My thoughts and beliefs

Acceptance and Tolerance...They are not the same.

2012-01-18T09:22:00.008-05:00

So I have learned a few things in the last couple of weeks. As always, I try to learn something new, and keep to keep an open mind that I might be wrong. A lot of people do not do this. Even those that pretend that they are open minded and give lip sync to caring. I have learned that these are usually the most closed minded and hypocritical people that I have seen. One of the things that I always strive to do is have some type of consistency in my views. I try to make sure that a subject makes sense to me, and makes sense to the things that I believe at the core. That being said, I have been thinking a lot about tolerance and acceptance lately.

Acceptance means that you accept something and embrace it. Tolerance means that you allow something to be there, whether you agree with it or not. I know a fair share of those who are socially conservative, and also those that are socially liberal. One such liberal that I was talking to recently made a comment about Tim Tebow and that she didn't like him because of the thing he does after scoring or winning or whatever. I don't watch sports, so I don't really follow it other than to know he calls himself a christian and he is open about showing his religious beliefs. From my understanding, he has never preached to anyone, or even said anything on TV about people should turn to God. The few times I have seen him on TV, he has thanked God, but not preached about him. Yet, because of his belief, which he isn't forcing on anyone else, she hates him (her words (hates him), not mine). When I commented that as far as I have seen he has never preached to anyone, she was quick to say "if it were a Muslim, everyone on the right would be screaming about him doing it." To which I asked, "if he were a Muslim would you hate him also?" She said no. So let me get this straight, if he was a Muslim she would be fine with what he does, but since he is a christian she hates him. Yet, the people on the left are the people that are supposed to be the kind and compassionate ones, while those on the right are the hateful racist bigots. Does that sound at all like acceptance or tolerance? Or does it sound more like bigotry and hatred?

So onto the subject at hand. I have found that in my contemplating tolerance and acceptance, that I have been thinking about the whole gay marriage argument. Personally I don't care if two dudes or women want to shack up and co-habitat. It would be none of my business as long as they weren't hurting anyone else, or trying to force their agenda on anyone else and vice versus. To that end, this doesn't mean that I agree with their lifestyle or choice. I am tolerant of it, but I do not follow their beliefs (I like women, not dudes in that way), so I am not accepting of that lifestyle. Most religions in the world do not condone the gay lifestyle. Muslims kill gay people outright in most countries, so this would be considered not only nonacceptance, but intolerance. In this country, we are very tolerant of the gay person, but that does not mean that we have to accept their lifestyle choices, nor does this mean that we should allow a pro-gay agenda to be forced upon the churches. On the flip side of this (since I try to be consistent) we should be just as vigil against the churches pushing an anti-gay agenda as well. If gay people want to have the same rights as a married couple, then I say sure. They should be able to visit their partner in a hospital, make life decisions in dire times, be named as legal beneficiary, or whatever like married couples are allowed. I do not agree with them being allowed to "marry" in the traditional sense though (in a church), because this forces a politically charged agenda onto the churches, which they do not accept. That is just asking for trouble. See, there is the true difference between tolerance and acceptance. I tolerate gay people, and am not uncomfortable around them, nor do I hold any ill-will towards them for being gay. However, I do not accept their way of life, and will never incorporate it into my way of life, since I am not gay. From what I have seen of churches, this is the common mind set as well. They do not accept the lifestyle, but they aren't out calling for gays to be put to death or shunned (yes, I know that there are extremes out there that do, but you are always going to have that from BOTH sides of any argument).

In this world, we need to have a little more tolerance for the things we do not accept. Right or left, both are very intolerant of each other lately. I see things that I definitely do not like at all. Two wrongs do not make a right. For instance, I recently was enlightened by a lefty friend about what a "Santorum" is. The clean version of an explanation can be found here. I personally find it repugnant. I don't like Rick Santorum, his voting record shows he is for increasing the size of government and is a social conservative (Bush v 2.0 much like Gingrich and Romney imo), but I don't think that it is right to say something like this. The lefty friend thought it was hilarious, and uses the term quite often. I have contemplated asking them what their reaction would be if I would start calling my penis an Obama. I am sure that they would be rather upset with that situation. Not that I am saying I would do such a thing, because I wouldn't, but I have thought that maybe it would prove a point. I may disagree with the left on many things that I consider to be the most important subjects in politics (spending, the size of government, handling of business, etc.) and stand on the opposite side of some who I call friend, but I will not do or say things about them or their leaders that is degrading or repugnant. I may think they are reacting stupidly, or call those leaders idiots for a long string of such behavior, but I wouldn't do something like the Santorum thing. At what point do those who scream the loudest about racism and bigotry, stop calling those on the right the bigots and racists, and start doing some self introspection on their words and actions?

