celebrities using clothe diapers, or living in solar powered homes, or using geothermal heating/cooling?
No, they don't actually believe this stuff. What they do believe is social justice. They believe in the redistribution of wealth. They believe in "from those who are most able to those who are most in need". And they've taken those beliefs global. So global warming is nothing more than Marxism on an international level. And how do you convince the "rich" nations to redistribute their wealth to the nations "in need"? Well, you cook up a theory about how progress kills the planet and you tell them that their children and grandchildren will suffer immensely if something isn't done right away.
Common sense Americans see this nonsense for what it is. In a word, it stinks. Perhaps we'd be more accepting of the theory if the environmentalists supported nuclear energy. Or if Al Gore rode his bicycle to his $10,000 a plate dinners. Or if we stopped focusing on food for energy and actually used it for food. Or if the UN would chastise China and India like they do America. But that's not how it is.
So, common sense Americans don't buy the kooky theories. Neither do the Liberals for that matter, but the theory serves their political purposes so they trumpet it as if it were gospel.
I am not a climatologist. I know nothing about meteorology, geology or astronomy. Ask me when the last ice age occured and I'll have to do an internet search to answer. So I readily admit that I don't have the scientific expertise to debate the global warming theorists from a scientific perspective.
But, I am a common sense American. I tend to see things in simple terms. Keeping it simple adds clarity and understanding and is the easiest way to solve problems. So like other common sense Americans I see the global warming theory and apply what we call the "whiff" test. If it doesn't smell right then it probably came from the malodorous end of a male bovine.
The theorists tell me that the earth is warming because of the horrible things we humans are doing. But I know for a fact that over the past decade global temperatures have actually declined. They don't comment on that fact but instead tell me that just about any natural phenomena can be attributed to our horrible behavior, and they use the occurrence of these events to strengthen their argument.
If a terrible hurrican strikes New Orleans, it's due to global warming.
If there is a brush fire in California, it's due to global warming.
If there is a dust storm in Oklahoma, or a drought in Texas, it's all global warming.
If Buffalo gets buried in snow, or Florida gets drenched in rain, it's global warming.
If it's hot outside it's global warming. But if it's too cold then we must also blame global warming. If there is starvation in the world, horrible tsunamis, catastrophic earthquakes, dead birds, dead fish, a bear attack in Alaska, too few deer, too many frogs...it is ALL due to global warming.
Hmmm. I scratch my head a bit.
What's really interesting about all of this isn't the theory itself. There can be some validity to what these people are saying. No, what bothers me is the solution and those who offer it. Driven mainly by the UN the focus on solving this global crisis seems to be targeted towards the US. Basically, we burn too many fossil fuels and therefore we're the reason why the planet is dying.
"What about China and India," a common sense American might ask.
Well, they are basically ignored. There is no international pressure on those two countries - both of which produce very large amounts of greenhouse gases - to reduce their fossil fuel consumption. Instead, it's all about America. And that's when I start to get skeptical.
"OK, so we need to build more nuclear plants. Switching from coal power to nuclear power will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions," says the common sense American.
No. That's not acceptable. Nuclear is too dangerous, meltdowns and such. Not an option.
"OK, so lets build a bunch of windmills."
No. They kill birds and they are an eyesore. We can't have the beautiful countryside marred by these ugly things.
"So what do you want us to do."
For starters, we need to burn corn alcohol instead of oil. Yes, it is a less efficient fuel. Yes, when you account for the production process AND the lack of efficiency you find that using corn alcohol actually produces a net INCREASE in greenhouse gases. Yes, corn is food and perhaps could be put to better use by feeding those mouths who starve because of global warming. Nevermind all of that. We need to just burn more corn alcohol and less oil.
Hmmm. The common sense American scratches his head some more.
But that's not all. And here we get to the chewy center of what global warming is all about. They tell us that the only way...the ONLY WAY we can save the planet is if America reduces its consumption of resources. We must slow our economy down. We must regress. We must contract. We must get smaller.
Hmmm. The skepticism builds.
But not only that. They also tell us that we should pay those countries who don't produce so much pollution in order to offset the "cost" of the damage we are doing to the planet.
Hmmm. So those who produce must pay those who don't produce to balance the inequality and bring justice to the planet. Does anyone else hear the voice of Karl Marx?
Here's the deal, folks. Global warming is a fantasy. It's a cooked-up theory without any solid scientific evidence. Liberals don't actually believe that we humans are killing the planet by burning coal and oil. If they did, then they would support more nuclear energy. They would support more wind farms. And, most importantly, they would live their lives accordingly. Anyone remember the last time Al Gore did something that would be considered "green"? Do you see any of those green Hollywood celebrities using clothe diapers, or living in solar powered homes, or using geothermal heating/cooling?
No, they don't actually believe this stuff. What they do believe is social justice. They believe in the redistribution of wealth. They believe in "from those who are most able to those who are most in need". And they've taken those beliefs global. So global warming is nothing more than Marxism on an international level. And how do you convince the "rich" nations to redistribute their wealth to the nations "in need"? Well, you cook up a theory about how progress kills the planet and you tell them that their children and grandchildren will suffer immensely if something isn't done right away.
