WhenEvilProspers

The Debt Deal

2011-08-01T20:42:00.000-05:00

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.

What must be done to solve the debt problem

2011-07-04T17:41:00.000-05:00

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.

We need courage in the debt and deficit discussion

2011-07-04T17:17:00.000-05:00

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.

Texas rebels against govt mandated sexual assault...the justice dept reacts with an abuse of power

2011-05-26T22:54:00.000-05:00

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.

This is not a federal disaster...because it's Texas.

2011-05-10T20:06:00.001-05:00

The Texas Forest Service has helped respond to nearly 10,000 separate wildfires since November 2010. During that time, 2.3 million acres of Texas land has been burned by fire, that's more land than nearly two Rhode Islands. Hundreds of homes have been lost, and the fires have crept dangerously close to Dallas-Fort Worth suburbs. Governor Perry asked for parts of Texas to be declared federal disaster areas. President Obama has denied that request.

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.

Obama's victory parade

2011-05-05T18:58:00.000-05:00

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.

No photos of dead Usama

2011-05-04T23:03:00.000-05:00

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.

Bin Laden is dead...the good and the bad

2011-05-02T22:54:00.000-05:00

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.

Phony austerity protests

2011-04-28T19:59:00.000-05:00

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.

President Obama's Easter message

2011-04-25T16:49:00.000-05:00

For those who haven't noticed, President Obama failed to deliver the obligatory Easter message to the American people. There was no personal message. No press release. No White House statement.

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.

He is Risen!

2011-04-22T18:55:00.000-05:00

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

Liberals attacking children, two examples

2011-04-20T18:13:00.001-05:00

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.

Obama's Passover message

2011-04-19T19:18:00.000-05:00

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.

Happy tax day, America!

2011-04-18T20:15:00.001-05:00

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!

Shared Sacrifice

2011-04-16T20:43:00.000-05:00

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.

Stern: Get rid of checks and balances

2011-04-11T19:16:00.000-05:00

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?

Boehner...so close to actually showing some courage.

2011-04-09T10:25:00.000-05:00

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.

Non-essential workers

2011-04-07T23:27:00.000-05:00

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.

Collective bargaining...a VITAL protection for the "little guy"

2011-04-06T18:56:00.001-05:00

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.

There is no inflation

2011-04-05T16:46:00.001-05:00

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.

Shut it down!

2011-03-31T21:17:00.000-05:00

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!

No. 11: Order

2011-03-28T20:55:00.001-05:00

No. 12: Global Warming

2011-03-26T20:29:00.000-05:00

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.

Libya

2011-03-25T20:54:00.000-05:00

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.

Tax day approaches

2011-03-19T19:15:00.000-05:00

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...

Unions and the Courts

2011-03-18T19:34:00.001-05:00

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.

A bad sign for our economic future

2011-03-12T23:44:00.000-06:00

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.

I support Representative King

2011-03-10T23:09:00.000-06:00

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.

Why is "union-buster" a bad word?

2011-03-02T23:06:00.000-06:00

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.

No. 13: Choice

2011-02-28T19:19:00.001-06:00

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.

One could argue that the strongest reason for the colonist rebellion against the English crown in 1770 was the right to choose. Above all else, Americans rejected the notion that one's destiny is predetermined, that your surname had more influence over your future than your own actions, that those of "status" could decide for you things that you should be deciding for yourself. Yes, we opposed taxation without representation. We opposed religious persecution. We opposed authoritarian rule. But the right to choose our own paths was arguably a more powerful motivator than all of these things.

Unfortunately, Liberals don't like the idea of individual choice. I could fill many pages of examples of this, but in the interest of space I'll keep it limited. Let's start with education.

I've posted on this topic before so I'll hit the high notes. Common sense Americans feel that parents and students should have a right to choose which school their children attend, and how they are educated. Liberals disagree. Liberals so adamantly oppose school choice that few topics will unite them more strongly in opposition. Mention vouchers and prepare to be attacked from multiple fronts. They believe there is no choice when it comes to education. They believe that all students should be educated in the public sector without exception; and the particular public school you attend is determined by your address. Don't like it? Too bad. Does your address belong to a subpar school with lazy teachers, filled with gang violence, teenage pregnancy and drug abuse? Too bad. You have no choice in the matter. We could get into all the reasons why this is so, but that's another post. The bottom line is that when it comes to education you will have no luck finding a Liberal who supports the notion of choice.

And what about the workers? You know, the people the Liberals love to "fight for"? Common sense Americans believe that whether or not a worker joins a union is an individual choice and is strictly up to the worker. Liberals disagree. In fact, this very month, the Left has held rallies and marches all across the Great Lakes region in part because the Governors in those states are proposing laws that would allow public workers choice in joining a union. That's simply unacceptable in the eyes of the Left. And so they march, and they protest, and they carry signs comparing those Governors to Hitler and Mussolini.

Let's not forget card check. This is a law, supported by President Obama, that would end private ballots when workers vote to unionize. Naturally, such a law would open the door to the union thugs who could witness any ballot cast by a worker and easily bully that worker into voting their way. Remember, the same Liberals who argued in Florida in 2000 that a voter's "intent" was enough to count a vote now believe that it's okay to hold a public vote when deciding to unionize. Is this consistent with the notion of individual choice?

Healthcare is no different. President Obama's pride and joy is his healthcare law, which is the first of many steps in eliminating one's choice in healthcare options. In an ideal Liberal world, healthcare decisions would be made by politicians and bureaucrats, not doctors and patients. If they had their way, the government would tell you which doctor to see and how often, and which medical conditions would be covered, which drugs could be taken. It's the pinnacle of government power, and they won't stop pursuing it until the common sense Americans stop them. President Obama himself is on record saying that ultimately a single payer system is the goal. Choice? I don't think so.

The current tax system allows little choice. This may sound odd because isn't it obvious that we don't have a choice when it comes to taxes? Of course we don't, but just because it's true doesn't mean it's right. Ask a common sense American if citizens should choose to pay taxes and I think many of them would say yes. That's why many of us support the Fair Tax, or the consumption tax. Basically, if we want fair taxation while granting all citizens individual choice in paying taxes then a national sales tax is the only way to do so. But mention this idea and you're a radical, a kook, an anti-government teabagger. Liberals certainly don't want Americans to choose whether or not they fund the excess and binge of the federal government.

Gay marriage? Liberals oppose the voters' right to choose whether or not it is legalized.

Prayer in school? Liberals oppose allowing students to choose whether or not prayer is held in the public arena, supporting instead a complete ban on religion in the public sector.

Talk radio? Liberals oppose your choosing whether you listen to political talk shows on TV or radio.

Energy? If Liberals have it their way you will not be able to choose simple things like how warm or cool you keep your home. "Smart" grids will become the norm.

Safe cars? Liberals imposed the CAFE standards that forced automakers to create death traps...lightweight cars that offer little protection in an accident. Want to purchase a safe automobile? Not in this country.

Abortion? Oops. Funny how this is the one topic that bucks the trend. If it's educating your children, or taking care of your health, or listening to the radio, the Liberals stand firmly against your right to choose. But you want to kill an unborn child? Well, in that case, they all of a sudden believe you have the right to make such a choice. Perplexing if not sinister.

But let's cut to the chase. What choice are the Liberals ultimately after? They push government entitlements and support the welfare state despite our dire economic condition. They serve up the government handouts as if the treasury is bottomless. Why? Look at it this way, if you depend on the government for food, for education, for healthcare, for childcare, for retirement, for security, for housing, for employment, and for a myriad of other necessities that you are unwilling to supply yourself then who are you going to vote for? Obviously, the person who is willing to continue giving you those handouts has essentially bought your vote and, in my opinion, disenfranchised you as a human being. So, the ultimate restriction of choice is in voting.

Do Liberals want you, as a citizen, to be self-reliant, liberated and completely free of government handouts? Well, that wouldn't serve their party very well now would it?

And for added perspective on the Wisconsin matter...

2011-02-22T16:22:00.000-06:00

I pulled this off of Drudge today.

Two-thirds of Wisconsin public schools eigth graders can't read proficiently despite highest per-pupil spending in the midwest.

Update: Wisconsin

2011-02-21T23:02:00.000-06:00

As first reported tonight by Bill O'Reilly, a recent Rasmussen poll shows that 48% of likely voters support the Governor of Wisconsin and his efforts, while 38% oppose. In addition, 56% of independent voters side with the Governor.

This is telling and further evidence of the depth of the Tea Party movement, which I believe is the most powerful political force in America today. Politicians will ignore numbers like these at their own political peril. My advice to Republicans is that they should be as vocal as possible in support of the Governor's actions.

Wisconsin in Turmoil

2011-02-17T17:22:00.000-06:00

Facing a massive budget deficit and the undeniable necessity to cut taxpayer costs, the Governor of Wisconsin has at last stepped forward and - with the help of conservative legislators - put forth a plan to trim costs. What he is doing takes courage. When Evil Prospers applauds these measures and encourages the Governor to stand firm and do the people's business, no matter the threats and bully tactics that are being directed his way.

The main target of his cuts are the public sector unions, a glutton of taxpayer dollars for decades. Actions like this have been needed long before now and it's refreshing to see a group of politicians finally step forward with tangible action to shrink the bloated bureaucracy that has crippled the taxpayers for years.

In response, the public sector workers - namely teachers - have shut down the school system, abandoned their students and gathered in massive protest at the state capitol. Their battle cry is "Freedom! Democracy! Unions!". Well, I guess two out of three aint bad, with a nod to Meatloaf. These people don't believe in freedom in any way, nor do they support democracy, but they very much believe in unions and they are showing it.

Freedom? Does freedom mean coercing students to join your protest? Packing the capitol building with hopes of disrupting the process? Does freedom mean demanding more from taxpayers while giving them mediocre schools and education in return?

Democracy? The Governor and legislature were elected by the people and are therefore in office to do the people's business. You can protest all you want, but seeking to shut down the democratic process and silence your opponents by shouting them down is NOT democracy, nor does it represent freedom. And in yet another nod to tyranny, the democrat senators of Wisconsin have reverted to fugitive tactics and fled the state in order to avoid a vote and, yes, shut down the democratic process. They will not vote unless the law is changed, unless the Governor bends to will of the "workers", whether or not such action is supported by the majority of voters.

This is the union's idea of freedom. This is the democrat party's idea of democracy. Submit to our will or we will cripple the system. Damn the voters. Freedom! Democracy! Unions! Che Guevara would be proud, as would Karl Marx, Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin.

And just what is it that has the American Soviets so upset? The Governor is ending their collective bargaining (read: bullying) power, so that children in the public education system can no longer be held hostage by threat of teacher strikes and holdouts. He is requiring public workers to contribute to their own retirement plan (like the rest of us must do); he is requiring them to contribute to their health care plan (like the rest of us must do) and he is requiring ANY pay raise that exceeds the inflation rate to be approved by voter referendum. Imagine that, the people who foot the bill being given a little say-so in how much they have to pay! These measures will save the state a lot of money and go a long way to bridging the massive budget gap the people of Wisconsin face.

Unacceptable, say the Soviets. They want that budget gap closed by tax hikes, namely by hikes on those of us who are already asphyxiated by taxation so they can continue to draw their cush retirements, golden-plated health care benefits, ironclad job security, all while herding our kids through crappy, drug-infested schools and graduating them with barely enough ability to read and write, yet plenty of knowledge about Marxism and a "workers of the world unite" mentality.

I say it's about time something like this was done and I give the lawmakers of Wisconsin a standing ovation, and follow that by asking why is Texas not doing the same? I guess I'll be contacting my state senator soon. Until then, stand firm Governor! Let them protest. Let them threaten. Let them fight all they want, but whatever you don't let them intimidate you. We - the people of America - have had it with these bully tactics of the public service unions and we'll be bullied no more. Their days of gluttony on the backs of people like me are over. God bless you all, and be strong!!

No. 14: The US Military

2010-11-14T15:35:00.000-06:00

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.

“The United States should not have a military. All in all, we would be in much, much, much better shape.” – San Francisco city supervisor Geraldo Sandoval

“The only true heroes are those that find ways to help defeat the US Military.” – Nicholas DeGenova, Univ of Columbia professor

“Over time, however, the endless war in Iraq played a role in natural selection. Only idiots signed up; only idiots died. Back home the average IQ soared.” – Ted Rall, political cartoonist

“…655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?” – Rosie O’Donnell

For the average Liberal evil does not exist, only misunderstandings. Anyone who uses the word “evil” is either too lazy or too superficial to understand those with whom they disagree. They believe that all disagreements can be solved peacefully by those willing to put forth the effort; and that militaries and weapons are not necessary. Number 14 on my list of things Liberals don’t believe in: The US Military.

Ask any Liberal what they think about the military and you will get the standard, pre-packaged political answer. You’ll hear words like “hero”, “brave”, “courage” and so on. There are few phrases more popular among Liberals than “I support the troops”. They say it over and over in an almost pathologic sort of way, trying to convince themselves and others. Occasionally, a more outspoken Liberal may praise the troops while cursing the commanders and, of course, the Pentagon and just about any Republican President. The point is they wouldn’t dare openly criticize our troops. However, there are times when they slip (see above) and the truth can be seen. Liberals can’t stand our military and anyone who wears the uniform.

Liberals see military folk through many different prisms. In some cases, they take pity on those who serve. They believe that no intelligent, self-aware, self-respecting person would ever knowingly join the military without being duped, deceived or ill-persuaded in some way. That explains the latest national trend among Liberal activists to drive military recruiters away from college campuses. These students are bright, with lots of potential. The military is no place for such a person.

In some cases, they see military folks as just plain dumb, with limited options (see Ted Rall above). Believe it or not, I dealt with this one personally. Even though I was in medical school, on the verge of receiving my MD with a higher class rank than the majority of my peers, a physical therapy student suggested that my decision to join the military was “stupid” because I could make so much more money in the private sector, and the military would be a waste of my talents. Interesting and quite enlightening. The Liberal opinion about the Marines and the Army, the “grunts” if you will isn’t much different. They’re just a bunch of dumb kids who couldn’t make it in the real world so the military was their only option. Which is why they view our troops as reckless, dangerous and in need of supervision. This is evidenced by President Obama’s recent push to award our troops with medals for “showing restraint”. It’s his way of saying “good job not killing any babies”.

And then there is the “killer” view. Simply put, Liberals see our troops as a bunch of blood-thirsty brutes, killers who have found a sanctuary, a place where they can kill. John Kerry compared our troops to Ghengis Khan and spoke of them raiding villages and terrorizing innocent people. Obama used similar language. Dick Durbin compared our troops to the Gulag. John Murtha suggested they were murderers. The “restraint” medal crosses over into this viewpoint as well, but no one exemplifies this opinion better than Hollywood. I could fill page upon page with movie references that portray our troops as a bunch of uncivilized, violent beasts. And I could fill many pages on Jane Fonda alone. But don’t take my word for it, just take a trip to your local video store. Rent “Casualties of War” and “Platoon” and you’ll think that our troops in Vietnam were murderers and rapists. “Dances With Wolves” portrays them as ignorant, unrefined and brutal. In “Men of Honor” and “Hart’s War” they’re racist. Even “Saving Private Ryan” shows the greatest generation to be hesitant, reluctant to carry out their duty, and quick to execute prisoners of war. And this movie was supposed to glorify our World War II veterans. I dare say there is only one topic that has received more negative scrutiny from Hollywood than our military…Jesus Christ. There must be something about making the ultimate sacrifice for others that Hollywood finds repulsive.

Then there is the media, those who dance the “we support the troops” while hating them routine the best. Who can forget the General Betray Us ad that was purchased by moveon.org from the NY Times at a discounted rate? And have you noticed that news coverage of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be inversely related to the results that American troops are achieving. During Bush’s troop surge in Iraq, one media study showed that over a month’s time – as Petreaus made progress in Baghdad and surrounding areas – news coverage of the situation in Baghdad dropped as much as 40%. We certainly don’t want any news stories about US troops doing good things now do we?

But all of this is not to say that the Liberals don’t see a genuine use for the military. Even though they hate using the military for war purposes, most Liberals will universally agree that using them in humanitarian missions is just fine. In their protests against the Iraq War, many of those Liberals were calling for action in Darfur using – you guessed it – our troops to help stabilize the region and dispense humanitarian supplies. Taking away their weapons and giving them a bag of wheat is the Liberal’s idea of putting our troops to good use. And there is no better place for social experimentation. The US military has been the frontline in the gay rights issue, the women’s rights issue and our effort to be sensitive towards the Muslim culture. Don’t ask Don’t tell is unacceptable if you wish to engage in homosexual behavior; but print up some business cards referring to yourself as a soldier of allah, and it works just fine.

So perhaps it is a bit unfair to say Liberals don't believe in the military. They believe, just in a military that does no harm, hurts no person, and provides a social channel for others to advance their political causes.

No. 15: We The People

2010-09-27T23:06:00.000-05:00

No. 16: Equality

2010-09-16T17:01:00.000-05:00

Delaware

2010-09-15T19:26:00.000-05:00

Christine O'Donnell wins in Delaware. The GOP establishment has been dealt a major blow and they are all crying in their embroidered hankies. Here are my thoughts:

The Tea Party is a genuine grassroots populist political uprising. We haven't picked up pitchforks or tried to tar-and-feather anyone. No, instead we have dug in our heels and decided to make a stand right here, right now. There are a lot of problems in America and the two ruling parties are mainly the ones who created those problems. The Tea Party holds no allegiance to the GOP. In today's America there is very little difference between Republican and Democrat. Even Bill Clinton said the Tea Party makes George Bush look liberal. He's right, at least from a fiscal standpoint.

Washington is dominated by the political establishment. Some have D by their name, others have R, but they all behave pretty much the same. Gut the treasury, dole out gov't handouts to people and special interests in order to gain political favor, breed dependence and buy votes. Obama says the GOP in the Bush years ran up record deficits. He's right. Yet, Mr. Obama chose to double-down on those efforts and show the GOP a thing or two about deficit spending and mortgaging our future. That is unacceptable, so the Tea Party has taken a stand against both.

But the political establishment won't go down without a fight. They've been entrenched for decades, ignoring the will of the people, dating back to the 1930s (with a brief respite during the Reagan era). They feel they are invincible, and they have a lot of money behind them. O'Donnell, like Sarah Palin, was brutalized in this campaign. Her personal finances were attacked, as was her character, as if the ruling class has any sort of record to stand on in those two areas. She was called "unelectable", and now the GOP clan refuses to back her in the general election. Fine.

The same criticism was launched at Rubio, Angle, Brown and Morris. The GOP's message was: Trust us, we can win, the Tea Party can't. No thanks. In our eyes, the GOP and the Democrats are all the same and we're tired of it. We want people in Congress who actually REPRESENT the voters, will LISTEN to the voters and will ABIDE by the will of the voters. So, one by one, the good ole boys of the GOP are falling. Good riddance.

They said Castle could win, O'Donnell could not. So they asked the people to vote for the less-appealing candidate simply because he could win. No thanks. Things like that symbolize what's wrong in politics, namely voting according to what furthers your career, or keeps in step with your party and not according to what's right. O'Donnell has her flaws, no doubt. And she is certainly not a slick-tongued politician, but she does represent the people and pledges to protect the people's money. If she doesn't then she will get booted as well. Electable or not, a vote for her was right. We may lose the general election, but we will not lose our integrity in the process just so we can take back the Senate for the GOP. The GOP doesn't understand the wisdom behind that, which is exactly why we've abandoned them. Why vote Mitch McConnell to replace Harry Reid when, in truth, the two really aren't that much different? We are rejecting both, just as we rejected the aristocracy and nobility of the old-European ruling class of the 1700s that simply wanted us to just shut up and obey.

There is nothing the establishment fears more than a populist uprising, which explains the attacks. The Tea Party has been called xenophobe, homophobe, Christian extremists and, of course, racist...you name it. Most of these attacks come from the embedded politicians and the media that enables them. So be it. It will not weaken our resolve for change. I challenge you to see for yourself. We uphold the ideals of Dr. King, Susan B Anthony, Washington, Madison and Jefferson. That's a fact. If Dr. King were alive today he would be marching with us, if not leading us himself. We embrace immigration as a cornerstone principle of this nation. We treasure the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and we abide by them, fight for them and uphold them. The attacks on us are not genuine. Instead, they are an effort to retain power in Washington and retain control over the people. Nothing more. "Just shut up and obey, or you will pay". Well, we're not intimidated.