Tolerance and acceptance.

Do they not see what is to come?

2012-01-06T08:43:00.009-05:00

Recently I was reading up about the current presidential caucuses for the Republican nominees, and what has been going on with that whole mess. Ok, I have been following it more than just in passing. One of the stories that I came across is on a right wing blog called Red State. On it, the blogger is Calling for Sanity in the Anti-Romney Rhetoric. Let me start off by saying that I do not like Romney, nor do I want him to be the nominee at all, but he is better than Obama. I said the same thing about McCain, and we know how that turned out. Romney is exactly what George W. Bush, John McCain, and Rick Santorum are. Big government, progressive Republicans. They want to grow the power of government, not shrink it. They want to increase spending on their pet projects, not reign it in. They want to push socialist entitlement policies like Healthcare, Welfare, Open Borders (Amnesty for all), Medicare/Medicaid, and a whole slew of other programs that are drowning this country in debt.

The Tea Party is a driving force in the conservative beliefs for fiscal responsibility. The Tea Party's main message has always been fiscal. YES, there are also social conservatives in the Tea Party. YES, there have been those in it that are racists (like the Black Panthers and the Nazi Party aren't racist when they are supporters of the Democrats?). HOWEVER, they are not the majority, nor are their messages that backbone of the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party started gaining momentum when GWB was pushing for the passing of giving amnesty to all illegal aliens. Seeing that this was an enormous drain on our national finances already, the groundswell started there for all intents and purposes. By this point, people were already angry over the passage of Medicare part D and the fiscal nightmare it created. Shortly after the amnesty bill, that is when the housing bubble collapsed and the bailouts started. This was the final straw that broke the camel's back. Not because Obama is a black man, but because he immediately dumped $700 BILLLION taxpayer dollars into the banking and finance industry (Hey OWS, take off the blinders and see who REALLY gave money to Wall Street hrmmmmmm?), dumped taxpayer money into the auto industry saying it was loans that have since not been paid back by Chevy yet (while the unions were given a higher priority than the taxpayers in the stock hierarchy even though the unions didn't pay squat and the taxpayers footed the bill), and wasted taxpayer money on frivolous pet pork projects that funneled money into the coffers of corrupt community organizing groups that got him elected (like ACORN). THAT is what brought the Tea Party into existence, not one man's skin color, but the leftist media will NEVER admit that. Funny thing is though, if you look at the polls, and I mean REALLY look at them...you see that yes indeed, the Tea Party isn't popular. Why? That would be because they have been demonized by the media so much, that the people have been convinced that Satan himself leads the Tea Party and wants to steal your soul. HOWEVER, when you look at the questions in those polls where fiscal policy questions are asked, by upwards of 60% or more (Republican, Democrat, and Independent alike) of the respondents agree with the same view as the Tea Party. HRMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

Back to the presidential campaigns though. Romney and Santorum are progressive republicans. Gingrich is a joke, that guy puts his party over his principles every time and flip flops more than my sandals do. We let the media run off the guy I wanted to see in there, Herman Cain. Huntsman is a joke. Bachmann is NOT, nor will she ever be the Tea Party darling. She and her people have tried to co-opt the Tea Party since it started to gain ground. Sorry, even though I respect her views, the whole religion thing has never been part of the Tea Party vision. Fiscal. From day one, if you go back and look at the true Tea Party people, the grassroots people that are on the ground, they all talk fiscal and nothing social. Even Palin, who is liked by a majority of the Tea Party talks mainly about fiscal policy. When some in the Tea Party do bump up against her, it is because of social issues. Anyone who can read a news article can see this, if you know how to cut through the leftist bullshit that is thrown into most of those stories. And Perry? We had GWB for 8 years, and that didn't work out so well for us. Why would we want to go with someone that does the same things as he did again?

Here is my prediction, as a Tea Party supporting Fiscal Conservative. If the establishment keeps trying to ram Romney down our throats, and he is propped up as the nominee, there will be a party split in the near future. Fiscal conservatives are tired of settling for "well he is better than the democrat" candidates. The last TRUE conservative president (even though he increased spending) was Ronald Reagan, who is compared to the last real conservative president, Calvin Coolidge (whom I see as one of the greatest unsung presidents ever). Ron Paul comes the closest to this style, since isolationism was indeed the flavor of the time. Ron Paul is the only real constitutionalist and the only candidate that proposes actually shrinking the size of government and getting that 2 ton gorilla off our back. The problem I have with Ron Paul is his foreign policy. We know from history, that isolationism doesn't work and ends up being dangerous to all. What we don't need is the pseudo-empire building, world police mentality of the progressive republicans that GWB has pushed onto the republican party. Conservatives have never been happy with that.