Common sense Americans see this nonsense for what it is. In a word, it stinks. Perhaps we'd be more accepting of the theory if the environmentalists supported nuclear energy. Or if Al Gore rode his bicycle to his $10,000 a plate dinners. Or if we stopped focusing on food for energy and actually used it for food. Or if the UN would chastise China and India like they do America. But that's not how it is.
So, common sense Americans don't buy the kooky theories. Neither do the Liberals for that matter, but the theory serves their political purposes so they trumpet it as if it were gospel.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Libya
Anytime a President makes a decision to kill terrorists I will support it. In my opinion, killing terrorists should be a foreign policy priority for anyone who occupies the Oval Office. In fact, I would support making it a part of the Oath of Office. Killing terrorists makes the world a better place, a safer place. And it makes our country safer. So when President Obama first decided to commit American military forces to the conflict in Libya I felt the need to support him.
But there are many things about this that bother me.
1) There was no plan. The community organizer seemed to be bullied into this by the French and the British. It is obvious that he didn't want to do it and that shows in the fact that he has no real plan for executing a mission that doesn't seem to be defined. That's not the way to start a military campaign.
2) There is no objective. What the community organizer so obviously doesn't understand is that whenever the military is sent into battle they MUST be given a clear, definitive objective. A task must be carried out. You have the tools, the training, the leadership, now go do it. But in this case there is no objective. We don't know why we're there and what we're supposed to be doing.
3) References to "humanitarian". I've said this many times, American forces ARE NOT humanitarian forces. They are trained to kill and destroy. When you blur those skills with "humanitarian"-type stuff that's when problems arise. The United States has no business sending our forces into humanitarian problems. When you do that you risk losing A LOT of support on the homefront.
4) No congressional involvement. Anytime a military action is carried out then it's imperative that Congress is in the loop. They represent the people. They appropriate the funds. They must know what's going on. The community organizer failed at this.
5) No target on Qaddafi. If Obama had come out and said that Qaddafi is the target then I would be on board. In short, we owe him one. He is responsible for Lockerbie and there are many Americans who still mourn their dead loved ones who were murdered at the hands of this monster. He should've been eliminated a long time ago. But Obama has made it clear that eliminating Qaddafi is not the objective.
6) No leadership. I've never seen a US President so hesitant to be a world leader. He is passing that role to others like a hot potato and I'm not sure what to think about it. But it just doesn't seem right.
7) Who are we helping? There are some indications that the rebels engaged in combat with Qaddafi may be sympathetic to al qaeda, and in fact may be supported by al qaeda. That's a key piece of intelligence don't you think? Seems to me that if we're going to fight a "humanitarian" mission to protect people in the Middle East we should at least ensure that those we protect are supportive of democratic ideals and NOT friends of the extremists who seek to destroy us.
So, American forces are in harms way and I support their efforts. I hope this ends well and everyone returns home safely. Meanwhile, my lack of confidence in Obama's command ability has been validated.
Most US presidents would commit to battle with a plan, an objective, the support of congress, a clear definition of the enemy and the resolve to lead a coalition of democracies. Obama failed in all of these. At the very least he should have gone on television and talked to the American people. He should've told us what we're doing, why it must be done, who we're helping and why they must be helped. He should've made his case. But he didn't
The community organizer has proven himself unfit to command. As each day goes by it becomes more clear that this gamble by the American voter has been a colossal failure, the worst this side of Jimmy Carter.
It's bad enough that he's running our economy into the ground and has all but ruined the world's best health care system. Now, he's putting American pilots in harm's way for no clear reason.
November 2012 can't come soon enough.
But there are many things about this that bother me.
1) There was no plan. The community organizer seemed to be bullied into this by the French and the British. It is obvious that he didn't want to do it and that shows in the fact that he has no real plan for executing a mission that doesn't seem to be defined. That's not the way to start a military campaign.
2) There is no objective. What the community organizer so obviously doesn't understand is that whenever the military is sent into battle they MUST be given a clear, definitive objective. A task must be carried out. You have the tools, the training, the leadership, now go do it. But in this case there is no objective. We don't know why we're there and what we're supposed to be doing.
3) References to "humanitarian". I've said this many times, American forces ARE NOT humanitarian forces. They are trained to kill and destroy. When you blur those skills with "humanitarian"-type stuff that's when problems arise. The United States has no business sending our forces into humanitarian problems. When you do that you risk losing A LOT of support on the homefront.
4) No congressional involvement. Anytime a military action is carried out then it's imperative that Congress is in the loop. They represent the people. They appropriate the funds. They must know what's going on. The community organizer failed at this.
5) No target on Qaddafi. If Obama had come out and said that Qaddafi is the target then I would be on board. In short, we owe him one. He is responsible for Lockerbie and there are many Americans who still mourn their dead loved ones who were murdered at the hands of this monster. He should've been eliminated a long time ago. But Obama has made it clear that eliminating Qaddafi is not the objective.
6) No leadership. I've never seen a US President so hesitant to be a world leader. He is passing that role to others like a hot potato and I'm not sure what to think about it. But it just doesn't seem right.