If Americans allow themselves to be influenced by the establishment and the ruling class, then they will reject the Tea Party. But if Americans decide to form their own opinion through experience, I think they will be surprised at how appealing the Tea Party really is. I encourage everyone to talk to a Tea Partier, attend a rally, listen to what we have to say. Yes, there are some kooks, but they don't represent our movement. You will agree with us more than you may think. But if you listen to the neo-marxist media, the academians, or the political ruling class, then you will certainly hate us as they do. Such is their strategy. They are pinning their hopes on the general population remaining ignorant of this movement.

Don't let the media influence your opinion, and don't let the slick politicians define us. We ARE the people. We DEMAND accountability from our leaders. We UPHOLD the values of the Constitution. And we DO NOT CONSENT to the frivolous, reckless governance that we've been subjected to from both parties. If you see us as anything different then you haven't seen the real Tea Party. And if that is "unelectable" then America has no hope for survival. Plain and simple. If we choose the status quo - GOP or democrat - then we choose a perilous path of self-destruction. This is our stand. We refuse to allow our nation to crumble without action. It was our complacency and apathy that allowed the ruling class to entrench themselves in Washington and stray from our Constitutional foundation. If that course continues it won't be because we remained complacent.

(Note: since this was posted the GOP has decided to help fund O'Donnell's campaign. Prior to this announcement, O'Donnell's website was flooded with contributions, even to the point that the site itself crashed)

9/11

2010-09-11T14:10:00.001-05:00

Nine years ago a group of Muslim radicals murdered 3000 American civilians.

Despite what George Bush says, they did not do this because they hate freedom, hate liberty or hate what America stands for.

Despite what the Left says, they didn't do it because of America's involvement in the Middle East or our friendship with Israel.

Those Muslim extremists murdered 3000 American civilians because they believe their religion teaches them to do it. They believe their god commands them to do it. They adhere to a "convert or kill" philosophy. They feel that all humans must convert to Islam, and any who refuse must die. This is what they believe and that is why they kill.

They will continue to do it whether or not we're involved in Iraq. Whether or not we're fighting in Afghanistan. They will continue to do it whether or not a few whackos decide to burn the Koran. Whether or not we display tolerance and allow them to build a Mosque at ground zero. Whether or not we reach out to them for dialogue and understanding.

They will continue to do these things until: 1) We all convert to Islam, or 2) We are all dead, or 3) They are all dead.

There are no other options. Until one of these three things happen, the radicals will continue to murder the innocent. Plain and simple.

God bless those who grieve today. May your loss never be forgotten. May the reason for your loss never be distorted.

More Leftist double standard

2010-09-08T17:24:00.000-05:00

The intrigue about this idiot in Florida and all of his moronic followers who are calling for a "burn the Koran" day isn't that the guy's an idiot. Or that his followers are moronic. There's plenty of that nowadays in America to make this story rather boring. He seems to be hungry for attention, hungry for fund-raising, hungry for controversy or whatever. I don't know his motivation nor do I care. People like him should simply be ignored. That's how you deal with the foolish and ignorant. Whether you're talking about people who spew racism, anti-semitism, stereotypical hatred or someone who wants to destroy the sacred symbols of another person's religion. It's best just to ignore and marginalize them. And, by the way, if this guy professes to be a Christian I would suggest he take a few moments to acquaint himself with Christianity. There is nothing Christian about attacking someone else's religion. This guy is about as Christian as Bin Laden.

But the real intrigue in this story deals with the Left's reaction to it. The media is frothing at the mouth. They can't get enough of it. So much for marginalizing the foolish. No, they're giving this guy exactly what he wants: attention and controversy. Their giving him airtime, and I think it's a mistake.

What I don't hear is the fact that this church has a Constitutional right to burn the Koran. Interesting. The same people who rallied around the ground zero Mosque are suddenly silent when this fool wants to burn the holy book of Islam. Such is the world of relativistic liberalism. There are no concrete rights and wrongs with these people. Everything is relative and depends on the situation at hand. Want to build a Mosque at ground zero? Okay. Want to burn the Koran? Not okay. President Obama said the folks have a right to build the Mosque at ground zero, that it's a fundamental American principle. Robert Gibbs repeated this notion, as did Joe Biden. Has anyone heard the President stand behind these dopes in Florida who want to burn the Koran? Nope. It's just the latest example of why liberalism never appealed to me. It's too inconsistent as an ideology. I prefer solid principles, unwavering, consistent.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are solidly consistent. People have a right to build a Mosque at ground zero. People have a right to burn the Koran. But both are tasteless, offensive, disrespectful and provocative and shouldn't be tolerated. Good luck finding a liberal to agree with me on that.

So the media will continue to slobber over this story, no doubt sharing culpability with any consequences that occur as a result of global Muslim outrage. It's almost as if the Leftist media WANTS the world to hate us, WANTS the world to think we're anti-Muslim and are waging a holy war against Islam. Hmmm.

Drones: Take my advice

2010-08-31T18:48:00.000-05:00

Okay, I can't take it anymore. I have to post about the ground zero Mosque. No, this will not be a commentary. Anyone who reads this page surely knows where I stand on the issue. Instead, I have a few words regarding the national debate on the issue.

For starters, if anyone reading this is ever engaged in a debate about the ground zero Mosque, and you for whatever reason feel the need to point out that those people have a right to build the Mosque, then please hit yourself upside the head with a hammer. It will say so much more, trust me. Making a statement like "they have a right to build it" basically screams "I am a moron". And there's no better way to say "I am a moron" than hitting yourself upside the head with a hammer.

How many times has this happened? You'll be engaged in a civilized discussion about the issue when suddenly any drone within the immediate vicinity feels the need to point out they have a right to build it. Thank you for that brilliant Constitutional insight. The intelligence is suddenly sucked out of the conversation. It's like Joe Biden walked in and entered the debate (by the way, Joe was recently heard on an interview saying...that's right, "they have a right to build it").

It's the same thing when you're discussing illegal immigration and a drone has to point out that it's wrong to oppose immigration, and how important immigration has been in our history. You just kinda look at that person with a blank stare unsure how to respond. Nothing screams idiot like the parroted opinion of a drone. And, honestly, how do you debate idiocy?

Hopefully, one day someone who controls the opinions of the drones and feeds them their talking point du jour will decide to instruct them on how to differentiate the terms "could" and "should". As in: Could they build the Mosque? vs. Should they build the Mosque? But right now, keeping them in confusion seems to be the best way to paint the conservatives - and anyone else who opposes a Mosque at ground zero - as intolerant Islamophobic radical racist nazis who hate the Constitution. Exactly how that helps the current administration is unclear, but that's his gameplan and he's sticking to it. Maybe the strategy is that anyone who is an intolerant Constitution-hating radical Islamophobic racist nazi can't be taken seriously when they say things like it's unconstitutional to force me to purchase something that I don't want to purchase. But I'm just speculating here.

Until then, looks like we'll have to put up with those occasional moronic statements. But a word of advice, instead of saying something like "they have a right to build it", you can say so much more by just hitting yourself upside the head with a hammer.

No. 17: The US Constitution

2010-08-11T18:35:00.000-05:00

No. 18: Education

2010-07-24T21:15:00.002-05:00

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.

"Give us the child for eight years and it will be a Bolshevik forever." That was a famous quote by the pioneer of childhood indoctrination, Vladimir Lenin. Lenin knew that children were impressionable. That they have vulnerable minds that can be molded according to your political ideology. That's why he targeted the children. The survival of his beloved soviet state depended on the children being properly indoctrinated. No. 18 on my countdown of things Liberals don't believe is Education.

Education, as I define it, involves the teaching of fact. Fact is truth. There is no denying fact. There is no arguing it. Fact is fact and education is the teaching of fact. The three school subjects that deal predominantly with fact are Math, Science and English. 2+2 is 4. The earth's atmosphere is predominantly nitrogen. And a sentence requires a subject and a verb. These are facts. History also contains facts but you have to be careful here because history is something that is prone to opinion, which Liberals love to teach. I'm for teaching historical fact but strongly opposed to teaching opinion.

Liberals disagree. They see our education system as an opportunity to further their agenda. Young minds are ripe to be molded and so they've chosen our education system as ground zero for advancing the Liberal cause. And this is no doubt the source of the major problems that our education system faces. After all, it's hard for our kids to score well on standardized tests when they are being taught about American imperialism, the salvation of the New Deal, and the great philosophy of Chairman Mao. And when you have teachers scolding students for wearing their "Jesus goggles" then you can see which direction we're headed. The more time you spend furthering your politics, the less time you have to teach basic scientific, mathematical and historical fact.

It begins with teachers. Now, this is dangerous ground for a conservative because teachers are considered saintly in Liberal eyes. Criticizing teachers will immediately invite a skewering from the Left because teachers can do no wrong. The reality is that, like all other professions, there are good teachers and bad teachers. But try saying that to Liberal and prepare for a tongue-lashing. The same people who call for the lynching of Catholic priests who commit sex crimes within the church willingly turn away without a whimper when a teacher is caught doing the same thing. Teachers are saintly. They can do no wrong.

The problem is that the teachers unions have made it virtually impossible to weed out the bad teachers. Again, teachers can do no wrong. So the bad teachers are firmly entrenched in the education system and continue to teach children regardless how incompetent or ineffective they may be. Ask any administrator about the difficulty in firing a teacher and prepare yourself for a long story. If Liberals believed in education they would be in favor of getting rid of the bad teachers. But education and indoctrination are two very different things.

Then there's the immense power of the teachers unions. They have lots of money and they wield it effectively, almost all of it going to the coffers of the Left. In return, the Left looks after them. The longstanding American tradition has been to keep education local, funded locally, run by local officials. This trend was bucked when Jimmy Carter established the Dept of Education, and so began the federal gov't digging their grubby little hands into our education system. This was also about the time the teachers unions began to grow in power. The more power the feds have in education the easier it is to lobby and influence that power. Simply put, it's easy for a union to influence a few congressmen rather than have to influence multiple school districts that are funded and run independent of the feds.

The Left will say that money is the problem. We don't spend enough on education and we don't pay the saints who teach nearly enough. They ignore the fact that education spending has done nothing but increase over the past 2 decades. They ignore the fact that the US spends more per student than the nations whose children kick our butts on standardized tests. They ignore the fact that the more we spend on education, the poorer we perform. But then again, ignoring facts is a centerpiece in Liberal education.

Mention things like charter schools, private schools or school vouchers and the Liberal will give you another tongue-lashing. Again, they ignore the fact that these types of schools consistently outperform public schools despite having fewer resources and paying their teachers lower salaries. Seems to me that if Liberals wanted good education for our kids then they'd acknowledge these facts and do what they could to maximize the availability of these alternatives to the public system. But who cares about facts? The Liberals dig their heels in and demand more money for education while the teachers unions stand firmly behind them. And if you oppose more money, then you obviously don't care about the children.

Barack Obama believes in public education. One of his first actions as President was nullifying the D.C. voucher program. This program was enormously successful and very popular with many inner city parents. But education is a public matter. So the President killed the program, and then enrolled both of his children in a pricey, prominent local private school.

Common sense Americans see education as many things, one of those being a civil rights issue. John McCain called it the civil rights issue of our time during his 2008 campaign. There are many inner city students, many of them black, who are trapped in inner city schools simply because of their address or their zip code. These schools do nothing but fail. And by that I mean fail to teach. Of course, the students themselves pass, enough so that many kids graduate high school unable to spell their own name. These schools are riddled with crime, drugs and teenage pregnancy. Children who attend these schools aren't going to learn as much as they are going to survive. Learning math and science takes a backseat when your life is literally in danger. It's a shame. A travesty. No student should be forced into that kind of environment. Not in this country. Not ever.

That's why common sense Americans favor vouchers. Let the responsible inner city parents send their kids to their school of choice, where they can be safe, where they can learn, where they have a fighting chance to kill the vicious cycle of poverty by learning what they need to succeed in life and get out of the ghetto. No way, say the Liberals. Instead, they just want to dump more money into that failing inner city school. It's lack of funding that's the problem. And if you oppose this, then you don't care about the children, and you're probably a racist to boot.

In truth, the Liberals (and the teachers unions) know that once a voucher program kicks in then those failing schools will bleed students to more competent schools. The bad schools eventually collapse, leaving many teachers and administrators without a job. Even worse, vouchers would shift the power in our education system away from the government and the teachers unions and toward the parents. When the parents can take their child and their tax dollars out of a school, you'd better believe they will have more power. No way will the Liberal ever allow that.

Even more disastrous for the Liberal cause would be the likelihood that a voucher system would result in more success in our education system. More inner city students would thrive, would succeed in life, would escape the inner city and embark on illustrious careers. This is bad politics because people like that could become Republicans. No way will the Liberal ever allow that. Instead, it's best for those inner city kids to stay in the failing school, and stay in the ghetto where they belong, dependent on government aid (and the Democrat party).

Thus the focus in education is not education, but rather indoctrination. Keep the kids from learning fact, and instead teach them ideology. Keep them away from success and instead keep them dependent on the government. If they were to succeed they could potentially become free thinkers. That's a dangerous thing for the State. Lenin knew it, and so do Liberals.

No. 19: Fairness

2010-07-23T17:28:00.003-05:00

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 remember growing up and playing many backyard baseball games. Despite their benign appearance, these games were often hotly contested. There are few things more competitive than preteen boys seeking neighborhood bragging rights. Despite the heated competition, the contests were remarkably civil. The rules were followed and there were few arguments. However, on occasion the issue of fairness would come up and it was usually out of frustration. The scene would play out something like this…the game is tied, it’s been a tough back-and-forth, both teams are playing hard. Suddenly one kid belts a homer over the fence to win the game. A kid on the other team, upset about losing, throws his glove to the ground and yells “that’s not fair, you cheated”. Of course we all knew that kid was full of it. The game was won fairly, there were no rules broken, he was just mad because he lost. Yet, that didn’t stop him from claiming injustice. Such is the perception in the mind of a child and a full-grown Liberal.

Sound familiar? Number 19 on my list of things Liberals don’t believe is Fairness.

When I talk about fairness in this post I am talking about it in its truest form. I clarify this because Liberals love to use fairness as a rallying cry for their platform. Fairness is a major motivator for them. They seek fairness. They impose laws to achieve fairness. They speak of fairness whenever they can. They use it to appeal to average voters because all common sense Americans are for fairness. The problem is they define fairness in a completely different manner. It has a different meaning to them. So when I say Liberals don’t believe in fairness I mean fairness as a typical common sense American would define it, not as a Liberal would define it.

Injustice is defined, in part, as the violation of the rights of others. Fairness is defined, in part, as being free from injustice. If the rights of others are violated it is unjust, and if injustice exists then it cannot be fair. Sounds simple enough. Well, not according to Liberals. Simplicity is not their forte. We’ll start with the tax system.

The Constitution guarantees equal protection for all citizens. One person’s rights cannot be violated for the sake of another person’s rights, and all of our rights bare equal standing under the law regardless of who or what we are. So a common sense American would say that a fair tax system would be one in which all Americans paid the same percentage of their income to the government, or perhaps would be based on consumption rather than income. In such a scenario, I would pay something like 20% in federal income taxes, my neighbor would pay twenty percent, so would the guy down the street and the guy on the other side of town. Nothing would change that number. If my income went up, I would pay 20%. If my income went down, I would pay 20%. That’s fair.

Not so in the mind of Liberals. The Liberal says that everyone paying the same percentage is completely unfair, thus rewriting the definition of fairness altogether. In their minds if I make $1 million and my neighbor makes $10,000 then a fair tax system would be one structured so that after taxes we both end up with, say, fifty thousand bucks. That’s fair. Never mind all that injustice stuff. They understand that I have the right to pursue more income so long as I do it legally. And they understand that the Constitution doesn’t allow me to be singled out and taxed more severely simply because I am more successful in my pursuits and make more money than my neighbor. Singling me out based upon my success would violate my right to equal protection and thus would be unjust, and by definition unfair. Imposing higher percentage taxation on someone based upon success is discriminatory. So what? Say the Libs. Fairness in their eyes can only be defined by outcomes, not by the means in achieving those outcomes. It’s only fair if we all end up with equal amounts of stuff regardless of effort, talent or skill, so sayeth the social justice doctrine.

But the concept of fairness in Liberal minds goes way beyond taxation and redistribution of wealth. They’ve even titled one of their key pieces of legislation the Fairness Doctrine to echo their never ending pursuit of fairness. This law basically states that any political or news program must present both sides of a political argument so the people can hear the whole story. Equal time. That’s fair. And if you don’t comply then you can’t use the airwaves. You can be shut down. That’s fair.

The common sense American knows about freedom speech. We know we have the right to free speech, specifically the right to speak our political opinions without punitive government action. If we speak our political opinion and the government takes action to silence us then our rights have been violated. Violation of rights is unjust and thus, by definition, unfair. Hogwash, say the Liberals. Equal time is fair, even if you don’t want to hear the buffoon who lacks common sense, and even if we shut down the radio station for refusing to air that buffoon’s opinion. It’s fair. That’s why we call it the Fairness Doctrine. It’s a wonder they don’t call our graduated income tax the Fairness Tax.

Thomas Sowell said (loosely quoting) that few things have been as damaging as the word “fair”.

George Washington said that we are a nation of laws not of men. Ooh, the Liberals hate that.

We Americans know all about fairness. Our nation was founded on it. “All men are created equal…” were the words used to announce our new nation. We know fair when we see it. They can use the word all they want in attempts to deceive us, and they no doubt do so because they know how appealing fairness is to America. But don’t be deceived. There is nothing truly fair about the Liberal agenda, no matter how much they say so.

No. 20: Common Sense

2010-07-20T18:34:00.003-05:00

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.

Some of the smartest people I know barely made it out of high school. And some of the dumbest people I've ever met have a wall full of diplomas and a long line of initials behind their name. Number 20 on the list is COMMON SENSE.

Common sense is something that is acquired through life not by lectures or reading books, but by experience. It's the experience of life that teaches us that familiar form of knowledge that we call common sense. You can't get it in a classroom.

Perhaps that's why Liberals don't understand common sense. To them it's a bit of a mystery and therefore probably doesn't exist. In the mind of a Liberal, if it can't be taught at Harvard or Berkeley then it isn't worth knowing. And as far as I know, there are no courses at Harvard entitled "Common Sense 101". Although it wouldn't be a bad idea. This is not to say that the highly educated lack common sense. No. But I am saying that wisdom and education are two completely different things and are not interchangeable terms.

In today's political environment we talk about common sense all the time. Often you hear your neighbors complain that Washington just doesn't get it, or is out of touch, or doesn't understand the common American. What these people are saying is that the politicians in Washington lack common sense. And since many of those politicians are Liberals, and many of them are also highly educated, the complaints your neighbors have are legitimate. Let's take a few political topics as examples.

When it comes to the economy, Liberals say tax more and spend more. This is Keynesian economics at its worst. Increase the public sector and you grow the economy. Keynes is taught a lot in our major universities but many of those learning it have never actually met a payroll or balanced a checkbook. You see where I'm going? Common sense says the US economy is so massive that no amount of government spending can grow it. Common sense says that if you tax a business owner, or require him to pay for his employees health care, or impose a minimum wage on him, or tack on any other union-sponsored employee benefit, then the ones who get hurt the most are the consumer. Increase the cost of business for a business owner and he either cuts costs (starting with personnel), stops hiring, or raises the price of his goods and services. These are the things they are less likely to teach at Harvard because it contradicts Keynesian theory, and the Liberals miss out on some important knowledge. So it's just assumed that if you increase the cost of doing business the business owner is simply going to eat that cost and everyone wins. There's nothing sensical about that.

In regards to health care, let's talk about supply and demand. Common sense tells us that if you increase the demand for a service without increasing the supply, then you essentially have a shortage. The Liberals think this is silly. They believe that flooding the health care sector with some 30 million newly insured folks who are suddenly gifted with free health care will result in great health for all. So their bill does nothing to address the supply thing, and they dismiss those of us who talk of rationing as obstructionist and silly fear-mongerers.