So this is my official word to the Republican party: stop force feeding us milquetoast when we ask for meat, or we will have to go find another vendor that is willing to provide us with the product that we want.

Liar liar, pants on fire...

2011-10-10T07:51:00.005-04:00

Paul Krugman, where to begin? This guy is a media elitist dumbass of the highest order. So according to Krugman, the Occupy Wall Street protesters are better behaved than the Tea Party protesters of 2009. Is he serious? Is he joking? He must be joking, because Google searches are easy to do to prove him wrong. No serious journalist would make such a stupid statement that could be so easily disputed right? OOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHH! I see, he is word twisting again, and I will show you how.

And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.

Let's see what a Google search for "tea party arrested," and you come up with these results:

1. A Tea Party "leader" is arrested for selling pirated software. Hmmmm, ok let's look into this one a little bit. So as I read the story, I see that this shady guy who has a website apparently sold pirated software. I visited the site listed in the story, even though the link is broken Google was able to still find it, and the site is pretty bare of having anything at all that even indicates that there are people that actually follow this guy. But let's give this a closer look also shall we? TPM, according to Wikipedia:

Talking Points Memo (or TPM) is a web-based political journalism organization created and run by Josh Marshall, journalist and historian covering issues from a "politically left perspective,".[2]

This sends should send up red flags immediately. How is an organization that has on its About Us page:

Talking Points Memo (TPM) is one of the most innovative political news organizations in the United States. The editors of Time magazine say TPM "has become the prototype of what a successful Web-based news organization is likely to be in the future." With its relentless focus on breaking news, original reporting and investigative journalism, TPM has made itself a must-read for DC insiders, the media who cover them and politically engaged people everywhere. And media watchers have taken notice too: In addition to many other awards and citations, TPM was the first online news organization to win the prestigious George Polk Award in 2008.

So let me get this straight, a leftist media page is saying that this guy getting arrested is a Tea Party leader? I am skeptical, but let's just say that he is. There is 2 people, a guy and his accomplice.

2. ANOTHER TPM STORY...Hmmmmm, am I sensing a trend here? I will give this the benefit of the doubt again. We are up to 12 now. Oh, and look at the language these protesters used. Oh the horror of it!

3. I see a blog post about a guy who was a speaker at a Tea Party event that was charged with rape and owning a grenade launcher, but when I tried to follow the link to the news source, it was broken. I will go ahead and count it since we are giving it the benefit of the doubt. 13 arrested so far, but only 10 actually happened during protests.

Ok, so that rest of the hits on the first 4 pages are all about people that got arrested for doing things TO Tea Party protesters, not protester doing things to others.

Let's now look for the OWS crowd numbers that have been arrested, and what they were arrested for. Google search for occupy wall street protesters arrested september 2011:

1. 80 arrested for disorderly conduct and blocking traffic. 1 for assaulting a police officer.

2. My personal favorite, a protester shitting on a police car. He wasn't arrested, he got away, so the count still stands at 80. I mention this one and I want to bring up this one also. Remember, these OWS people didn't act in anywhere near the same fashion as what the Tea Party protesters did in 2009.

3. 700+ arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge. Ok, sounds like a set up that the police blocked off both sides of the bridge and arrested people for blocking traffic one by one as they came off the bridge right? Not exactly the whole story, those who used the walkway that is for pedestrian traffic were not arrested. Those who blocked traffic, were. Also, apparently the police warned the OWS organizers that people would be arrested for blocking the bridge. Do you really think that 700 people would just show up on a bridge at the same time without some guidance? Be real.

And let's be real here, Krugman is meaning that the Tea Party protesters acted badly, and that the OWS people aren't. You know it, and I know it that that is what he was saying. Unfortunately for Mr. Krugman, he is EASILY proven wrong. The Tea Party is chiefly a peaceful and law abiding protest movement. Yes, there are those who have acted badly, but they are the few. Yes, there are racists in the Tea Party, but they are the few as I have shown before. There are racists in the OWS crowd as well, but you don't see the media painting them as racists as they do with the Tea Party. Also in that story if you read to the bottom, you will see that the OWS protest isn't so "grassroots" as they want you to think, considering that it was started by a Canadian anti-capitalist, anti-corporate group called Ad-Busters. You know who those guys are, the guys that make those Truth anti-smoking commercials about the cigarette industry.