7) Who are we helping? There are some indications that the rebels engaged in combat with Qaddafi may be sympathetic to al qaeda, and in fact may be supported by al qaeda. That's a key piece of intelligence don't you think? Seems to me that if we're going to fight a "humanitarian" mission to protect people in the Middle East we should at least ensure that those we protect are supportive of democratic ideals and NOT friends of the extremists who seek to destroy us.
So, American forces are in harms way and I support their efforts. I hope this ends well and everyone returns home safely. Meanwhile, my lack of confidence in Obama's command ability has been validated.
Most US presidents would commit to battle with a plan, an objective, the support of congress, a clear definition of the enemy and the resolve to lead a coalition of democracies. Obama failed in all of these. At the very least he should have gone on television and talked to the American people. He should've told us what we're doing, why it must be done, who we're helping and why they must be helped. He should've made his case. But he didn't
The community organizer has proven himself unfit to command. As each day goes by it becomes more clear that this gamble by the American voter has been a colossal failure, the worst this side of Jimmy Carter.
It's bad enough that he's running our economy into the ground and has all but ruined the world's best health care system. Now, he's putting American pilots in harm's way for no clear reason.
November 2012 can't come soon enough.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Tax day approaches
Tax day is just around the corner so I figured it's time for my obligatory post about it. For half of all Americans, this is a day when our private property is seized by a bloated, incompetent, ineffective, inefficient federal government whose main purpose nowadays seems to be focused on taking that property and distributing it to the other 50% of the population as a legal means of bribery. All of this, of course, is done because that half of the population has the ability to vote. This is how the game is played. Getting elected and re-elected is what it's all about for our politicians and they all know that taking from an ever-shrinking portion of the population and giving to an ever-growing population is the perfect recipe for retaining power in Washington.
Therefore, my Constitutional right to private property is trampled about this time every year in order to fulfill some other person's non-Constitutional "right" to medical care, or retirement income, or child care, or food stamps, or education, or employment, or housing, etc. I just completed my tax returns for the year and I must say when I see how much of my labor and productivity goes to fund this nonsense it makes me physically ill.
So, the obvious question comes to mind: What do I get out of this? What am I buying for the money that I send to Washington? Whatever it is, it is way overpriced and I'm certain I could purchase it elsewhere without forking over a third of my total income. I mean, I understand that freedom isn't free and that it's important to fund our military. The defense budget represents about 18% of all federal expenditures and I'm more than happy to pay my share to fund it. Also, I'm fine with forking over a much smaller portion to fund our court system, justice department, homeland security, and to maintain our currency. But add it up and you're still well short of half the federal budget. The rest? Well, it mainly goes to subsidies, handouts as they are more commonly called. And that's when I wonder just what it is that I get in return? I think the answer is obvious. I get squat.
That brings me to the next question. Since I don't actually get any good or service for approximately half the money that I send to Washington; and since there are many US citizens who DO get something for my money; then what is it those people owe me in return?
Follow me, here. Our founding document, The Declaration of Independence, states clearly that all men are created equal. Therefore, I am equal in the eyes of the government to my neighbor who pays no taxes and yet draws money from the government in the form of some sort of handout. I have done nothing in the course of my lifetime to incur a debt to my neighbor, so legally I owe him nothing. Yet, I am legally forced to surrender a portion of my earnings to him nonetheless. Again, we are equal and I owe him nothing, but still my money is taken (without my consent) and given to him. Doesn't he then owe me something in return?
If you say no, then you are saying that I am somehow indebted to that person - which I am not - OR that his rights as a citizen supersede my rights, thus we are not "created equal". Either answer will make you look like a fool or worse.
So back to my original question: What do these people owe me? I admit it would be nice for someone who is latched on to the government teet to come over and help me clean my house, or cut my grass, or fold my laundry, or repaint my bathroom. At least then the government could justify the robbery that they commit every April, perhaps even to the point that it wouldn't be considered robbery at all but a very expensive lawn and laundry service. But we all know that won't happen.
So I guess I'll just have to settle for a simple thank you. Thank you for working hard, Mr. Taxpayer, so I don't have to, so I can have a free education, or drop my kid off at daycare every day, or have my prescription Viagra filled every month. Thank you, Mr. Taxpayer, for making sure that I can have this cushy government job with 30 hour work weeks, one month of paid vacation a year and gold-plated health plans. Thank you, Mr. Taxpayer, for making sure NPR stays on the air, broadcasting progressive propaganda that you don't even agree with. Thank you, Mr. Taxpayer, for funding our crappy schools so I can pull down my six figure salary and complain about not having enough money to "teach the children". Thank you, Mr Taxpayer, for the cowboy poetry, the turtle crossings, the oyster bed studies, the $200 screwdrivers, the reproductive counseling, the blasphemic art, the swine flatus investigations, the multi-million dollar airports that no one uses, the bridges to nowhere, the private congressional jets. Thank you for it all, Mr. Taxpayer. Without you none of it would be possible.
Something like that.
Well, I'm waiting...
Therefore, my Constitutional right to private property is trampled about this time every year in order to fulfill some other person's non-Constitutional "right" to medical care, or retirement income, or child care, or food stamps, or education, or employment, or housing, etc. I just completed my tax returns for the year and I must say when I see how much of my labor and productivity goes to fund this nonsense it makes me physically ill.