Most recently there is the unemployment package currently being debated in Congress. President Obama demands the GOP pass additional unemployment benefits right away. The GOP demands that those benefits be paid for before we pass them. Common sense says that part of the reason why so many people are unemployed is because the economy is bad, and part of the reason the economy is bad is because businesses aren't confident about the future, primarily because of our growing deficits and massive debt. Therefore, adding on to the debt with unpaid unemployment benefits isn't doing much good for the unemployed. Not so in the mind of Liberals who call the GOP insensitive and greedy for not helping the jobless.

And then there's the Tea Party. This is a group of citizens who stand on a platform of common sense: balanced budget, reduced spending, living within our means, adhering to the Constitution and the rule of law. The problem is that we Tea Party folks are just average folks. We get up and go to work everyday. We pay bills and scratch to save money and prepare for our future. We don't have fancy diplomas and therefore - in the eyes of Liberals - we're just a bunch of dumb rubes who don't understand the complicated things like government. It doesn't matter that we have to adhere to a strict budget every day. If we don't have a Harvard diploma then we don't have credibility. Common sense just aint enough.

But in my opinion the biggest reason why Liberals reject common sense boils down to their positive attitude towards Socialism. The Libs grew up on college campuses, playing the Sitar, quoting Neitsche (sp?), and swapping chemically induced philosophies about how the world should be. Therein lies the appeal of Socialism. The notion that all people would work together - not for themselves as individuals - but for the benefit of the collective. This is the fast track to utopia, heaven on earth. This is how we arrive at the glorious moment of everlasting peace, harmony and an end to suffering. It's a beautiful thing, if only we could realize such a beautiful dream. They bemoan the fact that socialism has gotten a bad rap because of bad leadership, that so many brutal dictators have been associated with it and thus people are too quick to dismiss it as evil. If only a leader could emerge who was compassionate and sensitive, understanding and empathetic, while at the same time implement socialism, then we would all see the glory in such a system. Sounds good on paper.

But common sense tells us that people aren't going to behave that way. I'm not going to work my can off so my neighbor can sit on his. Eventually, I'm gonna realize that I can sit on my can and get just as much. And if enough of us do this, well, the system implodes. That darn practicality thing is such a buzz kill.

And common sense tells us that socialism hasn't been victimized by brutal dictators, but rather the brutal dictators are more of a product of socialism itself. Simply put, people aren't going to consent to such a life unless there's an iron fist and a thick boot imposing it.

Oh phooey, say the Liberals. What do you know? You've never read Marx, or Neitsche. You don't understand, such a simple minded folk.

So the next time you are engaged in a discussion with a Liberal ask yourself if there is any common sense behind his argument. You may be surprised at what you find.

No big surprise

2010-07-14T18:50:00.002-05:00

Remember a few months back when Bart Stupak made a last second announcement that he and the President had come to an agreement regarding the health care bill? Stupak and several other "conservative" democrats were holding out until the legislation included a direct ban on federal funding for abortion. The libs in charge were never going to agree to that, so this issue looked to be the deal killer for Obamacare. And then, a last minute "deal" was struck. President Obama made a cross-my-heart-pinky-swear (also known as an executive order) to Stupak that they wouldn't spend any taxpayer dollars on abortion. Stupak no doubt made Obama say the "stickle a needle in my eye" stipulation as well. No taxpayer dollars for abortion.

That was good enough for Stupak, and so he switched his vote with the foolish notion that Obama would stay true to his word. Guess what. He was wrong.

Today we learn that federal taxpayer dollars are indeed being earmarked for abortions. No big surprise. Of course, the administration is silent on the issue. No word from Robert Gibbs beyond the usual verbal pauses, no comment from Kathleen Sebelius, no word from the Chief of Staff. Nothing. Which essentially proves what we all knew from the beginning, and what Stupak should have known...that executive orders are not enforceable and are useless when it comes to legislation. Obama never intended to keep taxpayer dollars away from abortions, he just needed a good sell to get Stupak's vote, making Stupak arguably the biggest Congressional sucker in the modern political era.

And it also confirms two other hunches that this blogger had: Barack Obama is a liar, and Bart Stupak is a coward.

NAACP

2010-07-13T19:17:00.002-05:00

Ah, the NAACP. What was once a valiant organization with a noble cause has now degraded into nothing more than a bunch of political hacks and character assassins. To put it simply, the NAACP has lost all credibility. No one listens to them anymore except for the extreme Left who still believe the nonsense they spew. That's the primary reason why George Bush stopped going to their annual convention. They simply lost relevance.

And now today we hear about the NAACP taking several days to vote to condemn the Tea Party on grounds of racism. My point has been made for me. Racism is slowly transforming from a significant domestic issue to a political one. It is becoming a political club that one group uses to bash the other. It has become a means of slander, a means of discrediting those with whom you disagree. And, to be honest, those who use the club to bash have absolutely no interest in ending racism. No way. It's too powerful a weapon for them to do away with it.

There is no evidence - none - that the Tea Party is racist. I count myself among them and would not if I ever saw a racial component to their message. But that doesn't matter. The NAACP disagrees with the Tea Party - primarily because the Tea Party opposes big entitlements - and therefore the NAACP must destroy the Tea Party. Time to get out the club.

Homicide is the leading cause of death in black males under the age of 24. Nearly 90% of those homicides are committed by other blacks. Teenage pregnancy is on the rise. 70 plus percent of all black children are born out of wedlock. Black men are deserting their families, their children. Drug abuse remains a major problem in the black community, as do high school dropout rates, abortion, unemployment, diabetes, heart disease and AIDS. Yet, topping the agenda for the NAACP is the Tea Party!

The NAACP ignores the neo-black panthers. They said nothing about the black panthers obstructing a polling station. They said nothing about Harry Reid predicting an Obama election victory because "he doesn't speak with a negro dialect". Nothing.

They condemn Rand Paul for objecting to a small portion of the Civil Rights Act, calling him racist. Yet, they LOVE Senator Robert Byrd, an ex-Klansman who once hated blacks and actually filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

They opposed Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. They opposed Alan Keyes for Senate. They mock Michael Steele. Association for advancement of colored people? More like advancement of liberal colored people.

It's a joke. Any black American citizen should see that. There are serious problems in the black community and yet the NAACP does nothing to solve them except, of course, to blame the white man. I think it's about time for us to recognize the NAACP as a political organization and nothing more. They are true to ideology which trumps all. Equality is only a part of the cause if it fits within their ideology. Racism is only a part of the cause if it involves their political opponents. They are a political lobby group. What would Dr. King think? I think he'd say it's time we ignored groups like this if we are to unite as a nation and achieve true equality, true equal rights and a true end to racism once and for all.

Racism will never die so long as minority lobbyist organizations refuse to let it die in order to advance their political agenda.

Re-emergence of quotas

2010-07-10T11:23:00.002-05:00

An interesting story has recently begun circulating in regards to the Dodd-Frank Financial regulatory bill. Before I get to it, a few comments of my own. First, the bill does not address derivatives. Anyone with any economic sense understands the key role derivatives played in the housing sector collapse of '08. This involves the packaging and reselling of mortgages to big companies who take on the risk. If the company is really big and takes on a lot of risk then you get an AIG-like scenario. Derivatives are ignored in the bill.

Second, there is absolutely zero reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. None. Nada. Zip. Basically these two companies just continue doing business as usual if this bill gets passed. Again, anyone with any economic sense understands that Fannie Mae, perhaps more than any other company, played a major role in the housing collapse. Yet they get a free pass.

However, what is included is a reintroduction of hiring quotas. According to sectio 342, any financial company doing business with the federal government will be REQUIRED to employ a certain percentage of minority and women employees and these requirements will be overseen and enforced by 20 new government agencies. Yes, private companies will be FORCED to hire people based purely on gender and race. Does this in any way conform to our belief in equal rights and equal protection? Of course not. But this President and this Congress sees it differently.

This is a bad bill. The GOP will stand against it and they, of course, will be attacked for it. They'll be accused of standing up for Wall Street, placating to greed, looking out for big business, etc. Typical politics. No one would dare suggest the GOP is standing up for equality. Hopefully, reason and truth will prevail. Hopefully this bill will be killed.

Holder strikes again...

2010-07-09T18:37:00.002-05:00

In today's news: The Justice Dept is now looking into the Oakland police trial, investigating whether or not federal law may have been violated.

To be clear. The police officer in question has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter and faces up to 5 years in prison, and yet many people in Oakland feel that verdict is so unacceptable that they must riot and loot the city.

So the Justice Dept has decided to take a look. Hmmm. Why? Why this case? There are cases of involuntary manslaughter all over the country. Could it be because of race? Rest assured, had this officer accidentally killed a white man the Justice dept would hardly be getting involved.

Holder The (Not So) Wise

2010-07-07T22:57:00.004-05:00

Interesting news. Eric Holder has filed suit against the state of Arizona for its recent immigration law.

This is the same man who is defending the US government in the health care case. The same man who dropped charges on the Black Panthers who were caught on film blocking access to a polling station and intimidating would-be voters.

So, according to Holder, if a cop in Arizona were to stop someone for a traffic violation it would be unConstitutional for the cop to demand proof of immigration status, yet completely acceptable for that person to be forced to purchase health insurance. And if that person were blocking access to a polling station then he couldn't be touched at all, especially if he were black.

That's the logic and wisdom of our current attorney general...the man who announced that the Arizona law was unconstitutional while also admitting that he had never read it. He refused to utter the words Islamic extremism so as not to offend anyone. And he felt it was wise to move the KSM trial to NYC at taxpayer cost to show-off the glory of the American justice system while he also potentially damaged his case by announcing that he would achieve a conviction and a death sentence for the 9/11 murderer.

That's Holder the Not-so Wise. Anyone else have trouble sleeping at night knowing this buffoon is in charge of our justice department?

Holder The (Not So) Wise

2010-07-07T22:57:00.001-05:00

The beginning of the End

2010-03-21T18:18:00.002-05:00

Many years from now, when historians write and speak about the collapse of America, they will mention several different things. Some may speak about the Progressive Era in the 20th century that started the proverbial snowball rolling downhill. They'll bring up things like the TR trustbusting, the New Deal, the Great Society programs of the 60s, the social engineering programs of the 1990s. Some may look at the recession of 08-09 as the trigger. Still others may simply look at the decline in morality, the erosion of personal responsibility, the overall dependence of the citizens on the state. But I believe most will view all these things as a growing powder keg, that exploded in March 2010. I believe most historians will look at the patient protection act (or whatever it's called) as the beginning of the end of the great American empire.

That makes me sad. Very, very sad. Posting this entry is truly a difficult thing to do.

We find ourselves in a moment in time where we are on the brink of economic turmoil. Our economy, our treasury is on life support. This law has pulled the plug.

This is a time where we face $50 trillion in unfunded obligations to medicare and social security, $12 trillion in debt to others, a steadily growing annual deficit and unprecedented, indeed inconceivable levels of government spending. And now Moody's has recently suggested that the US triple-A credit rating may soon be in jeopardy.

This is a time where we have to make some difficult choices as a society, and those choices are centered around how, where and to what extent should we reduce our spending. They involve the obvious necessity to grow the economy in the private sector by reducing taxes on individuals so money can be injected into the economy, and by freeing businesses and corporations from their tax burden so they can increase their payrolls. These are the things that must be done now. Our major priority is controlling our deficit and reducing our debt load. If we don't do these things, we face disastrous economic consequences.

Instead, today we pass a law that declares health care a human right, and guarantees insurance for all Americans, along with many illegal immigrants. It raises taxes on many Americans, and increases the burden on businesses thereby killing more jobs. It makes the health insurance industry an arm of the federal government and grants unprecedented control of our lives to Washington politicians, and it empowers the IRS to enforce an unprecedented mandate that forces ALL citizens to purchase a particular product. My god, what are we doing?

Some people will applaud the law. There will be smiles of jubilation. Those people have absolutely no clue. No matter how much we may want to help those who need medical care, the simple unavoidable truth is that we can't afford it. We're broke! Nothing changes that fact, not even the clever manipulation of numbers by some politicians.

Our debt is unsustainable. The obligations we have promised to medicare and social security are unsustainable. Yet, we top all of that off with arguably the largest entitlement program ever enacted. What are these people thinking?

In the 30s, the massive federal spending of the New Deal turned the recession of 1929 into what we now know as the Great Depression, and it lasted an entire decade. What will happen this time around?

This is the beginning of the end. America's default on her debt is inevitable. Its default on her obligations to social security and medicare are inevitable. Hyperinflation and rising interest rates are on the horizon, and so will the rapid devaluation of our once-powerful currency. We are poised to witness the greatest wipeout of wealth in human history, and today's events set those events into an irreversible motion. In short, all hope for a recovery, for a restoration of this country to its prior greatness, is now and forever gone. We will never recover from this.

Those who disagree will learn of it on their own accord. Those who agree must remember that God is always in charge no matter what.

And Mr. Stupak, to thine own self be true. Only you know the details of your vote. And that, sir, is now between you and the Almighty.

God help you. God help us all.

2010-03-05T07:51:00.002-06:00

"There's not been the same push as there was in August to encourage members to do town halls," said Stephanie Lundberg, spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

That's a Hoyer spokeswoman replying to a question about the spring recess. Specifically, the question was asked about town hall meetings and a scenario in which the health care debate continued to drag into the spring recess.

This of course contradicts the Dem-Obama talking point that the American people oppose the health care bill simply because they don't understand it, or don't realize just how good it is for them. They have to tell themselves that because to admit that the public overwhelmingly opposes the bill yet "we're gonna do it anyway" is nothing short of tyrannical.

Obama would never do anything tyrannical would he?

2010-03-04T07:36:00.001-06:00

President Obama has nominated the brother of an undecided House Democrat to the Appeals Court.

A new kind of politics?

Hope and Change?

Somebody flush a toilet, because that's the only sound effect that applies.

Defining the Drones

2010-02-23T19:10:00.005-06:00

In regards to my last post:

Yes, my post was loaded the cynicism and negativity. That is a reflection not just of my own personal opinions, but of many across the country. Some may dismiss the views as simple partisanship or ideology. My response to that is to say that I am an independent, and my ideology is one of traditional conservativism, that is the very ideology upon which America was founded. I am not bitter about a liberal getting elected President. I remember the Clinton years well and hardly felt any real concern about the future of America. This is very different. And I am not a doom-and-gloom pessimist. I take things as they come and comment on them accordingly.

I am hardly one to worry or wring my hands about what the boobs in Washington do, because in previous years ultimately the will of the people prevailed, which is exactly why I voiced so much concern in the last post. If a particular administration pursues a particular agenda with the consent of the people, that's fine. But when our elected leaders ignore and in some ways deliberately subvert the will of the people, then it's a legitimate cause for alarm. Because then we no longer live in a Republic, but are instead subjected to the tyrannical rule of a few hundred individuals who believe they know what's best for all of us. If there are some who dismiss this as alarmist or over-reacting, then I don't know what else to say except open your eyes and look carefully at what's going on.

As for my "drones" comment. It is my belief that a significant number of people in America are seeking to radically redesign this democracy into something the Founders never intended. A best guess is 20% of the population. What they want is "economic justice", income redistribution both domestically and internationally, maximum government control over industry and commerce, and limited if not subserviant American involvement in foreign affairs. In short, these people seek full-blown socialism. They have great resources and lots of money. Many of them are in influential positions in our education system, our legal system, our political system, and the media. To them, the State is the supreme power. We all exist for the State. Everything we do, everything we produce is for the benefit of the State.

It is a powerful force, and yet they are at best 20% of the population. Hardly enough to make significant changes. So they utilize misinformation and half-truths to rally others around their cause. Those who rally are generally ignorant of the truth and tend to accept what they're told at face value without verifying for themselves. In many cases, the mistruths are easy to accept because they would benefit in some way if the mistruth were indeed true. Others find the cause fulfilling where their lives are otherwise empty or superficial (see Hollywood). And still others simply yearn for an earthly utopia and see the capitalists, the conservatives, the Republicans and pretty much anyone else who believes in true liberty as an obstruction in their path. These are the people I refer to as "drones".

They are ignorant of the truth, or simply choose to ignore it for their own benefit. Arguing with them is fruitless. Often they resort to the irrelevant emotional argument: We have to help the poor, the elderly, the children, we have to protect the planet. People are suffering, we must do something. And they use the same emotional arguments to demonize the opposition. Conservatives oppose program Y, therefore they hate group Z (those who would benefit from program Y). Or the play victomology. Group X was wronged by group Y and the State must make it right. Or they play the entitlement game. YOU have been victimized by society, WE will make it right. Or they play the class warfare game, feeding into people's envy, regret, or personal shortcomings, allowing blame to be placed on others. Lastly, they resort to personal attacks (I've been called everything from racist to homophobe to xenophobe and everything in between). These tactics are very effective and thus recruiting drones is rather easy even when the facts aren't on their side. You can't argue against these tactics except to point out the facts, which I will no longer do. They count on the ignorance of others to fuel the cause. I will count on the reader to investigate for themselves. Self-Enlightenment will be my counter-argument.

So I've decided to quit arguing with them. My opinions are based on fact, reason and common sense and it is no longer my inclination to repeatedly point that out. If I encounter a drone, or a socialist attempting to recruit drones, I will simply ignore them and seek discussion with open-minded individuals who value liberty and seek the truth. Likewise, there are certain issues that I will no longer argue because, again, the facts are on my side. When these issues come up, it will be easy to recognize them because the drones will be utilizing their time-tested tactics. And so I lay these issues to rest. No longer will I engage in those conversations.

Are you one of these drones? Below is a list I've compiled of certain things that the socialists have manufactured to rally folks to their cause. The list is incomplete, and I will certainly add to it. But if you find yourself agreeing with a great number of these lies and mistruths, then I would recommend a little more research, and remind you that I will no longer discuss them on this site.

If you believe in the following, then there is concern that others are defining your opinions for their own personal gain or for the gain of the State:

Human activity is causing the earth's climate to change.
Those with money are "fortunate", while those with less are "less fortunate".
The government is a provider.
Equal rights and equal outcomes are one in the same.
President Geoge W. Bush created the Recession of '08-'09 with his fiscal policy.
War is never necessary.
The United States is inherently flawed and must be radically changed.
The United States is a greedy nation and has done little to ease global suffering.
Capitalism only benefits a select few.
Crime is the result of society's short-comings.
The United States is an imperialistic nation.
The government is noble.
The government is compassionate.
It is possible to for the government to spend its way to economic prosperity.
Healthcare is a right.
Education is a right.
Childcare is a right.
Retirement security is a right.
Home ownership is a right.
Employment is a right.
Imposing limits on wages and salaries is noble.
Requiring a minimum wage is good for the economy.
Labor Unions look out for the workers.
The Tea Parties are nothing but "astroturf" movements.
ACORN was victimized by a setup.
GOP obstructionists offer no real ideas of their own.
Tax cuts reduce federal revenue.
Women do not get equal pay for equal work.
The KSM trial in Manhattan is a legitimate display of a fair justice system.
The NEA looks out for the students.
The AMA looks out for the patients.
Educating our children is the responsibility of the federal government.
Taxing the rich only hurts the rich, not the poor.
Government revenues increase with more taxes.

Those are just a few. If you're unsure about any of these statements, or if you believe them outright, then it's time to do a little research on your own.

What's the point?

2009-12-16T23:27:00.003-06:00

So, it has been a while since I last posted and yes the frequency of the posts on this site have dropped off a bit. The simple explanation is that if I posted every day as before this site would essentially become a great mass of negativity. That's because if I commented on current events on a daily basis, there would be very little positive to say. And I'm afraid if I wrote negative stuff on a daily basis it would start to affect me personally. So I'm just kicking back and watching.

And there's one other reason. I'm finding that it does very little good to argue sane points against an insane ideology. I'm beginning to understand that the people who hold liberal viewpoints have become immune to common sense, rational thought, fundamental logic and little things called facts. Ideology is all that matters to them, damn the truth. How do you argue against that? Well, you can't.

It's like having an alcoholic cousin. We all have one. You can reason with him, tell him how destructive alcohol is, plead with him to stop, etc, etc. But the truth is eventually it all becomes futile and the only thing you can do is step back let him hit rock bottom and discover the truths you've been preaching on his own. I guess that's the attitude I'm adopting with the neo-socialist ideology. These people are either power hungry politicians who want to rule the people or they are ignorant drones who vote for the power hungry politicians. It's fruitless to try to reason with them. So perhaps it's best if we just hit rock bottom and let the drones learn some tough life lessons.