So, the obvious question comes to mind: What do I get out of this? What am I buying for the money that I send to Washington? Whatever it is, it is way overpriced and I'm certain I could purchase it elsewhere without forking over a third of my total income. I mean, I understand that freedom isn't free and that it's important to fund our military. The defense budget represents about 18% of all federal expenditures and I'm more than happy to pay my share to fund it. Also, I'm fine with forking over a much smaller portion to fund our court system, justice department, homeland security, and to maintain our currency. But add it up and you're still well short of half the federal budget. The rest? Well, it mainly goes to subsidies, handouts as they are more commonly called. And that's when I wonder just what it is that I get in return? I think the answer is obvious. I get squat.
That brings me to the next question. Since I don't actually get any good or service for approximately half the money that I send to Washington; and since there are many US citizens who DO get something for my money; then what is it those people owe me in return?
Follow me, here. Our founding document, The Declaration of Independence, states clearly that all men are created equal. Therefore, I am equal in the eyes of the government to my neighbor who pays no taxes and yet draws money from the government in the form of some sort of handout. I have done nothing in the course of my lifetime to incur a debt to my neighbor, so legally I owe him nothing. Yet, I am legally forced to surrender a portion of my earnings to him nonetheless. Again, we are equal and I owe him nothing, but still my money is taken (without my consent) and given to him. Doesn't he then owe me something in return?
If you say no, then you are saying that I am somehow indebted to that person - which I am not - OR that his rights as a citizen supersede my rights, thus we are not "created equal". Either answer will make you look like a fool or worse.
So back to my original question: What do these people owe me? I admit it would be nice for someone who is latched on to the government teet to come over and help me clean my house, or cut my grass, or fold my laundry, or repaint my bathroom. At least then the government could justify the robbery that they commit every April, perhaps even to the point that it wouldn't be considered robbery at all but a very expensive lawn and laundry service. But we all know that won't happen.
So I guess I'll just have to settle for a simple thank you. Thank you for working hard, Mr. Taxpayer, so I don't have to, so I can have a free education, or drop my kid off at daycare every day, or have my prescription Viagra filled every month. Thank you, Mr. Taxpayer, for making sure that I can have this cushy government job with 30 hour work weeks, one month of paid vacation a year and gold-plated health plans. Thank you, Mr. Taxpayer, for making sure NPR stays on the air, broadcasting progressive propaganda that you don't even agree with. Thank you, Mr. Taxpayer, for funding our crappy schools so I can pull down my six figure salary and complain about not having enough money to "teach the children". Thank you, Mr Taxpayer, for the cowboy poetry, the turtle crossings, the oyster bed studies, the $200 screwdrivers, the reproductive counseling, the blasphemic art, the swine flatus investigations, the multi-million dollar airports that no one uses, the bridges to nowhere, the private congressional jets. Thank you for it all, Mr. Taxpayer. Without you none of it would be possible.
Something like that.
Well, I'm waiting...
Friday, March 18, 2011
Unions and the Courts
Well, we only thought it was over. Last week, Wisconin Governor Scott Walker and his legislative allies were unsuccesful in their attempts to get the Democrat senators back into session, so they split the controversial bill into two parts and passed the non-budgetary portion without the presence of the Democrats. This portion was the part of the bill that limited the bullying (ie, collective bargaining) tactics of the unions.
Apparently, there was some procedural issue with the vote that allowed the Dems to challenge the law in court, and so they have. The result: an injunction against the law that was recently issued. And now, some thoughts from WEP:
First, I just wanted to point out that the protests at the Wisconsin capitol have been ongoing. For three...four...five weeks and counting the public union workers have been demonstrating against the state government. The interesting thing is that the Wisconsin government hasn't really noticed. These people have been out of work for quite some time and the state of Wisconsin hasn't missed a beat. So why do these people still have a job? Obviously, the service they provide isn't THAT crucial since they can skip work for weeks and hardly anyone notices. No drop off in production. No services disrupted. No portion of the government is shut down. Seems like a perfect opportunity to trim the state payroll a bit.
When the bill was split and passed, the union protestors went berserk. They decried the action as "undemocratic", "unAmerica", "unfair". They used terms like "assault on democracy", etc, etc. Pretty much any hyperbolic description that could portray the GOP legislators and governor as anti-public fascists was tossed around. But when the Democrat senators fled the state during the debate of the issue no one had a problem with it. And in the course of the union protests, there were numerous arrests of unruly demonstrators. Many people attempted to block the entrance of the capitol to prevent the legislators from entering. There were death threats made against some of the legislators. Apparently, this behavior exemplifies the unions' idea of democracy. Thuggery and bully tactics. Death threats. Using force to prevent elected representatives from voting on behalf of the people. Fleeing when the time comes to vote. This is democracy in the eyes of our union workers.
And in a separate display of their view of democracy, the Wisconsin Bolsheviks have decided to pursue recall votes for the governor and multiple legislators. Again, they are fine with elected representatives going AWOL, abandoning their post during the legislative session. That's okay. But pass a law they don't agree with, and they mobilize to subvert the will of the people.
That's democracy in the eyes of union.
When President Obama and the DC Dems decided to pass a bill that deconstructs our entire health care system, all without ANY GOP input, without a single GOP vote, without abiding by the rules of the senate, and with a procedural gimmick that bypassed built-in senate rules meant to prevent one party from imposing its will against the will of people...when all of this was done there was not a whimper from these public sector unions. No court challenges. No protests. No talk of "recall" or any opposing action. For the unions, it's all about their political interest.
And where is the mainstream media? You know, the ones who refer to the tea party as "teabaggers", accuse them of racism, of trying to interfere with the democratic process? Did any of these people have a problem with the union thugs blockading the Wisconsin capitol, threatening harm on state legislators?
Nope.
Bottom line, the public sector unions are bad for America. There is nothing American about them. They are a microcosm of the communist party and they do nothing beneficial for our economic system and our way of governance. The sooner they are pushed from power the better.
If I were Scott Walker, in light of the recent injunction, I would immediately pink slip however many government workers were necessary to help balance the budget. Let the court system run its course. Whatever. Meanwhile, there are budget issues that need to be addressed and we don't have time to wait. And if the union refuses to confront them then other measures are necessary.
But it looks like this issue will have to be settled in the courts. So much for the will of the people.
Apparently, there was some procedural issue with the vote that allowed the Dems to challenge the law in court, and so they have. The result: an injunction against the law that was recently issued. And now, some thoughts from WEP:
First, I just wanted to point out that the protests at the Wisconsin capitol have been ongoing. For three...four...five weeks and counting the public union workers have been demonstrating against the state government. The interesting thing is that the Wisconsin government hasn't really noticed. These people have been out of work for quite some time and the state of Wisconsin hasn't missed a beat. So why do these people still have a job? Obviously, the service they provide isn't THAT crucial since they can skip work for weeks and hardly anyone notices. No drop off in production. No services disrupted. No portion of the government is shut down. Seems like a perfect opportunity to trim the state payroll a bit.
When the bill was split and passed, the union protestors went berserk. They decried the action as "undemocratic", "unAmerica", "unfair". They used terms like "assault on democracy", etc, etc. Pretty much any hyperbolic description that could portray the GOP legislators and governor as anti-public fascists was tossed around. But when the Democrat senators fled the state during the debate of the issue no one had a problem with it. And in the course of the union protests, there were numerous arrests of unruly demonstrators. Many people attempted to block the entrance of the capitol to prevent the legislators from entering. There were death threats made against some of the legislators. Apparently, this behavior exemplifies the unions' idea of democracy. Thuggery and bully tactics. Death threats. Using force to prevent elected representatives from voting on behalf of the people. Fleeing when the time comes to vote. This is democracy in the eyes of our union workers.
And in a separate display of their view of democracy, the Wisconsin Bolsheviks have decided to pursue recall votes for the governor and multiple legislators. Again, they are fine with elected representatives going AWOL, abandoning their post during the legislative session. That's okay. But pass a law they don't agree with, and they mobilize to subvert the will of the people.
That's democracy in the eyes of union.
When President Obama and the DC Dems decided to pass a bill that deconstructs our entire health care system, all without ANY GOP input, without a single GOP vote, without abiding by the rules of the senate, and with a procedural gimmick that bypassed built-in senate rules meant to prevent one party from imposing its will against the will of people...when all of this was done there was not a whimper from these public sector unions. No court challenges. No protests. No talk of "recall" or any opposing action. For the unions, it's all about their political interest.
And where is the mainstream media? You know, the ones who refer to the tea party as "teabaggers", accuse them of racism, of trying to interfere with the democratic process? Did any of these people have a problem with the union thugs blockading the Wisconsin capitol, threatening harm on state legislators?
Nope.
Bottom line, the public sector unions are bad for America. There is nothing American about them. They are a microcosm of the communist party and they do nothing beneficial for our economic system and our way of governance. The sooner they are pushed from power the better.
If I were Scott Walker, in light of the recent injunction, I would immediately pink slip however many government workers were necessary to help balance the budget. Let the court system run its course. Whatever. Meanwhile, there are budget issues that need to be addressed and we don't have time to wait. And if the union refuses to confront them then other measures are necessary.
But it looks like this issue will have to be settled in the courts. So much for the will of the people.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
A bad sign for our economic future
Since late 2008 I've been expressing my concern over the rising debt crisis that this country faces. These concerns began with the Bush administration and the TARP bailouts and continued with Obama's economic stimulus package, GM/Chrysler bailouts and Obamacare. Our debt has skyrocketed and the deficit spending seems to be never ending.
My hope was that the new GOP House would begin the process of stopping the bleeding. That they would first find a way to stop the deficit spending and then formulate a sound plan on how to begin repaying our debt. Something like this would signal to the rest of the world that the dollar remains a sound investment and that their money would be safe with us. That was my hope.
Well, last week, that hope took a hard body blow. The GOP house proposed a budget that included $60 billion in budget cuts. Sounds like a lot of money, but lets add some perspective. The Federal Government overspent a deficit level of $226 billion in FEBRUARY ALONE...just last month. That's one month, $226 billion in deficit spending. And the new GOP house proposes a mere $60 billion in ANNUAL budget cuts. Obviously, this is unacceptable.
Even worse, that proposal was quickly shot down by the Democrat-led senate because it was considered too severe and too drastic in budget cutting.