Case in point: Health Care.

Congress is on the verge of passing legislation that will completely dismantle the world's greatest health care system. Afterward, they will stand in front of the cameras with big smiles, slobbering over and congratulating each other on the "historic" legislation. Oh yeah, it will be historic alright. History books will mention this one by name because America will never be the same afterward. The Left is ecstatic. The drones are pleased. All I can say is that what happens after this becomes law will be well-deserved. You are the fools who put these fools into office, so now you will reap the consequences.

By the time Mr. Obama prepares for a re-election bid our health care system will be a complete disaster. It may very well be the deciding factor in whether or not he even tries for re-election, if hyperinflation or a double-dip recession doesn't wipe out his prospects first. All doctors know this. As do most hospital administrators and other health care professionals. The shame of it all is that many Americans have no idea. The drones are clueless to what's about to be forced upon them by a deaf, cynical Congressional majority who has no regard for the will and well-being of the people. That makes me a little sad.

As for me and my family, I've already begun taking action to protect our health. We will be fine. But there are so many who are about to be blind-sided by this monstrosity of a law. There is a part of me that wants to take pity on them, but then I am reminded that I tried so many times. We all tried. My alcoholic cousin wouldn't listen, and neither would the drones. So rock bottom is a necessity. I'm thinking it's probably the only way to get the point across.

Remember, this is what you voted for. It's not the government's fault. It's not the "rich" folks' fault. You have no one to blame but yourselves. I won't say "I told you so". It won't be necessary. But I will be there ready to rebuild once our democracy crashes under the weight of our laziness, greed, lack of responsibility, and sense of entitlement. Until that moment arrives, I'm afraid this country is facing some tough times.

Senate healthcare...a man-caused disaster

2009-11-20T16:06:00.000-06:00

While scanning news sources I came across this article in the New York Post and had to link to it because nothing summarizes the Senate health care bill better. Below I have included the highlights of the article and the bill as it relates to deficit spending and massive growth of the national debt. But before I do, let me say that if you believe that Congress is doing all of this because they want to improve health care for people, provide for those who can’t help themselves and reduce health care costs, then you shouldn’t bother reading any further. You are what I call a “drone”, blinded by allegiance to ideology and completely unable to make an independent objective analysis of what’s happening in Washington. For those who are skeptical of D.C., read on.

First, the CBO has announced that the Senate health care bill fails to reduce healthcare costs, which is an improvement over the House bill that the CBO says will increase healthcare costs. For that reason alone, both bills should be canned. But it gets worse, much worse.

Soon-to-be-former senator Harry Reid says the Senate bill will cost $850 billion over ten years and that this will be budget neutral via higher taxes and cuts in Medicare. That’s a convenient and blatantly dishonest description, but Harry is rarely accused of having integrity. According to the Post, Harry has used a smoke-and-mirrors game to come up with a ten-year “budget neutral” bill. The trick is that the actual entitlement program doesn’t kick in until 2014. The first ten years therefore includes five years of no entitlement program, no massive spending. During that first five years, the tax hikes and medicare cuts will be enacted. So we begin paying before anything actually happens. 99% of the costs of the bill won’t kick in until after 2014.

So, the CBO calculated the “true” cost of the bill. That is, the first ten years of the actual healthcare entitlement (2014-2023). And, surprise, they found that the bill will cost an obscene $1.8 trillion – double what Harry is telling us. But there’s more.

During that same ten years, the Post reports that there will be $900 billion in tax increases.

Again, before any of this happens, before anyone actually gets healthcare, we will start paying right away. For starters, the Senate proposes to divert $800 billion for Medicare to help fund this monstrosity. Half of that amount will come from cuts in physician reimbursement. Beginning in 2011, Medicare will cut pay to physicians by 23%. Logically, this will lead to a mass “drop” of Medicare, as in doctors will stop taking patients who are covered by Medicare alone. Medicare will effectively become another Medicaid, where doctors who see those patients do so at a net loss. There is only so much room for those types of patients in any medical practice. Similar scenarios will develop in hospitals and nursing homes. Access to care for seniors on Medicare will vanish, until 2014 when they can all enroll in the government option. Yet, the CBO didn’t take this “unintended consequence” into account when determining its $1.8 trillion price tag. So the actual cost will be hard to imagine.

The rest of the money comes from tax increases, lots of them. There will be taxes on food, taxes on cosmetic surgery, taxes on private insurance policies. But the big one will be an increase in payroll taxes. This will come at a time when unemployment has eclipsed 10%. We cross our fingers and hope businesses will start hiring again, and then we slap those businesses with more payroll taxes that will only discourage hiring.

Already have health insurance? Get ready to pay more for it, a lot more. The Senate bill clearly bans insurance companies from disqualifying people with pre-existing conditions, or due to increased age. It also says that the insurance companies can’t charge these people more for insurance. They must charge all customers the same. Therefore, private insurance policies will increase in price dramatically. Those of us who have insurance will pay more for it in order to make up for those people whose insurance costs more to provide. That’s on top of the taxes that will be assessed on our private policies.

Get insurance from your employer? Don’t count on it. Employers will be slapped with more payroll taxes and will be required to provide health insurance (that will be costing more) for their employees or pay a fine to the federal government. Problem is, the fine is a lot cheaper than providing insurance. So smaller companies will dump their insurance plans and simply pay the fine, telling employees they have the option to enroll in the government program. This will further bloat the government program, another unintended consequence not factored in by the CBO.

And remember, the government option isn’t available until 2014. So, there is a very real possibility that for the next 5 years the number of uninsured will skyrocket and once the government opens its clinic doors it will be flooded by people seeking care. $1.8 trillion won’t begin to cover the cost.

If passed, this bill will be an economic disaster, one that ruins the best healthcare system and the strongest economy in the world all with one swoop. But Harry tells us it can work while Obama eagerly waits to sign any bill that hits his desk no matter how destructive. And the drones applaud because even though we destroy the economy and the healthcare sector, we will finally give healthcare to people who never earned it.

Fort Hood terrorist attack

2009-11-12T23:05:00.002-06:00

How things have changed. I just saw a recent study on the three major news networks and it showed that the majority of the stories on the Fort Hood attack never mentioned the words "terror" or "Muslim". That's precisely why I don't watch the network news.

First, let's call it what it is. This was a calculated attack. An act of war. An act of Jihad. The man involved wasn't insane. He was an Islamic fundamentalist. He was a Jihadist who bought into the extremist notion that non-believers are the enemy, that anyone who opposes the extremist ideology should be killed. He didn't suffer from any disease. He didn't "just snap". He was well aware of what he was doing and he was doing it for a cause. Why some people have difficulty admitting that is beyond me.

This was the deadliest terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11. Fourteen people were murdered in the name of Islamic fundamentalism because they were non-believers, because they were part of the "great satan".

Today, Hasan was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder. And as the father of one of the victims said...that's a good start. Hopefully, more charges will come. Now, we have learned that he has been wiring money to Pakistan. Once the FBI discovers that these wires were going to fund the Taliban and Al Qaeda, I expect him to be charged with treason. I would also like a 14th count of murder given the fact that one of the casualties was 2 months pregnant.

I could get into the questions of why this guy slipped through the cracks, but that is something that will be debated and discussed for a long time. Basically, my own military experience taught me that much of the military has inexplicably become political. The Pentagon is way too close to D.C. Political correctness has infected it as it has infected much of our society, even to the point where it has become dangerous. I know why Hasan was never investigated, nor identified as a potential threat. I saw the politics during my own time in the service. I'd be willing to bet that there were several people on the low end of the chain-of-command who sounded the alert, only to be squashed by their superiors. Anyone with recent military service will agree with me for they certainly saw it as well. There is no greater evidence of it than that seen in the Army Chief-of-Staff's statement about the attack, that it would be a greater tragedy if the Army lost its diversity.

A greater tragedy? Good grief.

This guy was in contact with Al Qaeda recruiters. He repeatedly denounced the US activity in the Middle East. He burst into repeated religious rants while counseling returning troops. He gave a medical lecture about the need to behead infidels, which included the statement that "we love death more than you love life". His business card included "Soldier of Allah". He cried Allahu Akbar while murdering the troops. He wired money to Pakistan even though his family was originally from Jordan. Yet, we want to focus on PTSD and bullying as an etiology for his action. This is what they do in Europe, afraid to acknowledge the problem. And that is why the problem over there has grown.

I also would like to see an end to the obligatory disclaimer that everyone inserts during their commentary. We've all heard it. "Not all Muslims are terrorists" or "there are many Muslims who serve with honor" or "Islam is a religion of peace". No kidding! Is this really necessary? Does this help? Are we so afraid of being painted with the bigot brush that we feel we have to issue this statement anytime we talk about terrorism? Give it a rest.

So the investigation will go on. Congress will probably have hearings. The pundits will discuss it for weeks. But I think plenty of damage has already been done. When the enemy is capable of infiltrating our own military and executing a deadly attack on defenseless troops, the majority of the media and many American citizens along with the Presidential administration lacks the courage to call it a terrorist attack by an Islamic fundamentalist. There is little that can demoralize our military more. If we lack the courage to name it, how on earth can we have the courage to confront and defeat it?

Governor's races and NY 23

2009-11-04T17:03:00.003-06:00

So here are my thoughts on yesterday's elections:

The independents have swung. The dems have dominated the last two elections the same way the GOP dominated those previous...by convincing the independents. I think these elections were a referendum on the economy, and the economy is not good. Not only that, but I think the independents made a statement that taxing and spending isn't the way to fix the economy. In Virginia, there was a 25 point swing - one quarter of the electorate. In New Jersey it was 20 points. And the exit polls showed overwhelming swing in independents from dem to GOP. McDonnell even won the more liberal areas of the state. If unemployment is still bad in a year (which I think it will be) and the economy is still lagging (ditto) then I think the independents will continue to reject the dems.

The Bush effect is dead. Bush is gone, and so is the dem's favorite scapegoat. Corzine repeatedly tried to hang George W. Bush around his opponent's neck and it didn't work. I wonder if President Obama took note of this?

The GOP must work with, not against, its base. I'm tired of hearing about the right wing base hurting the GOP. Scozzafava was selected by a group of career politicians without any input from the voters. As a result, the conservatives of NY 23 got a liberal candidate who was Left of even the democrat, thus clearing the way for a third party candidate that effectively split the vote. The conservatives simply didn't have a candidate. Had there been a primary, or even some opinion polls done, this could have been avoided. Hoffman lost by 3-4 pts, while DeDe carried about 5-6 pts even after she dropped out. If Hoffman had an R instead of an I beside his name maybe the outcome would be different. Who knows? At any rate, the base clearly rejected the liberal candidate because it was liberalism that damaged the party prior to 2006. Michael Steele and the GOP leaders have to wise up to the obvious. The GOP lost in '06 and '08 because they strayed from conservative ideals, NOT because they embraced them. The GOP leaders in NY 23 repeated that mistake and paid a big price, allowing a moderate dem to win the election.

Social issues aren't as important in a campaign. Deeds attacked McDonnell for being anti-abortion, and his close affiliation with the religious right. It didn't work. Hoffman ran on social issues rather than fiscal issues, and it failed. Yet, gay marriage loses on a ballot initiative. This is fascinating. Perhaps I've missed something here. I believe that most Americans share in relatively conservative social issues, but maybe they don't want them involved in politics. Maybe that's because many people adhere to the most basic of conservative principles, that we dictate the rules to the government, not vice versa, regardless of the issue. Perhaps conservatives don't want government involvement in social issues on either side of the aisle. I'm okay with that. Personally, I say let gay marriage, abortion, gun control, etc be decided by individual states. The Left would never allow that. So while it's important to conservatives to have conservative values, those candidates shouldn't flaunt them, at least not as much as they flaunt their fiscal conservatism. McDonnell and Cristie ran on fiscal conservatism and won. Hoffman ran on social conservatism and lost. Again, I'm fine with that. I'll agree to keep the social issues up to the people if the Left will stipulate.

Once again, the people reject gay marriage. This time in blue-state Maine. We'll see how long it takes the Left to involve the courts. To reinforce the point above, does anyone believe that Maine would have elected a conservative candidate who ran on a platform of anti-gay marriage? Nope.

The Tea Parties were more than astroturf. Just ask John Corzine and Creigh Deeds. The tea parties were all about government restraint, and I think they were loud and clear yesterday. It will be interesting to see if the politicians continue to dismiss this movement or choose to actually listen to the fiscal concerns of the citizens.

There IS a litmus test for GOP candidates. I could vote for a pro-gun control candidate. Or a pro-gay marriage candidate. Or a pro-abortion candidate. But I would NEVER vote for a big government, big spending, high taxing candidate. Never. Both parties need to take this to heart because I am most definitely not alone. Social issues are important, and I would be encouraged to know that the candidate I support feels as I do on these issues. But the primary issue in today's politics revolves around the degree of government involvement in people's lives. Yesterday, the people rejected a long-reaching government. I think they did the same in '06 and '08 based on campaign rhetoric. There is no reason to think the same won't happen next year.

It's time to hold the Washington elites accountable. It's disturbing when a GOP candidate withdraws from an election and endorses a democrat candidate. That has a certain "good-ole-boy-network" odor to it. I get the feeling that many politicians, regardless of party, are just milking this thing for all it's worth. They say one thing in front of the camera, and behind closed doors pat each other on the back and laugh about the great con they're pulling on the common folk. Washington just seems like an ancient, exclusive country club that doesn't like the idea of newcomers intruding on their gig. See Sarah Palin, Ross Perot, Doug Hoffman, Jesse Ventura and Ralph Nader for examples. The elites have a stranglehold on power and will resist any "we-the-people" revolt.

So, today I will write a check to the Chris Simcox campaign for Senate. He is running against John McCain in Arizona and I hope he wins. McCain is a fine and decent man, but I think he's lost touch with the common American. I encourage my fellow grassroots conservatives to do the same. If we can't form a third party, then let's redefine the GOP as a party of low taxes, limited government, free market solutions, energy independence, personal responsibility and strong national defense.

The social issues can be decided by the people. If government is involved, then the 6 principles above should govern any conservative party. I believe Chris Simcox adheres to those where John McCain has fallen short in the past.

The dying GOP

2009-11-02T16:12:00.000-06:00

I am amused at the parade of pundits who continue to insist the Republican party is on a nosedive because of a stubborn unwillingness to become more inclusive. Recent events in upstate New York have given these pundits more ammunition.

In that traditionally conservative district, the grand party got together in a smoke-filled room and nominated a committed liberal to run for Congress. Dede Scazzafava is a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control Republican who supported Obama’s stimulus package back in February. Needless to say, when she was placed on the ballot, support for her was a bit subdued. The people in the district were once again placed in a position to choose between two liberals, one with an R beside her name, the other with a D.

Then there was Doug Hoffman, a member of the Conservative party, who is running as a true conservative, something the GOP used to stand for. He acquired some key endorsements from leaders of the conservative movement and suddenly his poll numbers surpassed those of Scazzafava, thus overcoming the old “third party can’t win” jinx. With dwindling support, the Republican bowed out and it now looks like a true conservative will win the election.

The liberal pundits love it. They see this as evidence that there is an internal war in the GOP. They criticize the party for not being more inclusive, not having a big tent. They criticize the party for “allowing” the conservative voices to have too much power. Basically, they criticize the GOP for not being more like the Democrats. In essence, the pundits want a two-party system consisting of an extremist liberal party and a moderate liberal party. There’s only one problem…voters.

Inside the beltway, GOP leaders drink the media kool-aid. They agree that the GOP needs to act more like Democrats. That’s why Gingrich, Michael Steele and John Boehner stood beside their liberal nominee. These guys, along with many others in DC, still haven’t gotten the message, and I think his endorsement of the liberal candidate will deal a crushing blow to any hopes he had of running for President in 2012, we’ll see.

The majority of Americans would consider themselves conservative over liberal, especially when it comes to fiscal policy. And the backlash over the ballooning federal deficit is further evidence of this. The pundits dismiss the backlash as Astroturf, and apparently the GOP leaders agree. Well, here are some numbers to munch on from an April 2009 CBS poll:

74% of Americans believe the government isn’t doing enough to control illegal immigration
51% feel that illegal immigrants should either be deported or placed in a guest worker program
63% feel that illegal immigration is too costly for the nation
52% favor building a border fence
76% oppose driver’s licenses for illegals
55% feel illegals should be turned over to the feds when arrested
72% disapprove of hiring quotas
68% feel that the poor have become too dependent on government assistance
67% feel that minorities are responsible for their own circumstances
51% are pro-life
79% are worried about harming the financial future of their children
53% support the death penalty
63% support immersion in English for illegals
33% support bilingual education
52% favor school vouchers
59% favor nuclear energy
74% favor offshore drilling
59% favor ANWR drilling
51% oppose cap-and-trade
77% feel the 2nd amendment protects gun ownership
57% feel that stricter gun laws would increase violent crimes
63% aren’t confident that Medicare will be available when they retire
61% feel the same about social security
52% oppose legalizing marijuana
56% believe social security is in crisis or serious trouble
36% believe health care is the government’s responsibility

Support for the Republican party is hemorrhaging. Leaders of the party seem to think it’s because they aren’t Democrat-enough. This is classic beltway thinking. They have no clue and refuse to acknowledge what the voters are clearly saying. The voters demand fiscal responsibility, plain and clear, and are more apt to have conservative values than liberal. That’s why the GOP was beat in 2006 and 2008, that’s why a “change” campaign won the White House, that’s why the tea party movement sprung up, that’s why Obama’s approval rating is dropping, and that’s why people refused to support yet another big-spending Republican who thought just having an R beside her name was enough to win the conservative vote. Well, no more!

The GOP is poised to become obsolete and if they choose to listen to the media pundits instead of the voters that’s exactly what will happen. I know many people who have abandoned that party, and not one of them says it’s because the party wasn’t inclusive enough. The GOP is losing support because they are too much like the Democrats, and until they start to bring some contrast to the progressives, that support will continue to erode.

Afghanistan

2009-10-23T23:46:00.002-05:00

Today the leaders of NATO endorsed the US strategy of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. Similar endorsements have come from key members of the UN.

Two months ago, General McChrystal presented his request for 40,000 additional troops to implement the counter-insurgency strategy that has now been endorsed by these leaders. As of this post, President Obama has yet to commit to that strategy.

However, Rahm has gone on the talk-shows and blasted - who else - the Bush administration for not having an effective strategy in Afghanistan, thus leaving Obama to "start from scratch". We now know that as early as March of this year, President Obama presented his strategy on Afghanistan. Interestingly enough, it mirrored Bush's strategy of a surge-like counter-insurgency. Obama appointed McChrystal to execute the plan. McChrystal established his command and soon after delivered his assessment that implementing the strategy originally designed by the Bush administration, adopted by the Obama administration, and now endorsed by our European allies, would require 40,000 troops. All of a sudden, Obama isn't sure.

McChrystal is waiting. Our dedicated troops are waiting. Obama believes the decision should be put off until the next Afghan election (or, more likely, the gubernatorial elections in NJ and Virgina).

McChrystal has made it clear what he needs. Even the Europeans agree. Obama isn't sure. This is our commander-in-chief. And each day he delays, military morale plummets.

Obama has one of two options: 1) send the troops McChrystal has requested, 2) pack up and get out of Afghanistan. My fear is that it will be somewhere in between, ie 10-20,000 troops. Folks, this is exactly how Vietnam escalated.

If Obama fails to meet his General's request, then I think both McChrystal and Petraeus should resign. And I think they will.

God bless our troops who are fighting and dying while their commander-in-chief deliberates on whether or not to give them what they need to win.

Why Doctors are Worried

2009-10-22T23:08:00.002-05:00

I link to this column by Dr Marc Siegel. It's a great contrast to the bogus politics of the AMA and Obama's phony "white coat" gathering on the White House lawn. Dr. Siegel does a great job at voicing the opinion of the majority of doctors in this country who know what Obama's health care reform will do to our patients. Enjoy.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/22/doctors-heath-care-reform-opinions-contributors-marc-siegel.html

Limits on income...

2009-10-21T22:15:00.002-05:00

Just heard on the Levin show that a recent poll shows that 78% of Americans support Obama's effort to impose federal limits on executive pay.

Think about this for a moment, the latest in many examples of Obama's Marxist ideology. This one is actually two-fold. For one, limiting someone's pay is inherently Marxist. No matter how hard you work, how many hours you put in, how successful your efforts are, there is a ceiling to what you can bring in. The flaw in this thinking is obvious, which is precisely why Marxism in reality has never actually succeeded without tyrannical brutality enforcing it.

But there is another aspect of this poll, one that is also inherently Marxist...that of class warfare. Barack Obama - more than any other political leader in US history - has made amazing progress at fanning the fires of envy and hatred between our social classes. Look at those executives, look at how much money they make, so much more than any of you, this is not fair, we should stop it, we should impose a limit to what they can make, let's get them.

If this poll is to be trusted, then his efforts are succeeding. Ultimately, the collectivist desires equal outcomes for all citizens, which is why they favor mandatory minimum wages for the least-skilled workers and now mandatory maximum wages for the most-skilled. They achieve this by gaining support amongst the populous, in large part by inducing social class envy, bitterness, and hatred towards those who have achieved success in a free-market capitalist system. Their argument is that capitalism is unfair because such a small percentage of citizens become super-wealthy in such a system - of course failing to acknowledge that the same system results in great wealth for the collective compared to similar social classes in other nations and other systems.

The collectivist specializes in divisiveness, fueling the fires of greed and envy so that the populous feels cheated and eventually supports action against the super-wealthy, much like that reflected in this poll. However, the great trap is that those who support salary caps don't realize that their support effectively grants the state the power to cap EVERYONE's salary should the collective need arise...and that is the great trap that the collectivist has set.

The poll reads that 78% of Americans desire caps on executive pay. And this means that 78% of Americans are unwittingly willing to grant the government the power to set pay limits whenever the government deems it necessary. Mr. Alinsky is smiling about this one.

White House vs Fox news

2009-10-20T23:11:00.002-05:00

It's been a while. My apologies.

Two stories to comment on today. First, there was announcement today that Congress was attempting to fix the payment gap in Medicare for doctors. For those who don't know, this is an annual problem that Congress has to address. When Congress first established payment schedules for doctors they forgot to adjust these payments for inflation. So every year doctors face a reduction in reimbursement from medicare. What adds to the problem is that fact that if Congress fails to patch the problem from year to year, the payment schedule resorts back to the original payment schedule as determined years ago. So essentially, every year the problem gets bigger and bigger. And instead of actually fixing it once and for all, Congress just patches it year to year.

The problem is so big now that if Congress fails to fix it, then doctors would face as much as a 25% reduction in medicare reimbursement. That's serious. Many doctors would simply stop accepting medicare as a result, thus leaving seniors with fewer health care options. So Congress decides to put in a patch at a cost of $250 billion, which they aren't going to pay for. Yes, this money will just be added to our growing debt. Why? Well, I have a theory.

I have never been a member of the AMA because I think they are a political group who isn't interested in the well-being of our patients. The AMA represents doctors. And the AMA has thrown itself in with the Obama administration, supporting Obamacare. Now, Obama can claim to have the support of America's doctors for his health care reform. The only problem is that America's doctors don't support his reform. The AMA supports it, but if you poll physicians nationwide you'll find they basically reflect the opinion of the general population. My guess is the AMA agreed to get behind Obamacare for a trade-off, and we saw the fruits of that trade-off today. More pay for doctors, more debt on the shoulders of our children.

Now for the next topic. Today Robert Gibbs announced that the White House doesn't consider Fox News a legitimate news organization and it discourages people from getting their news from that network. This announcement was met with little objection from the White House press corps, except for one lone voice, that of ABC news' Jake Tapper. Tapper is a liberal. And he is also a professional journalist in the sense that his own political views rarely interfere with his reporting. He spoke up and pressed Gibbs about the administration's attitude toward Fox News, and I suspect he did so because Tapper recognized something that should disturb any journalist. Anytime the White House declares that a certain news organization should be ignored, it should make any citizen, and certainly any journalist pause.

Gibbs said that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity were the primary reasons why the administration wants to marginalize Fox. Those shows are commentary, hosted by men who never try to hide their political ideology. Yet, Gibbs feels that's enough to black list the entire network. Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are always welcome at the White House despite their opinion-based programs. Keep in mind, Fox is really the only major news organization that has bothered to question many of Obama's initiatives, and now the administration wants them ignored, even marginalized. There is something quite disturbing about that. People like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro do these kinds of things. It should never come from an American president. Even the Liberal commentators on Fox are voicing some legitimate objections to this.

George Bush welcomed dissent, and never tried to bully the media into falling in line with his objectives. Obama is bringing something much different to the table, and it really makes me squirm in my seat a bit. I am never comfortable when the White House gets to pick and choose which news organizations are "fit" to be considered legitimate. That's just too close to a state-sanctioned news source for my taste.

The fact is I watch Fox because it's the only network where I'm guaranteed to get the whole story. I get both points of view on the issues and I appreciate that. I hear the opinions of Beck and Hannity, as well as Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and Geraldo Rivera. I appreciate the spirited debate and the opportunity to make up my own mind on any given issue. It's hardly a bastion of conservatism, and anyone who says otherwise probably has never even bothered to watch it. Other networks have a tendency to spoon feed their viewers only the things they want them to hear and see. If you don't watch Fox, then you probably have no idea who Van Jones is, or why ACORN is suddenly in a lot of trouble.

Yes, Fox asks some tough questions. Why is Obama delaying the Afghan troop decision? Why isn't the stimulus package working as promised? Why isn't he giving more guidance on the health care debate? These are the things I want my President to be asked. Bush wasn't given any softer treatment. In fact, I would argue that Beck was just as tough on Bush as he is on Obama.

So I think journalists should take a step back. If you dare disagree with the White House, if you dare ask a difficult question, if you dare try to hold Obama accountable, you may be black-listed as well. If they can go after Fox, there is nothing keeping them from going after any other news outlet. We'll see if Jake Tapper is allowed to ask anymore questions at the White House press conference.

Jimmy Carter the true Democrat

2009-09-16T23:00:00.003-05:00

Back when President Bush was making the case for the Iraq invasion, those who demonstrated against him were called patriots. At that time, dissent was considered the "highest form of patriotism". Now, according to Jimmy Carter, dissent is racist. No exceptions. Not even if you live outside of the South.

Basic logic says that if A = B, and B = C, then A = C. That's basic logic. So if you apply logic to Jimmy Carter you would come to the conclusion that the highest form of patriotism is dissent, and dissent is racism, therefore racism is the highest form of patriotism. That's what happens when you apply logic to Democrats like Jimmy Carter.

I disagree with Barack Obama on policy. This blog has left no doubt regarding that. But I am proud that America has overcome much of its racial past and elected a black man as President. That should make all Americans proud, conservative and liberal. But I think it's a shame that this man stepped into office promising to bring America into a post-racial era, while those closest to him continue to drag us back into the days of fire-hoses, whites-only lunch counters and segregation. That's what happens when a member of the Congressional Black Caucus warns that failure to censure Joe Wilson will lead to people roaming the countryside in white hoods and robes. Yes, he really said that! This is beyond ridiculous. This is irresponsible and I am not the only who is fed up by it.

It's shameful that we can't have a simple policy disagreement without one side accusing the other of genocidal hatred. How can Obama possibly succeed as a post-racial President with that kind of rhetoric being tossed around BY HIS OWN PARTY!? Indeed, by his own administration.

Bernie Goldberg said it best. We don't have a Black President of the United States. We have a President of the United States. His race does not define him. His action does.

It is becoming clearer day by day that the most racist people in this country are those who accuse others of racism the most. They are the ones who insist on judging by color. They are the ones who insist that race is all that matters. They are the ones who categorize people by physical, cultural, and religious traits. Conservatives don't do this. Conservatives judge according to actions.

Simple question: What would Dr. King think about all this nonsense? I'll tell you. He'd be the first to condemn Carter and others for using race as a political club to bludgeon those who disagree with them.

If Obama is going to be the post-racial President he must put a stop to this nonsense. He must demand that the Left knock it off and stop flinging the race card around so recklessly. It dishonors those in America's past who TRULY suffered racism.

It is disgraceful, shameful, and yes, illogical.

You Lie!

2009-09-14T23:03:00.002-05:00

I saw Obama's speech about health care and afterward I realized Obama's role in the far Left's scheme. He's the salesman, the closer. He's the guy with the slick-backed hair who comes into the room just as your getting ready to walk off the used car lot. He's the one they send in to close the deal. Whenever things are going bad, Obama goes out and gives a speech. It worked for him for a while, but I think Americans are growing tired of fancy speeches and puffy language. We are a meat-and-potatoes culture, and so far the results have been lacking.

The highlight was Joe Wilson of South Carolina calling out "You lie" as Obama stated that his plan would not cover illegal immigrants. It was the most honest moment of the night. While I agree that it is uncivil to interrupt the President during a Congressional address, I can't deny the truth behind what Wilson said. And let's be honest, there is nothing civil about Washington politics. Does anyone remember Bush's 2005 State of the Union address being interrupted by "boos" from the Dems? And I say, if you're going to spring to your feet in applause - interrupting the President at the end of every sentence - then it's hard to condemn someone who actually calls him on an obvious mistruth.

Indeed, Obama was lying, but not just about the illegal immigrants. Later that week, the Obama White House admitted that there was no clause that mandated the verification of citizenship in order to receive medical benefits. They have since changed that simple oversight, but it proves that Wilson was right. Obama also said Medicare would not be cut, yet his own website details hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to medicare. He said the bill would be budget neutral, yet the CBO has stated clearly that it will not. He said only 6 million people would sign up. ONLY 6 MILLION! There is no way anyone with rational thinking could possible believe this. If only 6 million people would enroll, then why on earth bother?

He said that people would not be forced into the public option. But look at the details. The plan mandates employers to cover all employees with health insurance or else pay the federal government a fine of 8% of their payroll taxes. Well, ask any business owner and they will tell you that their health insurance costs MUCH more than 8%, so most businesses will cancel their policies and, yes, therefore FORCE people into the public option.

Estimated cost is somewhere around $900 billion over 10 years, and Obama expects only 6 million people to enroll in the government option. Folks, do the math. That's a health care plan that costs $150,000 per person! Do you have any idea what kind of health insurance you could buy on the open market with even half that amount? And what if Obama is wrong and, say, 12 million sign up? Would that increase the cost to 1.8 trillion? And people STILL think this is a good idea?

Yet, Joe Wilson is called a racist. The old stand by. In today's political environment, if you disagree with the President then, by default, you are a racist. And this is the President who was supposed to transcend race.

I agree with Wilson. Obama was lying. He still is lying. At the very least, he's not telling the whole truth which is in my book a lie. He WILL cut medicare. He WILL force people into his government option. He WILL increase the deficit. He WILL ration care. It's simple math.

But Wilson's comment did manage to cement my lack of faith in the gutless GOP, whose leaders were quick to distance themselves from Wilson after the speech. They tssk-tssked the man. Shame on him. Only to find out that Wilson said out loud what many Americans were saying at home as Obama spoke. Grassroots Americans rallied around Wilson for speaking for the people. Suddenly the spineless GOP did an about face. Now they're "standing behind him". Spineless. Gutless. And they wonder how they lost control in Washington.

I'm still waiting for the grassroots candidates to emerge. Somewhere there are a group of people who will split from the two-party system and form a true party of the people. When they do, history will be made, and a third party will emerge as a political power. I think the time has come for the Democrats and the Republicans to go the way of the Whigs.

Down the rabbit hole

2009-08-27T21:52:00.002-05:00

Well, it's been a while since my last post. Yes, I still remain active on this site despite the White House's email watch list. My temporary absence can be explained in part by just simple preoccupation with life - which can often get rather busy - and in part by genuine surprise at some recent happenings. I guess you could say that I have been rendered speechless by some of the things happening in Washington and elsewhere. What could possibly get the tongue of WEP, you may ask? Well, my friend, journey with me down the rabbit hole.

Ted Kennedy died yesterday, and YES, the Democrats are exploiting the man's death in order to gain support for their unpopular health reform bill. Seems like of all people the fringe Left would want to mourn it would be Ted. Nope. They're just trying to find a way to make it work for them. I heard someone say he was the greatest Senator ever, and I'm still trying to figure out if it was a compliment. Greatest Senator ever? Sorta like saying greatest loan shark ever. Or greatest mobster ever. Not exactly a title that sparks feelings of admiration.

But still, even though I obviously disagreed with Kennedy on pretty much everything, I believe in honoring those whom we love and admire. And Kennedy was loved and admired by a lot of people. You don't honor someone by exploiting their death for cheap political favor.

Yet the tactic does reflect how clueless our socialist leaders in Congress really are. 79% of Americans are just fine with health care as it is now. Most of them share my opinions and disagreements with Ted Kennedy. So why would saying "Let's do it for Ted" suddenly swing those people in favor of overhauling health care?

Speaking of socialists, Eric Holder was in the news a bit this week. A few months ago, Holder was tasked to decide whether or not to prosecute a group of thugs who stood in front of a Philadelphia polling station brandishing weapons and obviously intimidating voters. He couldn't exactly claim lack of evidence because a few voters actually recorded the neo-Black Panthers - nightsticks and all - doing their Marxist duty. So, Holder just decided to drop the charges. No prosecution. No explanation. I'm sure we are all confident that had it been a group of white extremists intimidating voters in such a way, Holder would have made a similar decision.

And speaking of racism, Glen Beck has become targeted by a racist organization for stating his opinion about Barack Obama. During an interview, Beck explained some of the President's actions and then went on to say "I believe he is a racist." Clearly an opinion, whether you agree with him or not.

Now, I don't know if Barack Obama is a racist. Racist implies that one believes in the superiority of his or her race over others. I don't know what's in the President's heart. But I do know that Glen Beck has a Constitutional right to state his opinion about the President, just as Cindy Sheehan once did. Apparently some disagree. So a racist organization has begun a campaign to threaten Beck's sponsors and effectively boycott the commentator in an attempt to silence his opinion. Dissent and debate are not welcome in the minds of Marxists - case in point, the aforementioned White House email watch list. Among those sponsors who caved is UPS. Which means that I will forever be using Federal Express for all my shipping needs.

But let's get back to Eric Holder. The Attorney General who once argued for the pardon of Mark Rich, the biggest tax cheat in US history, does not believe in prosecuting people who intimidate and discourage potential voters. But he does believe in prosecuting the CIA operatives who played a key role in protecting this country over the past 8 years at great personal risk. Holder points to a 2005 report that suggests possible "rough" behavior during some interrogations. The behavior in question includes - gasp! - blowing second hand smoke in the face of terrorists. Clearly this is much more of a crime than pointing a billy-club at someone while they're trying to vote. But Holder is hell bent. He won't tolerate anything more than predetermined questions read to the terrorist in a non-threatening and polite manner, with special emphasis on the words "please" and "thank you". As in "please tell us where the next attack will be" and "thank you for your enlightening and helpful cooperation". There is simply no better way to get information about imminent attacks. And President Obama has yet to comment on the actions of his AG.

And so we finally come to our hope-and-change savior. Obama has decided that the interrogation of terrorists will be coordinated by the White House. A select panel has been set up to handle this duty, and these people will report directly to Obama just like the upcoming US census bureau. To my knowledge, Obama didn't have any experience interrogating mass murderers during his days as a community organizer, but I may be wrong. Let's hope that he's better at it than the CIA, an organization that has carried out such duties for decades with impressive effectiveness. He wasn't lying when he said things were going to change.

In the midst of dabbling in terrorist interrogation, Obama has appointed over thirty "czars" to advise him on certain issues. Again, these people were chosen by the President and have no Constitutional basis for their job titles. They are unelected and there is no Congressional check on anything they do. Among these "czars" there is a man who is a self-proclaimed "communist revolutionary" who advises Obama about green jobs. What does a Communist know about green jobs? Please email me when you find out. And there is also a man who has openly advocated for population control, saying that the Constitution does not guarantee nor specify the number of children a citizen can have. Yikes! These are the people the President chooses to advise him on matters?

Among the Communists and baby killers, you would think that Obama would have someone with good math skills advising him. Apparently that's not the case. This week the White House announced that - oops - they underestimated the deficit by nearly 30%. Just 4 months ago Obama and his staff projected a $7 trillion deficit. This week, they revised that to $9 trillion. That's not exactly a careless error in arithmetic. Imagine a CFO in the private world going before the board of directors or the stock holders and saying that his numbers from 4 months ago were off by nearly 30%. That guy would be out on his can. Not so in DC.

And this is the same guy who tells us he can give us all health care by driving down costs, allow us to keep our current health insurance if we so chose, keep it all budget neutral, and not raise anyone's taxes.

A "new" era of politics? In more ways than one.

2009-08-08T21:51:00.002-05:00

Pulled this off of Drudge this morning. In 2004, Senator-elect Obama was giving an interview with Randi Rhodes of Air America fame, and in the interview he was complaining about President Bush pushing legislation through Congress without giving ample time for Congress to read the bills.

BARACK OBAMA: ...When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them.

RANDI RHODES: 14 pounds it was!

BARACK OBAMA: Yeah. And it gets rushed through without any clear deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen. And I think that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration.

Just more evidence to support what I’ve known ever since Obama emerged as a national politician…he is a phony. There is no such thing as “change you can believe in” because there is no change. He is just another politician, doing what politicians do.

Post-racial? No way. Whether its injecting race into the campaign with comments like “he doesn’t look like those other presidents” or “did I mention he was black”; or prejudging a highly-respected police officer as behaving “stupidly” and with racial motives, Barack Obama has proven that he is anything but post-racial.

Post-Partisan? Bull. He continues to blame his problems on the prior administration every time there is a camera pointed his way. He blames Republicans for obstructionism despite his party owning a Congressional super majority. He says the GOP has no alternative ideas, which is an interesting accusation considering his unwillingness to listen to any alternative ideas.

Six months into it, and thus far Obama has been a disappointment. He mandated the closure of Gitmo prison without any plan of execution thus far – aside from releasing a few prisoners on a Bahamian island paradise.

He crammed a $780 billion “stimulus” package through Congress without allowing Congress ample time to actually read the bill, and so far no stimulus has occurred. Probably because the money is going to things like turtle crossings and toilet repair.

He crammed cap and trade through the House with the help of Pelosi and political bribery.

And now healthcare. Geez.

And if you’re not yet disgusted by the behavior of our political leaders, here is a link to John Conyers comments about the necessity of reading a bill before voting on it:

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

Despite his sentiments, Conyers still voted in favor of the stimulus package that he didn’t read.

I realize that by posting opinions like this I run the risk of being targeted by the White House and ending up on their "flag" list. So what. Feel free to report me to the brown shirts.

Are all men created equal?

2009-07-17T15:39:00.000-05:00

All men are created equal. These five words do better at summarizing what America is about than any other five words you could string together. I believe that all men are created equal, and I’m glad that Jefferson had the wisdom to put these words in the Declaration of Independence. There is nothing more American than believing this to be true.

The US House recently put together a bill for universal health care in order to cover the 45 million or so people who don’t have health insurance. The CBO estimates a $1.5 trillion price tag, and the House has decided to pay for it in part by taxing the “wealthiest” Americans, which is basically any couple making over $280,000 a year. This new tax will be in addition to the higher taxes that Obama has promised for the “wealthy” to pay for his spending, and in addition to the tax hikes that will be passed in the next few years once Congress realizes the need to control federal deficit spending. I’m nowhere near that limit, but if I work hard and keep a full schedule I just may eclipse that mark and become one of the “wealthy”, although I hardly feel that way.

So this is what our government plans to do. They want to take money from me in order to give healthcare to someone who doesn’t have it. Basically, I will be paying for someone to have healthcare.

I you believe like I do, that all men are created equal, then you should have a serious problem with the above notion. Because those who support this plan tend to believe that healthcare is a right, not a responsibility. Therefore, since it is a right, every human being must be granted healthcare. But in order to do that, the money must be taken from me and given to another. In other words, I owe my fellow Americans healthcare simply because I make (or could possibly make) a certain amount of money. In other words, I am indebted to them.