So, it is now clear that despite the election results we continue to send people to Washington who lack the courage to do what must be done to protect our credit and save the dollar (and given the response in Wisconsin when the Governor attempts some modest proposal to reduce spending you can hardly blame them). There are exceptions - Paul Ryan and Michelle Bachmann to name a few - but for the most part the politicians continue to behave like politicians and have essentially sent the world a message that in America it's business as usual. Our borrow/spend mentality continues, and we will do nothing to modify this behavior no matter how dire the economic forecasts become.
Unfortunately, those forecasts are soon to become very dire indeed. I believe the course has been set and our economy is headed for some very difficult times. I believe we are in for an inflationary period like never period. I believe the dollar is on danger of a massive collapse, followed by the stock market. The effects will be severe and they will be global. I don't know when this will happen but given the cowardice we see in Washington I don't see how it couldn't happen.
Hopefully I am wrong.
My hope was that the new GOP House would begin the process of stopping the bleeding. That they would first find a way to stop the deficit spending and then formulate a sound plan on how to begin repaying our debt. Something like this would signal to the rest of the world that the dollar remains a sound investment and that their money would be safe with us. That was my hope.
Well, last week, that hope took a hard body blow. The GOP house proposed a budget that included $60 billion in budget cuts. Sounds like a lot of money, but lets add some perspective. The Federal Government overspent a deficit level of $226 billion in FEBRUARY ALONE...just last month. That's one month, $226 billion in deficit spending. And the new GOP house proposes a mere $60 billion in ANNUAL budget cuts. Obviously, this is unacceptable.
Even worse, that proposal was quickly shot down by the Democrat-led senate because it was considered too severe and too drastic in budget cutting.
So, it is now clear that despite the election results we continue to send people to Washington who lack the courage to do what must be done to protect our credit and save the dollar (and given the response in Wisconsin when the Governor attempts some modest proposal to reduce spending you can hardly blame them). There are exceptions - Paul Ryan and Michelle Bachmann to name a few - but for the most part the politicians continue to behave like politicians and have essentially sent the world a message that in America it's business as usual. Our borrow/spend mentality continues, and we will do nothing to modify this behavior no matter how dire the economic forecasts become.
Unfortunately, those forecasts are soon to become very dire indeed. I believe the course has been set and our economy is headed for some very difficult times. I believe we are in for an inflationary period like never period. I believe the dollar is on danger of a massive collapse, followed by the stock market. The effects will be severe and they will be global. I don't know when this will happen but given the cowardice we see in Washington I don't see how it couldn't happen.
Hopefully I am wrong.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
I support Representative King
I support what Representative Peter King is doing. Why? Because I think investigating the threat of Jihad within the American Muslim community is a worthy investigation. I don't know if Jihad is a problem among American Muslims, but I would like to know, and wanting to know that doesn't make me a racist or an "Islamophobe".
I think asking if mainstream mosques support Jihad and support Sharia law is a question worth asking. Because I think the answers to these questions will benefit us all. If Mr. King discovers that Jihad is indeed a major focus in the mainstream American Muslim community then we have done much for our national defense. If he discovers the opposite, then we have done much to heal our divisions and diminish the suspicion - warranted or not - that many Americans carry toward Muslims. So I think he is doing the right thing.
But some people feel otherwise, and the old tactics of the Left once again emerge. King is being attacked and demonized for this. He has been likened to McCarthy, called racist, Islamophobe and of course compared to Hitler (isn't that their favorite comparison?). If you listen to the Left, you would think King is preparing to gather all Muslims into detention facilities like FDR did with the Japanese. The sensationalism has really gotten out of hand.
Have you ever noticed that this is the same basic tactic the Left always uses? No matter the issue, large or small; state, local or federal; the Left always seems to be a one trick pony. They divide us into groups, pigeon hole us according to what serves their purpose best, and then pit us against one another based on those divisions, feeding off the chaos that ensues and advancing their own political causes as a result.
If it's not rich vs. poor; working class vs. wealthy class; Muslim vs. Christian; it's Gay vs. Straight, White vs. Black, Old vs. Young, Insured vs. Uninsured. This is all they have. They can't argue their issue based on the merits of their position because usually their position has no merits. It's hard to argue that public unions deserve the right to contribute millions to elect politicians that will turn around and vote to give the unions more millions in taxpayer dollars. You can't argue for that, so they make it a rich vs. poor thing, a wealthy vs. "the working man" issue because that's all they CAN do. You can't argue the rationality in asking the questions that Mr. King is asking, so they make it a racial matter, an "anti-Muslim" matter, a Muslim vs. non Muslim matter. Their hope is to shame the rational thinkers and common sense Americans into seeing things their way. It's the only trick in their bag of tricks and unfortunately sometimes it works. Sometimes we are guilted into losing our common sense and rational thinking. Guilted and shamed into basically thinking like a Liberal. Hopefully, those days are soon over. More and more of our political leaders are beginning to display courage against these attacks and refuse to be shamed by the nonsensical.
No, King feels these questions are important to answer and so he is determined to answer them. I think we all - Muslim or non Muslim - will benefit from it.