This creates a problematic situation. If I am indebted to another person to the point of owing them healthcare, then what exactly have I done to incur that debt? And what has this person done to become my creditor? What is it about the two of us that makes us different to the point that I owe this person a portion of my earnings so that he/she can have healthcare or any other entitlement? I think it would be interesting to know how the supporters of this bill would answer such a simple question.

You can’t say that the debt was incurred by the mere existence of the non-healthcare person. Just being born does not entitle one person to healthcare, or retirement savings, or food stamps, or free education. Those things cost money and that money has to be paid by someone else. If you believe that all men are created equal then you will have a tough time reconciling that belief with the notion the merely existing entitles you to these things paid for by the fruits of someone else’s labor. My mere existence does not incur a debt to another person. In order to incur debt there must be an exchange of some sort of commodity or service. And that person’s mere existence does not entitle them to these things that I mentioned because they have done nothing to earn them. If you disagree, then you will have difficulty defending your beliefs in light of the truth that all men are created equal.

To claim that healthcare is a right amounts to a gross misrepresentation of what a right really is. A right is something that all human beings have regardless of race, color, ethnicity, religion, etc. We are born with rights. We are endowed by our Creator with them. They can’t be taken away or altered. They come with being human. Freedom of speech is a right. Voting is a right. Freedom of religion, peaceful assembly, to keep and bear arms. These things are rights. To place healthcare on that level is to say that all humans have a right to the labor of a healthcare professional, they have a right to my trade, my time; which creates a major discrepancy because if the government says that one person has a right to my labor, paid for by my money, then that in itself infringes upon my rights as a human being. I have done nothing to incur such a debt, yet I am being told that I owe this person healthcare.

The simple fact is that one person’s rights extend only so far, in that the rights of one man cannot infringe upon the rights of another. Healthcare is my trade. My commodity is time. That is how I make a living. To say that one person is born entitled to my trade, my time, is to say that his rights supersede my rights, that our mutual existence creates a debt between me and him even though nothing has been done to incur such a debt, which violates the notion that all men are created equal.

Which brings up a second question: If I pay for someone else’s healthcare and have done nothing to incur such a debt, then isn’t that person in some way indebted to me? And if I’m paying for healthcare, shouldn’t I have the right to demand responsible, healthy behavior from those who benefit from my tax money?

So if someone smokes, abuses drugs, is morbidly obese, eats too much salt or fast food, refuses to comply with doctor’s orders, engages in risky sexual activity, or participates in dangerous extracurricular activity, shouldn’t the government revoke their healthcare privileges in order to protect the taxpayer’s money? I think it would be a reasonable thing to do, which unfortunately brings the healthcare debate into a whole new realm regarding individual liberty and freedom of choice.

The point is that all of us are created equal. We may be born into different circumstances, but we all have freedom and opportunity. Taking full advantage of that opportunity and succeeding in life does not incur a debt to those who haven’t, because they were born with the same opportunities. And there is great danger in a system where one group of people provides for another group of people because that establishes power of one group over another, something the Founders never intended. This is why I oppose entitlements. It’s not because I lack compassion, it’s because I cherish liberty. If you depend on the government for food, education, daycare, retirement, healthcare, medication, or anything else…then you are NOT free! Your vote has been bought, and your liberty has been surrendered for the comfort that these entitlements bring. They have been provided for you so the providers can further ensure their reelection to office, and further ensure their power over you. That is not what America is about.

Healthcare, the argument for and against

2009-07-09T08:07:00.001-05:00

Continuing the health care debate, I ran across this column by Steven Findlay in USA Today. I chose this column to rebut because Findlay does a good job at summarizing the pro-reform crowd who are convinced that our medical system is deeply flawed and must be completely overhauled. I encourage you to read Findlay’s words, and then read my response to his talking points below. Findlay is just one example of many who clearly don’t understand the facts of this debate and are therefore either ignorant of the issue or are deliberately trying to deceive the public into supporting something that will ultimately be harmful. You can decide that for yourself. Here are some of Findlay’s main points:

Gov’t insurance wouldn’t have a competitive advantage over the private industry. “it wouldn't be that difficult to design a public option that abides by the same rules as private insurers and has no competitive advantage”. The argument is that a gov’t system would eventually squeeze out the private sector and before long we would all find ourselves insured by the government, thus putting our health in the hands of bureaucrats. What would start out as a “government option” would eventually become the only option. Findlay says this is a bogus argument, that no such scenario would happen and anyone who beats that drum is just fear-mongering. Bull.

How Findlay can say that a gov’t program would have no competitive advantage over the private sector is beyond me. A “public option” would have a huge competitive advantage in federal subsidies. The bottomless pockets of the US taxpayer would ensure that a public option could undercut the market and eventually drive away any competitors. Private companies don’t have access to this type of subsidy. So this fear is very real. A public option could most definitely become the only option, just as it is in Canada and England.

Quality and access won’t suffer. “Cookbook and rationed care? This fear stems from concerns that the government aims to dictate what doctors do and cut costs by limiting access to care. These notions are wrong. Rather, what Obama and both Democratic and Republican leaders want to do is aggressively measure the quality of care that doctors and hospitals deliver and change the way those providers get paid so quality of care — rather than quantity — is rewarded.” It’s simple math. Today’s doctors manage a group of patients while walking a fine line between quantity and quality. However, we get paid by volume, the more patients we see the more payment we get. That allows for good access since most doctors can comfortably see 3-4 patients an hour and still deliver quality care. But what if this were changed so that ONLY quality was rewarded? Well, suddenly doctors wouldn’t be as concerned about volume. Spending 30-45 minutes with a patient would lead to better payments, meanwhile access vanishes. A doctor that usually sees 3-4 patients an hour is now seeing one or two. In other words, appointments will be hard to come by. Quality and Quantity in medicine are inversely related. That is a hardened fact. Increase one at the other’s expense. Today, we walk that line rather well, but changing the rules puts access at risk. And when you consider that 45 million people will suddenly flood the primary care system in a public option and it’s easy to see just how difficult it will be to get in and see your doctor.

“The medical industry must be challenged to cuts costs;” Findlay says that medicine is too expensive and much of this comes from unnecessary tests and procedures. He wants a leaner, more efficient medical community, with doctors who only order tests that are necessary. I agree with this, but changing the current system of compensation isn’t the way to go about it. Findlay and those like him seem to think that we order unnecessary tests because it is financially beneficial to do so. That’s untrue. If I order a CT scan, I don’t see a dime of that money. However, ordering such a scan, even though the likelihood of finding an abnormality is slim, could potentially protect me from a lawsuit a few years down the road. This is called defensive medicine. I know that this patient doesn’t need a CT scan. But I also know that in a courtroom, a hired physician can armchair-quarterback in front of a jury and claim that I should have ordered that scan and potentially saved the patient some pain and suffering. It’s very, very easy to armchair-quarterback in medicine. So I order the scan, and this ultimately costs the system, which is wrong.

In order to stop things like this, then it’s the legal system that should be reformed. When doctors stop fearing the lawsuit, then they are more apt to avoid the unnecessary tests. Findlay makes absolutely no reference to the legal community in his article.

An earlier post of mine referred to some key points about improving health care in America. 2 of those things involve reforming the payers, so that we don’t have to hire people to fight with insurance and medicare in order to get our payments, and we don’t have to deal with declining reimbursement for our services. I also mentioned tort reform and more focus on preventive medicine. If these things aren’t addressed, then the system will not improve. Findlay didn’t hit a single one of these points. He simply has no idea, and neither does Washington.

Healthcare...the first of many posts

2009-06-25T07:59:00.000-05:00

First, let me say that if Mark Sanford doesn’t resign as Governor, then the people of South Carolina must come together and demand that he resign. Not only did he violate the trust of his family and his constituents, but he also abandoned his responsibility as chief executive. You can’t just disappear for a few days without word, without notifying someone of how to contact you. Had there been some sort of disaster that required the Governor’s response, what would have happened? That is dereliction of duty and Sanford must resign as a result.

The other day I happened to catch Michael Moore’s “Sicko” on cable. Luckily, I didn’t spend any money on this nonsense. This film is one of the most dishonest, deeply deceiving propaganda flicks ever produced and since Obama is pledging to reconstruct our healthcare system I figure it’s time for this post.

I think the number of uninsured is somewhere around 47 million. The problem with that number is in the details, which also brings up the problem of covering them all. Statistics show that about 25% of the uninsured are illegal immigrants. Another 25% are people who already qualify for some form of government insurance but have not taken the time or the effort to apply for it. And yet another 25% are people who make over $50K a year. So, that really puts things into perspective. Do we really have a problem with lack of health insurance coverage?

I guess it depends on your ideology. Should the US taxpayer be responsible for paying for the medical care of illegal immigrants? I say no, even though we already pay for it when free care is given at your local ER. Regardless, advertising it would be a bad idea. There is no better reason to break the law and come to America illegally than to get free medical care.

And what about those who make over $50K. I think if you paid a visit to their homes you would find things that don’t fit the description of “necessity”. How many flat screen TVs would you find? How many satellite dishes, or cable boxes? How many riding lawnmowers? How many SUVs? The point is, we tend to view healthcare as a right that should be provided by the government and not a responsibility for us to provide for ourselves. We purchase luxury items without thinking twice, but cringe at the idea of paying $500 a month for health insurance. Call me insensitive or whatever, but the bottom line is that most people who make over $50K can afford health insurance but simply choose not to. It’s that simple.

And what of those who already qualify for gov’t aid? This brings the real motives of the pro-universal coverage folks into light. You see, if they were truly concerned about getting people healthcare then they would focus more effort on educating and enrolling these people who can already get healthcare from the government. It would be less difficult and certainly less expensive since the money has already been allocated. But that’s not the case. The universal coverage folks don’t really care about insuring the uninsured as much as they care about controlling as many people as they can. If you depend on the gov’t for healthcare, then you have sold those who provide it your vote. Dependence begets servitude.

Obama wants to change to a pay-for-performance model for doctors. In short, we get paid for quality of care rather than quantity, which tells me Obama knows absolutely nothing about healthcare. Outcomes depend on patient compliance. If I see a diabetic, I can follow the standard of care and maximize that person’s treatment but it will be completely fruitless if that person doesn’t do what I say, and under Obama’s plan I will be paid less because of it. This will create a system where patients who are non-compliant won’t be able to find any doctors willing to see them, and then we’re back to square one. Bad idea, Mr President. Perhaps you should actually consult with some doctors before you advance your plans to fix the healthcare system.

And let me address one statistic that Moore and the rest of the universal-coverage loons love to parrot. The US spends 17% of GDP on healthcare and ranks 50th in the world in life-expectancy. They love this statistic. For some reason they believe that the amount of money spent is directly related to life expectancy, and any discrepancy in these numbers suggests a deficiency in healthcare quality. In their eyes, the more money we spend should translate into a longer life expectancy, and that’s the rationale behind the need for universal coverage. This is preposterous.

It wouldn’t matter if we spent 100% of our GDP on healthcare, we’d still have a poor life expectancy. Why? Well (for lack of better terms) Americans, in general, have a tendency to be fat, lazy, tobacco-addicted, drunken whores. We overindulge in things that are bad for us. Our diets are terrible, we don’t exercise, we play too many video games, spend too much time on facebook, drink too much alcohol, smoke too many cigarettes and have too much sex with lots of different people. This leads to disease, which ultimately leads to death. Giving us all universal coverage will do little to change that. That’s why some third world countries who spend less on healthcare have higher life expectancies, because they aren’t filled with fat, lazy, tobacco-addicted, drunken whores. We have a poor life expectancy because we have trouble controlling our vices. Simple as that.

A more pertinent statistic would be obesity rates, which tend to be inversely related to life expectancy and directly related to healthcare expenditure. The higher the obesity rate, the lower the life expectancy and (because of disease caused by obesity) the more money is spent on healthcare. But don’t count on the universal coverage loons to parrot that one…especially not Michael Moore.

Unrelated but equally disturbing

2009-06-16T16:05:00.001-05:00

Here is a brief timeline:

Sept 18, 2008 – Illinois Senator Dick Durbin was present in a closed meeting between Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and key Congressional leaders. In this meeting, Paulson and Bernanke asked Congressional leaders to devise legislation aimed at helping troubled banks

Sept 19, 2008 – Durbin dumps his stocks and mutual funds into the open market at a total of $115,000. He then used a portion of that money to invest in Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway. Within a few weeks, his total investment into Buffet’s company was nearly $100,000.

I seem to remember Martha Stewart going to jail for something similar.

Iran supposedly re-elected Ahmedinejad as predicted and, surprise, there are serious questions regarding the election process. As a result, many Iranians are now engaged in protests against the regime. Those protestors were recently engaged by the Revolutionary Guard and seven people were killed. As of this post, President Obama has yet to issue a statement supporting a peaceful democratic process, has yet to say anything in support of those who are protesting for a fair and transparent election process.

This is unfortunate. Obama says he doesn’t want the US to appear as though we are “meddling” in the affairs of other countries. How ridiculous? The US has always stood for liberty and democracy, even and especially when such a stance – in the eyes of some - amounted to “meddling”. Iran is a nation under tyranny. We have an obligation as human beings to speak out against it. Supporting those who demand fair and transparent democracy is not meddling, it’s simply the right thing to do. If other countries don’t like it, then those countries aren’t on the side of liberty. Nobody’s asking Obama to send in troops, but a statement supporting the protestors would be nice. He is the leader of the free world and is therefore obligated to support those who support liberty. The message he sends is that you’re on your own if you want liberty in Iran.

When Chinese students took a stand for democracy in 1989, George Bush was quick to voice his support. He even called for sanctions when the Chinese military steamrolled the protestors. Obama is wrong…terribly wrong.

Iranian elections and illegal poker money

2009-06-12T08:59:00.002-05:00

Today, the people of Iran will select their president. Ahmedinejad is running for re-election and apparently the election experts tell us that the race will be close. Yeah, right. I just heard someone on the radio talking about this. He was formerly with the Israeli foreign ministry and was able to shed some light on Iran’s election process.

When the people in Iran vote they don’t have a ballot like we would think. There are no circles to fill in, or holes to punch, or fancy electronic machines that help through the entire process. No, the people in Iran have to go into the polling station and write down the name of the candidate, fill-in-the-blank style, whom they want to vote for. The problem is that 20% of Iran’s citizenry is illiterate. So the government provides election volunteers to “help” these people cast their vote. They ask the voter who they want to vote for and then write that person’s name down on the paper – or so it seems.

And somehow we’re supposed to believe that this will be a fair election, and that when Ahmedinejad wins he will have been legitimately elected?

And since I’m writing about government corruption, I think it’s appropriate to include this link regarding the federal government’s recent action to freeze winnings from online poker sites. The fed has ordered banks to stop paying winnings to private citizens, and since these banks are effectively owned by the government they must comply with the order. This is not company money, it does not belong to the individual website, it belongs to individual people – and it was obtained legally. I thought the Constitution forbade the seizure of private property without due process, but then again when has the Constitution ever stopped the government from fulfilling its own agenda? Once again, liberty has suffered a little bit more. Perhaps the next step will be voting with fill-in-the-blank ballots.

Memorial Day

2009-05-24T23:38:00.002-05:00

"Some people wonder all their lives if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - Ronald Reagan

Perception...and reality

2009-05-22T11:29:00.001-05:00

President Obama at the US Naval Academy graduation today:

"We uphold our fundamental principles and values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to -- not because they feel good, but because they help keep us safe...When America strays from our values, it not only undermines the rule of law, it alienates us from our allies, it energizes our adversaries and it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops."

This argument is wearing thin. First, we have not “strayed” from our values in any way. No law was broken during Bush’s anti-terror campaign, there was nothing unconstitutional about it. Further, our enemies don’t hate us because of a supposed “stray” from our values. If that were true, then how do we explain the multiple attacks on the US prior to the Bush administration. If Obama were correct, then closing Gitmo would suddenly remove the motivation of the terrorists to attack and kill Americans, even though such motivation was quite apparent before the prison at Gitmo was opened, before Bush became president, before Abu Ghraib, before the international wire taps.

Dick Cheney said it best: “It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so…But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things...

"And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them…As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States…

"List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences – and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken,our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.”

Obama's talk = Bush's walk

2009-05-22T09:25:00.001-05:00

Geithner vows to cut deficit

Timmy Turbo Tax echoed Obama’s promise to cut the federal deficit over the next four years. As of this year’s budget, deficit spending is a staggering 12.9% of GDP, an unprecedented level. Geithner says that the goal would be to reduce deficit spending to about 3% of GDP. But I wonder if he has cleared that with his boss?

Because 2-3% of GDP was the level of deficit spending under George W. Bush, and Obama seems to have a big problem with it. Type in “Obama blames Bush” on a google search and you will get 4.56 million hits. Yesterday, in one speech alone, Obama referred negatively to Bush a total of 28 times despite his own call to end partisan bickering. But the blame has been most vocal regarding the Bush deficit spending, which he blames for his own budget that quadruples Bush’s level. Yet, Obama’s own treasury secretary just admitted that Bush’s level of deficit spending is the target for the current administration some four years from now. So what gives? Is it possible that Obama is endorsing Bush’s level of deficit spending, and that all his rhetoric is just politics as usual?

And since we’re on the topic of Obama and his talent for saying one thing and doing another, this column from Charles Krauthammer takes it one step further. Bush’s economic policies aren’t the only thing being endorsed by Obama. The Bush foreign policy – or at least all the good parts – are also being adopted by the new administration. But Obama would never admit that. No, instead he stands in front of his teleprompter and tongue-lashes Bush, having us all believe that he has completely changed course from the “mess” of the previous administration; and then when we’re not looking he takes the Bush policy, gives it a new paint job, and pawns it off as his own. Or as Krauthammer puts it: “the usual Obama three-step: (a) excoriate the Bush policy, (b) ostentatiously unveil cosmetic changes, (c) adopt the Bush policy”

I can’t explain it other than to say that the Dems think most Americans simply don’t know better. And they may be right. If Bush does it, then it’s a bad policy; but if Obama does it, then we’re on the right track. At least that’s what the mainstream media tells us, and since many people believe what the MSM says those same people are likely to fall for the shell game, continue to hand over their money thinking that next time they’ll be able to pick the shell containing the little rubber ball. The question is: How long will Americans be conned by the smoke and mirrors?

Personally, I think it’s great that Obama is adopting the Bush strategy, but it is still incredibly dishonest of him to blast Bush for the same strategies that he has adopted simply because it is politically advantageous to do so. This further proves that our new President is nothing more than another two-bit politician who is really good at reading a well-prepared speech from a teleprompter but has no genuine ideas of his own and has yet to discover within himself the character that is required to lead a nation.

One hell of a speech...

2009-05-21T12:09:00.002-05:00

As prepared for delivery Vice President CheneyRemarks at the American Enterprise InstituteThursday, May 21, 2009

Thank you all very much, and Arthur, thank you for that introduction.It’s good to be back at AEI, where we have many friends. Lynne is one of your longtime scholars, and I’m looking forward to spending more time here myself as a returning trustee. What happened was,they were looking for a new member of the board of trustees, and they asked me to head up the search committee.

I first came to AEI after serving at the Pentagon, and departed onlyafter a very interesting job offer came along. I had no expectation of returning to public life, but my career worked out a little differently.Those eight years as vice president were quite a journey, and during a time of big events and great decisions, I don’t think I missed much.

Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition. Today, I’m an even freer man. Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen – a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.

The responsibilities we carried belong to others now. And though I’m not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. We understand the complexities of national security decisions. We understand the pressures that confront a president and his advisers. Above all, we know what is at stake. And though administrations and policies have changed, the stakes forAmerica have not changed.

Right now there is considerable debate in this city about the measures our administration took to defend the American people.Today I want to set forth the strategic thinking behind our policies. I do so as one who was there every day of the Bush Administration –who supported the policies when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances.

When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President’s understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country,those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.

Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11th, 2001 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad. In 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, hopingto bring down the towers with a blast from below. The attacks continued in 1995, with the bombing of U.S. facilities in Riyadh, SaudiArabia; the killing of servicemen at Khobar Towers in 1996; the attack on our embassies in East Africa in 1998; the murder of American sailors on the USS Cole in 2000; and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.

Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s,America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis.The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact – crimescene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, caseclosed.

That’s how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least –but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat – what the Congress called “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of theUnited States.” From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.

We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in. We’d just been hit by a foreign enemy – leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit, and the Capitol or the WhiteHouse were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.

Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn’t know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.

These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass – a 9/11 with nuclear weapons. For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.

There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day – word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I’ve heard occasional speculation that I’m a different man after 9/11. I wouldn’t say that. But I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.

To make certain our nation never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.

We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations … the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network … and the dismantling of Libya’s nuclear program. It’s required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and at every turn,the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.

So we’re left to draw one of two conclusions – and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event – coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.

The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the American people.

Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through theTerrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the UnitedStates. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.

In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations. In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my
own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal,essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.

Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.

Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release.For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Over on the left wing of the president’s party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they’re after would be heard before a so-called “TruthCommission.” Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It’s hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.

Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security, and what it requires. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at interrogations is utterly misplaced. And staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people.

One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, LeonPanetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see – including the enemy – let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.

It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You’ve heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed – the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.

We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn’tknow about al-Qaeda’s plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

Maybe you’ve heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.

In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America’s cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful,and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress,including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about “values.” Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program,there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought,and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.
The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum.If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States.

Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe – it’s no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.
Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country.You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term “war” where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we’re advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as,quote, “Overseas contingency operations.” In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, “man-made disaster” –never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.

And when you hear that there are no more, quote, “enemycombatants,” as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or
more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn’t change what they are – or what they would do if we let them loose.

On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation and no plan. Now the President says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system. Others, he says, will be shipped to third countries. But so far, the United States has had little luck getting other countries to take hardened terrorists. So what happens then? Attorney GeneralHolder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept a number of the terrorists here, in the homeland,and it has even been suggested US taxpayer dollars will be used to support them. On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President’s own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states,these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.

The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find,upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.

In the category of euphemism, the prize winning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as, quote, “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.

It’s one thing to adopt the euphemisms that suggest we’re no longer engaged in a war. These are just words, and in the end it’s the policies that matter most. You don’t want to call them enemy combatants? Fine. Call them what you want – just don’t bring them into the United States. Tired of calling it a war? Use any term you prefer. Just remember it is a serious step to begin unraveling some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11.

Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, “We brought it on ourselves.”

It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women… our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world – these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment
tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes onSeptember 11th, 2001.

The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences – and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken,our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.

This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off,while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.

Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA,operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when,even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion,outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.

As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won’t let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I’ve formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It’s worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself.President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.

I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations – and I am not alone. President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration – the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn’t change the words of GeorgeTenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than theFBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National SecurityAgency put together have been able to tell us.” End of quote.

If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared,it’ll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs – on the continuing threat of terrorist violence,and on stopping the men who are planning it.

For all the partisan anger that still lingers, our administration will stand up well in history – not despite our actions after 9/11, but because of them. And when I think about all that was to come during our administration and afterward – the recriminations, the second-guessing, the charges of “hubris” – my mind always goes back to that moment.

To put things in perspective, suppose that on the evening of 9/11,President Bush and I had promised that for as long as we held office – which was to be another 2,689 days – there would never be another terrorist attack inside this country. Talk about hubris – it would have seemed a rash and irresponsible thing to say. People would have doubted that we even understood the enormity of what had just happened. Everyone had a very bad feeling about all of this, and felt certain that the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and Shanksville were only the beginning of the violence.

Of course, we made no such promise. Instead, we promised an all-out effort to protect this country. We said we would marshal all elements of our nation’s power to fight this war and to win it. We said we would never forget what had happened on 9/11, even if the day came when many others did forget. We spoke of a war that would“include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.” We followed through on all of this, and we stayed true to our word.

To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets,instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.

Along the way there were some hard calls. No decision of national security was ever made lightly, and certainly never made in haste. As in all warfare, there have been costs – none higher than the sacrifices of those killed and wounded in our country’s service. And even the most decisive victories can never take away the sorrow of losing so many of our own – all those innocent victims of 9/11, and the heroic souls who died trying to save them.

For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer,and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements, for granted.
Thank you very much.

The people "upend" California

2009-05-21T09:17:00.003-05:00

In what can only be described as another amazingly orchestrated Astroturf movement, the people of California rejected attempts to raise taxes in order to pay for inflated government, despite Colin Powell’s recent assertion that people want more government in their lives. Surely Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are behind this.

The Left is convinced – to the point of hallucination – that the results of the last two national elections prove that the American people want more government and are willing to pay higher taxes to achieve it. That’s why they sneer at tax day Tea Parties, and scoff when ballot initiatives like the ones in California go down in defeat, viewing these things as outliers inconsistent with the “real” wishes of most Americans. Jennifer Steinhauer described it this way in the New York Times: “Direct democracy has once again upended California…”

Get it? The Times apparently has no problem with out-of-control government spending. No, it's direct democracy that is the problem here. In other words, THE PEOPLE are to blame.

When a state government overspends by massive amounts and implements laws that are unfriendly to business and commerce, the resulting fiscal crisis is not their fault. It’s up to the people to subsidize the irresponsible spending, because government knows best. Believe me, Ms. Steinhauer is not alone in her opinion. The ballot initiative SHOULD act as a warning to politicians that the people are quickly getting fed up with tax-and-spend policies. But something tells me very few of them will comprehend that warning in the throws of their hallucinogenic power-trip. Just like with the Tea Parties last month, I’m sure the voices of California will go unheard, and nothing much will change. But this “Astroturf” movement isn’t going away. Even in the bluest of blue states, the movement is gaining ground.

So is Obama listening? Not really. When Governor Arnold attempted to save money by cutting wages on unionized state employees, Washington responded by threatening to withhold $6 billion in bailout money from the state. So now the Governor is suggesting that he will have to release inmates from prison and shorten the school year as part of his plan to save money. Washington hasn’t voiced any objection to this. Screw the kids and make the law-abiding public less safe, but don’t touch the unionized government workers. Naturally, all of this is the people’s fault.

California is the 6th most-taxed state in the union. Couple this with massive entitlement spending, business-unfriendly environmental policies, and high corporate taxes and what else can you expect but an impending fiscal crisis? Job-rich businesses aren’t going to stick around and pay high taxes while being forced to comply to irrational environmental laws when states like Nevada and Texas welcome them with open arms. And when businesses go, so do jobs and tax-revenue. But never mind all that. The people should have agreed to higher taxes to keep on the same path because, you know, it is working so well.

A major political storm is brewing. Astroturf Americans are getting angrier by the day, and this is BEFORE the high federal taxes and high inflation of Obama’s budget hits. My guess is the politicians will continue to ignore the voice of the people, the media will continue to sneer, and they will all be in for a shock when the hallucination ends.

Obama and Notre Dame

2009-05-18T15:09:00.000-05:00

“Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually. It has both moral and spiritual dimension…So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. Let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. Let’s make adoption more available. Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term.”

This was a portion of President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame yesterday. And, of course, I have a comment or two.

First, it’s hard for me to take any words of his on this particular subject seriously, given his prior support for partial-birth abortion. This procedure involves cutting open the skull and suctioning out the brain of a child who is capable of feeling pain and, in less than 10 seconds, would be an American citizen. There is no medical reason for doing it, theoretical or otherwise. It is done only to kill the baby because the mother decides she doesn’t want it. He votes to keep this legal, but tells us that dumping a bucket of water on the head of a terrorist is “torture”. I wonder what Obama would think if we interrogated the prisoners with a method similar to partial-birth abortion? So I write this with some obvious bias and disdain for his conflicting positions.

I disagree with the protestors who interrupted his speech. That is something the Left does. It is NOT appropriate behavior. People should be allowed to speak and attempting to shout them down is un-American. Protesting is fine, but let’s not try to suppress the free speech of another human being.

Notre Dame made a mistake. Quite simply, they shouldn’t have invited him. It looks like a sell-out in order to gain prestige, and it confirms what many of us have thought all along: That Notre Dame is just another secular university that doesn’t really stand on any strong principles. However, I am glad that once they invited him they stood by it. The office of the President should be honored, and disinviting him would have failed in that regard.

Now, to Obama’s words. He calls for dialogue and, to some extent, compromise. I agree with the words I quoted above. We should reduce unwanted pregnancies. We should help teenage mothers who give birth. We should make adoption more available. But all of those things miss the point of the argument and doesn’t really equate to compromise.

Everyone who is anti-abortion agrees with these things, so compromise in those areas isn’t necessary. It’s not like we want a bunch of illegitimate children running around. But that misses the point of whether abortion should be legal, and this is where the anti-abortion crowd will never budge in the name of finding common ground. You see, in our minds a human fetus is a human life. If it’s not a human life, then what is it? And since it is a human life – innocent of a crime and not engaged in war – then it should be against the law to kill it. Period.

Obama’s words allude to the old “safe, legal and rare” argument that pro-abortion folks love to parrot. Well, if it’s NOT a human being, then why should abortion be rare? If it’s NOT a human being, then why would killing it have both “moral and spiritual dimension”? If it’s NOT a living thing, then why would killing it be a “heart-wrenching” decision? It’s this kind of double-speak that tells me that the pro-abortion crowd most likely understands that a human fetus is a living creature, but simply doesn’t care because the mother’s convenience takes higher priority. It’s this kind of “one life is more valuable than another” thinking that threatens our moral foundations.

When we start deciding that one person should die so another isn’t burdened, then we’re walking a very dangerous line. Redefining “life” in order to justify killing that other person doesn’t solve the problem, it only complicates it, which is why people say that the abortion issue is a complicated one. No, it’s not! Saying that it’s okay to kill a fetus because a fetus isn’t human doesn’t hide the fact that we are killing one person so another isn’t burdened. Once we justify that – by redefining life or any other method – then we open the door to a lot of horrible things. Are we prepared to actually say that we are all endowed with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but we are not endowed with them until we fully emerge from the birth canal? Therefore, an unborn baby has ZERO rights? Except in cases when the pregnancy is wanted, then the baby should have rights, which contradicts the entire meaning of the term “unalienable rights”, since the presence of those rights would be dependent on whether the pregnancy was wanted or unwanted. Well, that’s not unalienable, it’s prerequisite. Can you imagine Jefferson saying that we are endowed with “prerequisite rights”? The double-speak makes no sense!

That’s why compromise is out of the question, because if we compromise on it we essentially compromise our values. If a fetus is a human life in the second or third trimester, then it MUST also be a human life in the first trimester. Nothing changes between 13 weeks, 6 days and fourteen weeks. And if a fetus is a human life, then the method of conception doesn’t change that, and neither does the desirability of the pregnancy. So, yes, EVEN in cases of rape or incest, a human fetus is STILL a human life. The fact that such a life came about via a crime doesn’t redefine its status as a human life.

These inconsistencies are part of the reason why I changed from pro-abortion to anti-abortion. The other side of the argument just doesn’t make sense, and logic is totally absent from their claim. Either it IS a human life or it is NOT a human life. If it IS, then the law should protect it. If it is NOT, then there should be no regulations and abortion should be available on demand, without restriction, “safe, legal and rare” should not be necessary, and there should be no laws against harming an unborn child; yet those are the things that make us a bit squeamish.

So is it a human life or not? The fact that so many people are wishy-washy in answering that question tells me that they have obvious moral conflicts about it. Chances are, deep down they know what the answer is however inconvenient that may be. As a result, we get this typical fence-riding like: first-trimester only, or only in the case of rape or incest. People don’t want to declare one side or the other because to say that it IS a human life is to say that it should be illegal in any circumstance to kill it; and to say that it is NOT a human life is to say that it can be killed under any circumstances, without reason, without restriction, without repercussions. Most people won’t commit either way because one side is inconvenient and the other is grotesque. Instead, they choose the safe route. And leading their efforts is our President, who once said that such a decision is above his pay grade.

That’s not true, Mr. President. It is well within your pay grade as a human being, just as it is with all of us. It’s a simple yes or no question with a simple answer. Is a fetus a human life? The answer is simple, even though the consequences of the answer may be difficult.

Frank Melton, 1949-2009

2009-05-15T13:03:00.002-05:00

Frank Melton, 1949-2009

I want to take a moment to acknowledge someone I admired a great deal back in my hometown. Frank Melton, the Mayor of Jackson, MS, died last Thursday, becoming the city’s first sitting mayor to die in office.

I best remember Melton as the owner of the local NBC affiliate, where he had his own editorial news segment call “The Bottom Line”. He used his own airwaves to fight some of the city’s biggest problems, namely drugs and crime. He wouldn’t hesitate to mention drug dealers by name, and was often highly critical of a corrupt city council that rarely took the necessary measures to protect the city. He also took his cause to local schools where he would give speeches about personal responsibility, pursuing your goals, and avoiding the pitfalls that often trap the city’s youth. I saw him speak at a local community college and I was very impressed. I was younger then, but I remember thinking how we needed more voices like his, how the youth needed to hear more inspirational words like his.

Melton did more than just talk the talk. He had a passion for inner-city kids who were doomed to a life of drugs and crime. Stories like this personify the kind of man he was. He literally welcomed dozens of inner-city kids into his own home, giving them an opportunity to escape the streets and have a better life. He paid for some of them to go to safer private schools. He even paid for college tuition. He helped establish safe-havens in the city, places where kids could go without having to deal with the daily onslaught of a violent, drug-ridden city. In Mississippi today, there are quite a few people who overcame much to succeed in life, and today they grieve for the man who played a major role in helping them do that.

It was this reputation that helped Melton win the mayoral election. Unfortunately, politics proved to be somewhat of a downfall, further proof that good men and good intentions don’t always make for good politics. His administration was chaotic. Government has rules, and his passion to help the youth of Jackson despite those rules got the better of him. He was in constant battles with the city council. He declared a state of emergency in the city due to the crime problem. He repeatedly expanded or introduced programs without consulting with the council. And he got into big trouble when he ordered a warrantless raid on a duplex that he claimed was a dangerous drug house. That’s when criminal charges were brought down. This week he was to go on trial for this action and it was no doubt the associated stress, along with a history of heart problems, that eventually took his life.

Frank Melton made some mistakes as we all do. Hopefully, those mistakes won’t tarnish his legacy – that of a man who truly cared, who devoted his life to helping others, who inspired people that grew up in an environment without inspiration, who gave hope to kids when the deck was clearly stacked against them. He made mistakes, but Frank Melton was a good man who did a lot of good things. The black community is in dire need of leaders like him. God knows this country needs more people like him. Rest in peace, Frank, you will be missed...and that's the bottom line!

Obama and Pelosi - bonehead moments

2009-05-15T09:02:00.001-05:00

Barack Obama yesterday in New Mexico: “We can’t keep on just borrowing from China…We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.” He went on to say that current deficit spending is “unsustainable” and warned of future skyrocketing interest rates.

It appears Obama is back into campaign mode, only this time he is now campaigning against himself. Of all the things that strike me about this guy, what stands out the most is his glaring lack of leadership qualities. Yes, folks, he is actually criticizing his own budget. Leaders don’t do things like that. Leaders take action. Hopefully he will grow into the job, but it seems like I’ve been saying that a lot lately.

And in the bonehead moment of the week, Nancy Pelosi has decided to declare political war on the CIA. Her story regarding the “torture” briefings has changed nearly half a dozen times and yesterday she decided to outright accuse the CIA of criminal behavior by deliberately lying to Congress. Dumb move. Very dumb.

This woman was formerly the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, which means she had a lot of interactions with the CIA, which means the CIA has a lot of briefing memos with her name on it. Put simply, they have the goods on Pelosi and have a talent for “leaking” things like that to the press.

I’ve never been impressed with Nancy’s cerebral skills, but this is foolish even by her standards. You could almost hear the collective gasp from her advisors when she stumbled into her accusations at yesterday’s press conference. That thing got out of hand in a hurry. Obama’s own CIA director is saying that the CIA was right. And now the sharks are circling. Even though she is a ranking Democrat, the press is still the press. And when there is blood in the water a feeding frenzy will soon begin. Ms. Pelosi is about to become radioactive.

Just watch and see how fast the Dems throw her under the bus. I give it a month before she is booted from the Speaker position. Rest assured, Steny Hoyer is building his coalition as we speak. Politics will always be politics, and in this case I have to give a tip of the hat to karma.

GE a Corporate Sponsor

2009-05-14T08:42:00.002-05:00

As published in the Washington Times, written by Andrew Wilkow and Nick Rizzuto:

For all of the carping liberals did for eight years about corporate cronyism in George W. Bush's White House, they seem to turn a blind eye to the same behavior in President Obama's. With plans in place for a major overhaul in the health-care industry, General Electric is positioning itself to become a major beneficiary of these health care reforms.

Recently at the Business and Social Responsibility Conference, General Electric Chief Executive Officer Jeff Immelt referred to America's current economic crisis as part of a "reset" rather than part of an economic cycle, saying, "People who understand that will prosper in the future, and people who don't understand that will get left behind."

In the same address, Mr. Immelt, who is also a member of Mr. Obama's economic recovery advisory board, added, "The intersection of government and business will be changed, maybe for a generation." In other words, companies should be prepared to beg for a seat at the government's table if they plan on remaining lucrative.

Imagine that on the eve of the Iraq war, the CEO of Halliburton had declared that since Sept. 11, 2001, the relationship between the government and corporate interests have become one in the same.

Of course, Mr. Immelt's rhetoric about corporate responsibility was undercut last year when GE's once vaunted financial services business, GE Capital, was forced to ask the government for what amounted to a $140 billion government bailout.

Mr. Immelt's words betray GE's willingness to partner with the Obama government in order to turn a profit. To this end, GE has appointed Mr. Obama's former nominee for secretary of health and human services, Tom Daschle, to the board of advisers for Healthymagination, an initiative launched by General Electric in partnership along with Intel, which will invest $6 billion over the next six years on "health care innovation that will help deliver better care to more people at lower cost."

Mr. Daschle said, "We can only find real solutions in health care when business, government and their partners work together."

In 2008, Mr. Daschle wrote the book "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis" in which he explains his radical solutions to the problems in American health care. In the book, Mr. Daschle calls for a British-style Federal Council on health care.

The profitability of GE's new venture will depend heavily on the nationalization of the health care industry. The standardization and streamlining of health care recordkeeping, something on which Mr. Obama ran in 2008, would require a massive government contract for the technology to achieve such standardization.

Mr. Obama has introduced a plan to computerize all health records within five years. Independent studies from Harvard, Rand Corp. and the Commonwealth Fund have estimated that such a plan could cost at least $75 billion to $100 billion over the next 10 years. Healthymagination is readying just such a technology, claiming that they will seek to "increase the use and capability of electronic medical record (EMR) technology and other information technology." With Mr. Obama's ally Mr. Daschle on board, Healthymagination is sure to have more than a leg up on its competition when it comes time to dole out these massive contracts.
Under the cloak of corporate responsibility, General Electric seeks to benefit to the tune of billions from the passage of Mr. Obama's health care reform. On its corporate Web site, Healthymagination admits it will use every tool at its disposal to achieve its goals, including NBC Universal, the parent company of MSNBC which offers nearly uncritical coverage of Mr. Obama and his policies.

In effect, NBC Universal would become the propaganda arm of the administrations drive for the nationalization of health care, pushing its passage in its print and television properties.
Healthymagination states its target dates for the completion of its various initiatives as 2015, well into a second Obama term. This means GE will have a deep financial interest in Mr. Obama's re-election; a fact that will no doubt be reflected in its media divisions. It will certainly be interesting to see if the left-wing watchdogs howl, or if they will conclude this is an acceptable level of collusion between the White House and a multinational conglomerate.

• Andrew Wilkow is the host of Sirius/XM Satellite radio's Wilkow Majority program. Nick Rizzuto is his producer.

Obama's 2009 Budget

2009-05-12T10:28:00.001-05:00

Yesterday the federal gov’t released their latest set of numbers on this year’s budget. The budget deficit for 2009 now approaches $1.85 Trillion dollars. That’s many billions more than previously predicted because the gov’t thought the economy would be improving more than it actually is. So they had to adjust their numbers.

The deficit is $1.85 trillion. Obama and Congress has officially quadrupled 2008’s budget deficit. QUADRUPLED! The very people – especially Obama – who criticized Bush for fiscal irresponsibility, who blamed him for “record deficits”, have just quadrupled the deficit that he accumulated. $1.85 trillion.