I think asking if mainstream mosques support Jihad and support Sharia law is a question worth asking. Because I think the answers to these questions will benefit us all. If Mr. King discovers that Jihad is indeed a major focus in the mainstream American Muslim community then we have done much for our national defense. If he discovers the opposite, then we have done much to heal our divisions and diminish the suspicion - warranted or not - that many Americans carry toward Muslims. So I think he is doing the right thing.
But some people feel otherwise, and the old tactics of the Left once again emerge. King is being attacked and demonized for this. He has been likened to McCarthy, called racist, Islamophobe and of course compared to Hitler (isn't that their favorite comparison?). If you listen to the Left, you would think King is preparing to gather all Muslims into detention facilities like FDR did with the Japanese. The sensationalism has really gotten out of hand.
Have you ever noticed that this is the same basic tactic the Left always uses? No matter the issue, large or small; state, local or federal; the Left always seems to be a one trick pony. They divide us into groups, pigeon hole us according to what serves their purpose best, and then pit us against one another based on those divisions, feeding off the chaos that ensues and advancing their own political causes as a result.
If it's not rich vs. poor; working class vs. wealthy class; Muslim vs. Christian; it's Gay vs. Straight, White vs. Black, Old vs. Young, Insured vs. Uninsured. This is all they have. They can't argue their issue based on the merits of their position because usually their position has no merits. It's hard to argue that public unions deserve the right to contribute millions to elect politicians that will turn around and vote to give the unions more millions in taxpayer dollars. You can't argue for that, so they make it a rich vs. poor thing, a wealthy vs. "the working man" issue because that's all they CAN do. You can't argue the rationality in asking the questions that Mr. King is asking, so they make it a racial matter, an "anti-Muslim" matter, a Muslim vs. non Muslim matter. Their hope is to shame the rational thinkers and common sense Americans into seeing things their way. It's the only trick in their bag of tricks and unfortunately sometimes it works. Sometimes we are guilted into losing our common sense and rational thinking. Guilted and shamed into basically thinking like a Liberal. Hopefully, those days are soon over. More and more of our political leaders are beginning to display courage against these attacks and refuse to be shamed by the nonsensical.
No, King feels these questions are important to answer and so he is determined to answer them. I think we all - Muslim or non Muslim - will benefit from it.
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Why is "union-buster" a bad word?
I've heard it many times. Union leaders, political opponents, journalists all attempting to label Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker a "union buster". President Obama himself called the law in question an "attack on unions". And Walker always acts to deflect these charges as if union-busting is a bad thing, a political taboo.
Why?
First, let me differentiate my opinions about private sector unions and public sector unions. To be clear, I don't agree with unionized labor at all. At best it is inefficient and incompetent - my own experience with union made goods will testify to that. At worst it is thuggery in the workplace. I don't think unionized labor has a place in a free market society because it's bad for competition. But if the private sector workers want to unionize then so be it. They have that right. Eventually, this is a self-defeating strategy. If a group of workers repeatedly pursue demands that raise the price of goods and services then the employer is ultimately robbed of their ability to compete effectively in the open market. Sooner or later the company dies (see GM and Chrysler) and everyone loses. At least, that's how it's supposed to work, until a deranged group of lawmakers use public money to bail out such companies, then EVERYONE truly loses, even those of us who have nothing to do with that company.
But public sector unions are different. The public workers are paid by the government, and thus the taxpayers. So when they unionize and flex their muscle to demand more pay, more benefits, more time off, etc, then it's the taxpayer that they are sticking it to. There is no market to balance things out, no competition to drive us out of business, so we have to pay more to the union thugs and we have no say in the matter. There is no end to their demands because the public checking account by way of borrowing is neverending, so they can drive up the cost of labor as high as they want without repurcussion. This is - in a word - WRONG! The idea of public workers unionizing to stick it to the taxpayers is such a repulsive thing that even FDR opposed public unions. FDR of all people.
Governor Walker is asking for several things in his bill. One is that public workers pay into their own retirement and health care funds. This goes into the "DUH" category. Anyone who opposes this is either a fool or a unionized public worker, or both.
He also wants taxpayers to have the power to vote - by referendum - on any public sector pay raise that exceeds the rate of inflation, thus shifting the negotiating power from the unions to those who actually foot the bill. Can you imagine a scenario where the public gets to decide on pay raises, and those decisions are based on the QUALITY of work that the public workers do? Can you imagine a system where public workers are actually held accountable for what they do? The unions hate that.
Another of Walker's proposals is to allow workers to choose whether or not they join the union. As it is now, public workers don't have a choice. Their dues are automatically deducted from their pay and given to the unions. The result is that public unions have become very wealthy and very powerful politically. In the 2008 election, no other single group donated more money to political campaigns than the public sector unions. All funded by our tax dollars.
So Walker would give workers the ability to choose to join in order to offset the added costs of contributing to pensions and health care funds. Naturally, this would weaken the unions because many people would opt out. That's bad for political clout and one of the reasons for such vocal opposition.
Finally, Walker would eliminate collective bargaining for public sector unions. Most union members will say this is what they oppose about the law. I say they are lying, or at least not being completely honest. They want to maintain leverage at the negotiating table, and I ask..."leverage against whom?" Do they have the right to drive up taxpayer costs by making their labor more expensive, and to do so without any voter say in the matter? Absolutely not. So this collective bargaining stuff is a bunch of garbage. You want collective bargaining, then get a private sector job and stick it to some schmuck corporate executive. What you call collective bargaining, I call extortion.
After all, why are unions necessary? Ask a unionized worker this and they'll say they must be united to protect themselves against the establishment, against corporate greed, against bosses and executives who wish to exploit their labor for capital gain. Fair enough. But, then, why must public workers be unionized? Aren't we the boss? And therefore are we, the taxpayers, the ones they seek to protect themselves against? Whatever happened to the idea that "we the people" make the rules around here and all must abide by them?
Isn't the Left that says education is a RIGHT? If it's a right then why are teachers allowed to impose their own costs on providing that right without repurcussion?
Isn't it the Left that says government can be trusted more so than the private sector? If this is true, then why are public unions even necessary? Why indeed. Obviously, Scott Walker has asked this question himself and come to the same conclusion, that public unions aren't necessary, that they serve a purpose meant to stiff the taxpayers and drive up costs for public services that WE THE PEOPLE will have to fund with no choice in the matter and no bargaining power whatsoever. That's not right and so he seeks to stop it. Union busting? I hope so. And I wish Walker would just come out and say it.
Why?
First, let me differentiate my opinions about private sector unions and public sector unions. To be clear, I don't agree with unionized labor at all. At best it is inefficient and incompetent - my own experience with union made goods will testify to that. At worst it is thuggery in the workplace. I don't think unionized labor has a place in a free market society because it's bad for competition. But if the private sector workers want to unionize then so be it. They have that right. Eventually, this is a self-defeating strategy. If a group of workers repeatedly pursue demands that raise the price of goods and services then the employer is ultimately robbed of their ability to compete effectively in the open market. Sooner or later the company dies (see GM and Chrysler) and everyone loses. At least, that's how it's supposed to work, until a deranged group of lawmakers use public money to bail out such companies, then EVERYONE truly loses, even those of us who have nothing to do with that company.
But public sector unions are different. The public workers are paid by the government, and thus the taxpayers. So when they unionize and flex their muscle to demand more pay, more benefits, more time off, etc, then it's the taxpayer that they are sticking it to. There is no market to balance things out, no competition to drive us out of business, so we have to pay more to the union thugs and we have no say in the matter. There is no end to their demands because the public checking account by way of borrowing is neverending, so they can drive up the cost of labor as high as they want without repurcussion. This is - in a word - WRONG! The idea of public workers unionizing to stick it to the taxpayers is such a repulsive thing that even FDR opposed public unions. FDR of all people.
Governor Walker is asking for several things in his bill. One is that public workers pay into their own retirement and health care funds. This goes into the "DUH" category. Anyone who opposes this is either a fool or a unionized public worker, or both.
He also wants taxpayers to have the power to vote - by referendum - on any public sector pay raise that exceeds the rate of inflation, thus shifting the negotiating power from the unions to those who actually foot the bill. Can you imagine a scenario where the public gets to decide on pay raises, and those decisions are based on the QUALITY of work that the public workers do? Can you imagine a system where public workers are actually held accountable for what they do? The unions hate that.
Another of Walker's proposals is to allow workers to choose whether or not they join the union. As it is now, public workers don't have a choice. Their dues are automatically deducted from their pay and given to the unions. The result is that public unions have become very wealthy and very powerful politically. In the 2008 election, no other single group donated more money to political campaigns than the public sector unions. All funded by our tax dollars.
So Walker would give workers the ability to choose to join in order to offset the added costs of contributing to pensions and health care funds. Naturally, this would weaken the unions because many people would opt out. That's bad for political clout and one of the reasons for such vocal opposition.
Finally, Walker would eliminate collective bargaining for public sector unions. Most union members will say this is what they oppose about the law. I say they are lying, or at least not being completely honest. They want to maintain leverage at the negotiating table, and I ask..."leverage against whom?" Do they have the right to drive up taxpayer costs by making their labor more expensive, and to do so without any voter say in the matter? Absolutely not. So this collective bargaining stuff is a bunch of garbage. You want collective bargaining, then get a private sector job and stick it to some schmuck corporate executive. What you call collective bargaining, I call extortion.
After all, why are unions necessary? Ask a unionized worker this and they'll say they must be united to protect themselves against the establishment, against corporate greed, against bosses and executives who wish to exploit their labor for capital gain. Fair enough. But, then, why must public workers be unionized? Aren't we the boss? And therefore are we, the taxpayers, the ones they seek to protect themselves against? Whatever happened to the idea that "we the people" make the rules around here and all must abide by them?
Isn't the Left that says education is a RIGHT? If it's a right then why are teachers allowed to impose their own costs on providing that right without repurcussion?
Isn't it the Left that says government can be trusted more so than the private sector? If this is true, then why are public unions even necessary? Why indeed. Obviously, Scott Walker has asked this question himself and come to the same conclusion, that public unions aren't necessary, that they serve a purpose meant to stiff the taxpayers and drive up costs for public services that WE THE PEOPLE will have to fund with no choice in the matter and no bargaining power whatsoever. That's not right and so he seeks to stop it. Union busting? I hope so. And I wish Walker would just come out and say it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)