Now for some perspective. Bush’s deficit in 2008 was just under 3% of GDP. Yes, the actual dollar amount was big. Yes his deficit was the highest in history, but it was still just under 3% of GDP. Economists will tell you that some deficit spending is okay and can actually be helpful for the economy, as long as the deficit is kept relatively low compared to GDP. Many will say that 2-3% of GDP is acceptable. The logic behind it is that borrowing can be stimulative. We borrow money in order to spend, spending stimulates the economy, jobs are created, etc. The key here is keeping the deficit spending relatively low compared to GDP. A little is good, a lot can be very, very bad. Again, ask an economist and they will say 2-3% of GDP is an acceptable level.

Personally, I tend to be more of a budget hawk. I say deficit spending is wrong and should not be done. If Congress needs to spend more money then they should find it through budget cuts. Perhaps that would be imprudent. But Congress has not shown itself to be a responsible entity when it comes to money, so I feel they should be kept on a tighter leash. But that’s just me.

Now let’s look at the ’09 budget. Deficit spending at 2-3% of GDP is considered acceptable. Obama’s 2009 budget will eclipse 12%. TWELVE PERCENT!!!!

That means that he will spend ALL the money the federal government takes in PLUS an amount equivalent to 12% of our GDP. This is unprecedented. In fact, to many of us it is unfathomable. Many people – including myself – believe that TOTAL federal spending should not be more than 10-12% of GDP. Obama OVERSPENDS by that much. I simply can’t describe it. Irresponsible. Incomprehensible. Somehow these words just don’t do it justice.

So why do economists say that 2-3% is acceptable, and four times that would be dangerous? Well, because at 2-3% you will get some economic stimulus. At 2-3%, the borrowed money is spent, the jobs are created, and the resulting inflation is kept to a minimum with little negative impact on the overall economy. At 12% it is a much different scenario. Yes, money is spent. Yes, jobs are likely created, but the ensuing monstrous inflation that follows will quickly consume any stimulative effects of the spending. In short, the bad eventually outweighs the good and the economy eventually suffers terribly. Guess where we are headed, folks? It’s simple math. It’s basic economics. We are staring at very high inflation. The question is no longer if, but when. Will it hit while we are still in our current recession or will it hit as we are in the midst of recovering, thereby triggering ANOTHER major recession in order to recover?

In Jimmy Carter’s final year, inflation was at 14%. That number is a very real possibility in the next 2-3 years. History continues to teach us lessons, and we are determined not to listen.

Buckle your seatbelts, folks. This recession may be bad, but there are still some bumpy times ahead. And when inflation surpasses 10%, just keep that in mind the next time you’re in the voting booth.

Health care "savings"

2009-05-11T16:57:00.000-05:00

They call it unprecedented. Private groups are pledging to cut health care costs by up to $2 trillion over 5 years, translating into a savings of $2500 for a family of 4 over that time, assuming that all the savings leaks back into the private sector.

This sounds great, except for a few things. First, I’d like to know how. That’s a lot of money and there are no specifics on how the insurance companies plan to save this kind of money. So while we wait for an answer, I’ll leave a brief list of reasons why health care is expensive today:

1) Added personnel. Doctors don’t have time to fight with insurance companies. As a general rule, it seems that all claims (or at least a large percentage of them) submitted by private physicians are immediately denied for one reason or another. This requires time to resubmit, or make phone calls, or do any number of things to get paid. Most doctors have to hire additional personnel since this can be a full-time job in itself. That means higher overhead, which means increased cost.
2) Tort Reform. Lawsuits drive up malpractice insurance cost, which drives up overhead. Additionally, the “fear” of being sued leads many doctors to practice defensive medicine, which means unnecessary tests are ordered, which means care is more expensive.
3) Declining reimbursement. Doctors are getting paid less for their time. So a basic clinic visit yields fewer dollars, while overhead costs are going up. This means more appointments must be added to cover the cost, which means less time with the doctor. Ultimately, basic problems that could be addressed if more time were available aren’t getting addressed, and those basic problems grow into bigger, more expensive problems.
4) Prevention. Screening for chronic disease may be more expensive in the short run, but the diseases that can be potentially prevented cost much more in the long run

If these things aren’t changed, then costs can’t be reduced. It’s as simple as that. Otherwise, the only way to reduce costs would be to ration care, which is not something we want.

Gay marriage

2009-05-07T16:57:00.001-05:00

The gay community is slowing growing impatient with President Obama, who opposes gay marriage, and is now starting to apply the pressure to have their agenda addressed. So it’s time WEP re-addressed the issue.

When I discuss gay marriage in these forums I like to leave religion out of it. My personal beliefs are set aside and I’m still able to argue my points. This drives the other side nuts because the basis of their counter-argument is the whole “separation of church and state” myth. So, religion won’t apply here.

First, homosexuality is not the issue. So do I support civil rights for gay people? Absolutely. I support civil rights for all law-abiding citizens and that certainly includes those who engage in atypical sexual acts. People are free to have sex with whomever they choose, so long as their partner is an unwed consenting adult. The caveat is that I don’t want to be held financially responsible when someone who engages in such behavior contracts a disease as a result of that behavior. So I will support someone’s right to have sex with any unwed consenting adult of their choosing if they in turn support my right to NOT pay for medical care that is necessary for diseases they contract when engaging in such behavior. I think that’s fair and reasonable. For that matter, I don’t want to pay for healthcare for those who drink too much, eat too much, smoke too much, or don’t exercise enough. Their behavior has consequences and they should not expect others to shoulder the load of those consequences.

Is homosexuality a natural act? Gay advocates will say that homosexuality is genetic, that people are essentially born straight or born gay. As a man of science, I don’t see any evidence of that. Humans are the only animals that engage in recreational – rather than procreational – sex. And since homosexuality is not procreational, what else can it be but recreational? We have mapped the human genome and have yet to discover the “gay” gene. And if someone believes in Darwinian evolution as I do, then how could such a gene survive the survival-of-the-fittest test? It would certainly not be passed from generation to generation. So in order to believe that such a gene exists, you would have to also believe that every homosexual is due to the exact same spontaneous DNA mutation that occurs randomly at the same moment in each homosexual individual. You don’t have to be a geneticist to realize that the chances of that are slim…very slim. Plus, such a claim would essentially label homosexuality as a genetic disease, or maybe a birth defect if you will. This opens a whole new can of worms.

Instead, I see homosexuality as a product of one’s environment. It is atypical sexual behavior likely the result of a pathological psychiatric process related to sexual abuse in one’s past. We know that women who were sexually abused tend to be much more promiscuous, a misguided expression of sex that developed from their traumatic past. I think something similar is going on with homosexuality. Does this mean that everyone who is abused becomes gay or promiscuous? No. But it does mean that sexual abuse increases the risk of such behavior in the future because the victims view sex much differently than someone who was not abused. But that’s just a theory.

Now, on to the marriage issue. There are two schools of thought here. I believe that marriage is defined by a particular culture. Our idea of marriage is much different than in Asian cultures, or Middle Eastern cultures. There is also a wide variation among different religious groups. The point is that marriage is a product of culture and therefore is defined by the society within that culture. Which means the people decide how they want to define marriage.

Some contend that marriage is a right. I have a problem here. When I here “right” I think of voting, peaceful assembly, free speech, no illegal search and seizure and so on. Those are rights. I am apprehensive about elevating marriage (or healthcare for that matter) to such a high level because rights are things that can’t be infringed upon by others. If we were to say that marriage is a Constitutional right under the 9th Amendment, then we will be dealing with many other problems because immediately there will be claims of civil rights violations. Suppose a man wants to marry his daughter. Or wants to marry 8 different women. Or wants to marry his pet goat. If we try to make laws against this we will then be flirting with civil rights violations. And what about divorce? Suppose one spouse wants a divorce and the other wants to stay married. Will we deny the divorce in order to protect the other’s right to marriage? The point is that calling marriage a right gets very slippery. It’s a cultural tradition defined by the society within that culture. It is not a Constitutional right.

So I support civil rights for all, including homosexuals. But when it comes time to define marriage that must be done by the people, NOT the court system. I agree with President Obama’s position against same-sex marriage, but that’s not the relevant point. Obama should instead articulate that the definition of marriage should be decided by the people and not the court system. This would keep his personal feelings out of it and would possibly keep the homosexual special interests from hassling him too much.

$17 billion. Not enough.

2009-05-07T11:40:00.000-05:00

Today, President Obama announced a budget plan to cut $17 billion in gov’t spending. Good for him. I realize that $17 billion is only one half of one percent of his entire budget, but at least he’s trying and I give him credit for it. Hopefully, this will only be a start. There is a very long way to go. At the very least it tells me that he realizes the need to cut money out of the budget.

But there are problems that must be pointed out. Many of the programs that Obama wants to cut are the same programs that Bush tried to cut only to be thwarted by Congress. An example is Even Start, an education program similar to Head Start that has been proven to not produce results. It is a wasteful program and Bush has tried to cut it for years. Congress – no doubt under the influence of special interest groups – has continued to fund it. So while I am encouraged by Obama’s proposals – meager as they may be – I don’t have as much confidence that Congress will go along. Those people are spending money like a bunch of bong-smoking dopers at Waffle House. Listening to reason is not their forte.

The other problem is redirecting the spending cuts. Obama himself said that the cuts will make room for spending on health care and education. In that case, it’s not a spending cut. Instead it’s more like a reshuffling of the bloated government budget. A spending cut is worthless if you increase spending in other areas. The whole point of a spending cut in today’s environment is to reduce the deficit and the subsequent ever-rising national debt. There is no indication that Obama’s proposal will do either, so I guess we’re back to square one.

One suggestion would be to eliminate TARP funding. That’s about $500 billion of next year’s budget, or 14% of Obama’s total spending. Now that’s a serious spending cut. Besides, Bernanke and others are already saying the economic slide has bottomed and it’s only up from here so why the need to keep dumping money into TARP? In addition, of Obama’s $780 billion stimulus plan, only $15 billion has been spent so far, and yet we’re getting these reports of hitting bottom. So, if the economy has bottomed and recovery is expected to begin, why continue spending the other $765 billion? These are the questions I’d like Obama to answer. I don’t care about what enchants him the most.

The Government Accountability Office now forecasts that beginning in 2025, ALL federal revenue will be consumed by Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and payments on debt interest. In 16 years we will only be able to afford 3 programs along with paying interest to foreign nations who hold our debt. That means there will be no money available for defense spending, energy independence, homeland security, education, salaries of government employees, or anything else outside of these 3 programs that the government wants to fund. 16 years. Not much time to fix a serious problem. So while I appreciate his effort to cut spending, Obama’s proposal demonstrates to me that he has no grasp of the serious budget problems that we face. If we’re going to avoid a major budget crisis within the next two decades it will require DRASTIC action now. Like, perhaps, an immediate freeze on new spending and an across-the-board cut on ALL federal programs (except maybe military pay). Let’s start at 20% and go from there.

But don’t listen to us Tea Party folks, nothing we say should be taken seriously.

BREAKING NEWS...Obama eats a cheeseburger!

2009-05-06T09:06:00.000-05:00

I admit – despite my complete lack of respect for them – the national media really does provide entertainment. If nothing else, the way they stumble and swoon over Obama – like a bunch of training-bra, pimple-faced, preteen girls at a Jonas Brothers concert – is at least good for a daily laugh. Case in point, Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC actually interrupted her afternoon news report to inform her viewers that President Obama had just eaten a cheeseburger.

Seriously. I can’t make this stuff up. What’s even more fascinating is the in-depth reporting on the burger. This burger is now officially the most investigated member of Obama’s entire administration. On the same day that Robert Gibbs tells the press corps that the photos from the infamous NYC Air Force One buzz-over have disappeared, the media manages to inform us all on intricate details regarding the cow flesh the President just consumed. It was a bacon cheddar cheese burger, cooked medium well, with Dijon mustard and a side of potato puffs. Joe “web number” Biden had a mushroom swiss burger. And not only that, but they paid for it themselves AND treated the White House press corps to burgers of their own. I’m actually kind of surprised MSNBC wasn’t reporting live via satellite from the burger joint itself, interviewing eye witnesses, re-enacting the whole scenario with slow-motion replays and computer graphic animation showing every dollop of Dijon dripping off of Obama’s burger, Biden reaching across the table to wipe a smudge of mustard off Barry’s face with a wink and a smile.

Oh, wait a minute, they actually DID interview an eye witness (again, I can’t possibly make this up). She was passing through picking up burgers for her family on the way home for work. Her comments were along the lines of how impressed she was with the President, and that this proves how in touch he is with the people, that he’s just a regular guy eating a burger. Remember, 300,000 Americans hold tax day protests coast-to-coast and the President has no clue why they’re so upset, yet his consumption of a cheeseburger with Dijon proves how “in touch” he is with the people? Where do they find these drones? And how did the reporter manage to not give her a shoulda-had-a-V8 bonk over the head with his microphone?

(and by the way, what kind of a man orders his burger medium well? My 4 year old daughter eats her burgers medium rare; and Dijon? On a cheeseburger? Just one of the folks, huh? Come on, Mr. President, if you want to look like an average Joe you can at least manage a little pink in your beef and some old-fashioned American mustard just one time)

At any rate, I don’t have a problem with Barry and Joe having a boy’s day out, knockin down a few burgers. I do question why it was necessary to bring the entire White House press corps. And I also wonder if Barry picked up the tab for his Secret Service detail. If it were me, I would have treated them and the limo drivers and let the press fend for themselves. Actually, Obama should have fed them scraps from his table. It would have been more appropriate to have the press sit on the floor around their table while Barry and Joe tossed them their burger grissle and the burnt ends of the potato puffs, chuckling as they scrambled and fought over every morsel. After all, if he can threaten to sic the press corps on his enemies, why not go all the way and treat them like dogs?

When a guy asks him, “What enchants you the most?”, who wouldn’t have loved to see Obama walk out to him, rub his head and say “Good boy! Goooooood boy! That’s my good boy! Him don’t ask me hard questions!”

Major Garrett better watch out. If he continues to ask Obama substantive questions he may get hit on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper. And something tells me that if Chris Matthews had been at the burger joint he would be sitting next to Obama, staring at his burger with a long string of drool hanging out of his mouth.

Don’t feel sorry for them. They deserve it.

Happy Cinco de Seis!

Obama's SCOTUS nominee

2009-05-04T15:09:00.001-05:00

I have known this all along and at last the Left has admitted to it. They support judges who essentially legislate from the bench. President Obama said so much when the news of Souter’s pending retirement came down. When asked about his potential selection, Obama said he seeks a judge who will preside with “empathy”. He wants a nominee to understand that justice is "about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation."

Think about that statement for a moment. It may sound good on the surface, but is this what the judicial branch was meant to do? You see, I always adhere to the notion that justice in this country is blind. That laws are interpreted according to their legality, without considering how they affect the daily realities of people’s lives, without considering whether or not someone can make a living and care for their families or feel safe in their homes. Those are the things to consider when the law is actually created, NOT when it is being interpreted based on the Constitution.

When I heard Obama’s statement I was reminded of a time when I appeared in traffic court. I had gotten a speeding ticket and didn’t have my insurance papers, so I was there to present proof of insurance and have my fine reduced. The woman in front of me was protesting her ticket as well. She told the judge her story; that she was a single mom, working two jobs and could barely make ends meet. Basically, she couldn’t afford to pay her $200 speeding ticket. The judge ordered her to pay the fine. He ruled against me as well, because the law clearly states that all drivers must have proof of insurance in their cars at all times.

The point is that personal circumstances do not define the law for each individual. Her lack of funds does not grant her the privilege of breaking the law without penalty. And my absentmindedness does not allow me to drive without my insurance papers, even though I was fully insured. Had this judge met Obama’s criteria, he may have very well ruled in her favor, and mine.

Obama is wrong. Justice is not about how our laws affect people in their daily lives. Justice is about applying the law according to the Constitution, and applying it equally regardless of someone’s personal life. It is unjust for poor people to get away with speeding just because they are poor. And it is unjust to apply the law differently to different people based on how the law affects their daily lives. This is a radical view of the law and Obama – with his background in Constitutional law – should know that. His view is more than troubling. His view essentially allows judges to do more than just interpret the law based on the Constitution, but to interpret it based on a case-by-case basis, which is essentially creating new laws every time they hear a case. This transcends the power of the judicial branch according to how the Framers envisioned it. This gives judges much more power than they should have.

If a judge hears a case on abortion, and that judge is empowered with “empathy”, then his decision will be based on who he has empathy for. If he has empathy for the mother, then he will rule for abortion. If he has empathy for the fetus, then he will rule against abortion. This sets a very dangerous precedent, because the judge should always rule according to whether or not the law in question is legal, and whether or not the law was followed – NOT according to his own personal feelings about the law or his feelings toward the involved parties.

Justice should be blind. Justice must be blind. If not, then someone will be victimized at some point by prejudice, stereotype or some judge’s own political ideology. I couldn’t disagree more with Obama and his radical view of the judicial branch. But, at least, I was proven right in my opinion that the Left wants activists on the bench.

Demoralizing the CIA

2009-05-01T15:02:00.000-05:00

Matthew Cole. Remember that name. He is the freelance reporter hired by ABC news for a story about the CIA interrogations at Gitmo. In this story, Cole names two top advisors and pastes their photos, full name, and business location for all to see. I will not mention those names nor provide a link to Cole’s story because I think his actions have placed these two men and their families in grave danger. But I will mention that Cole has a book soon to be released about the CIA – no doubt providing motivation to drum up as much controversy as he can, to hell with the consequences. This was not a report, it was a hit-piece.

Cole is also known for a freelance story written shortly after 9/11 on the difficult treatment Muslims had to endure in the US after the attacks. I can’t find any story he wrote on the suffering of the victims of those attacks.

I will also link to this story by ABC news in July 2008 detailing the so-called impeachable offenses of the Bush administration, including the supposed “outing” of non-covert CIA worker Valerie Plame. This is just to add a little context to the hit-piece. After all, Plame was just a pencil pusher behind a desk, the two guys Cole just outed were involved in classified actions. Cole just passed some vital information to our al qaeda enemies, all in the name of trumpeting his book, furthering his pathetic career, and slandering the Bush administration. These two men played an integral role in keeping us safe post-9/11. Today, they are in danger because of the actions of a reckless reporter and a reckless news agency. And we are all in danger because of the actions of the Dem majority who seem intent on dismantling and demoralizing the CIA.
Rest assured, we will hear much more on this story. Matthew Cole has no doubt committed journalistic malpractice. I am disgusted by people like him who have infected the US media. They can’t muster an actual thought-provoking question for the President, yet they don’t hesitate to imperil two CIA advisors who were involved in dangerous activity. They curse these men while weeping for Kalid Shiekh Muhammed and the “torture” he had to endure. Cole needs to spend some face time with families who lost loved-ones in the World Trade Center. Or maybe he should hang out with the special forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan who place their lives on the line every day to keep reckless journalists free. Or maybe he should watch the beheading videos that al qaeda loves to publicize, or talk to Daniel Pearle’s family about the “inhumane treatment” of Gitmo detainees. I am sickened by people like him. Sickened.

On the heels of the CIA memo release, the Dems have begun to dismantle the very framework that kept us safe. Make no mistake, the CIA is currently demoralized, with many of our frontline agents looking over their shoulder wondering if Congress is going to drag them into a hearing. They feel betrayed. So much so that Chairman of Intelligence Committee, Silvestre Reyes, felt compelled to write this letter to the CIA to try to smooth things over. To echo the words of Jed Babbin, note the subtle hint that he won’t prosecute any CIA agent for “authorized” actions. Or that he wants to move the CIA/Congress interactions from “mere notification to real discussion”. In other words, none of this is Congress’s fault because they were only notified without any real discussion of the matter, so you can’t blame Pelosi for not stopping it when she was told. And nothing can further demoralize the CIA than the prospect of more Congressional oversight interfering with their already dangerous jobs, except maybe a hit-piece outing two of their top advisors.

Scooter Libby was sent to jail for doing much less than what Cole did. ABC news and Matthew Cole must be held accountable. This is outrageous.

By the way, here is a list of some of ABC’s top advertisers – just in case you wanted to know: Target, SC Johnson, AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Ethan Allen, ING. And don’t forget, ABC is owned by DISNEY.