The young people that are going down the OWS road have a fair message, but their behavior isn't winning any battles for them. Krugman is both disingenuous and biased, as he always is when talking about right vs. left. Why people keep listening to the crap that the leftist media is feeding them, without doing their own homework and learning the truth, is beyond me. I am not telling you to go watch Fox News. People that only listen or watch the right slanting media are just as bad. Do your own homework, and stop being a useful idiot for a political agenda. Think for yourself. Both parties suck, and when the media on the left is screaming foul about something, while the media on the right is scrambling to get in front of it to try and co-opt it, or vice versus than you know that something is up.

Always remember, actions speak louder than words. Which is likely to have the worse kind of message? Someone who disrupts things and gets arrested, or those who protest civilly and take on the corruption in their own party? I am still waiting for the lefties to start cleaning up their house as the Tea Party is cleaning out the GOP.

Answering the questions...

2011-09-20T09:20:00.007-04:00

If you read my last post, and look down at the comments, you will see that one of my left political leaning friends asked me some direct questions. The shear amount of questions is to big to answer in a single comment or even two. I tried to express my answers for a few of the questions, but do not feel as if I gave the answer that I think the questions deserve. I feel that the questions deserve a thorough answer, because I respect Darrin as being a generally open minded Democrat. He and I have had many political debates in the past, and I know he is not being hostile.

With that said, let's get into it then...

Did you take a school loan to go to College?

Yes, I have taken out student loans, both in the past and in the present. In 2000-2003 I went to Penn State to obtain my first college degree. At the time, I obtained my loans from a private company called American Education Services. I received my loans to pay for my education, and now I am paying them back at a 3.2% interest rate according to my last statement. I also am currently attending Strayer University for my second degree, and I have student loans to pay for it as well. The difference this time is that the government is the one providing those loans, since the federal government now controls all student loans made on and after July 1, 2010. This time around, I know already that my loans are at a rate of 7.2% interest, and after I make my first payment, as long as I set up an automatic recurring debit from a checking account, it will drop to 6.8%. That is a far cry away from 3.2%. Especially when it is supposed to be supported by tax money. Private industry vs. government, this is a classic example.

Did you graduate from public schools?

Yep, and my mother is a teacher. I don't know of a teacher out there that truly believes that the stuff coming down from the fed is a good thing for the schools. No Child Left Behind is horrid. Teachers should be teaching kids HOW to learn, not teaching the kids how to take a standards test. High School is supposed to be a general education. General educations are what prepare us for life. When was the last time that we taught our kids how to balance their checkbook, or to figure out how credit card companies figure interest? Let's face it, since the 70s when the Department of Education was formed, the academic decisions have been taken away from the teachers and people closest to the kids and made it a political football to garner votes for one party or another. It is a power play thing, that was never supposed to be dealt with at the national level. The local governments and people were supposed to control the education of their children.

Did you use FHA to buy your home?

Yep, and I also used this thing called "my brain" when purchasing my house. I went beforehand and was pre-approved for a loan, so that I knew how much I could afford to spend. I also did a little bit of research and found out how awful ARM loans are. After I bought my house, I sat and read the contracts I was signing. The lawyer told me it would only take 20 minutes, but it actually lasted an hour and a half. The seller was getting impatient, but it is my signature, not theirs that mattered.

How many people did that when buying their houses that are now in foreclosure? I will bet you very, very few did it this way. Yes, I know that there are people who bought houses they could afford and lost some income and foreclosed. It happpens all the time, BUT that is not what happened with our housing market. On a personal level, most those people failed to be responsible when looking for a house. I know for a fact, Darrin sees it every day when someone signs up as a new customer for Verizon Wireless and is so busy playing with their new phone (OOOOOOOOO SHINY!) that they have no clue what is in the contract they just signed.

That's on a personal level, that doesn't even touch how the fed screwed the pooch on the whole housing issue. THAT I have talked about in the past. Both parties had their hands in that cesspool just as much as the bankers did.

VZW got a huge Tax abatement to go to SC. Aren't you being hypocritical?

Agreed, VZW DID get an abatement from the state of SC. And that is 100% fine, since it is the state government and local governments that attracted the company to their area by offering an incentive to come here to provide jobs. VZW entry level starting pay is $12.75 an hour here. When you are talking that the headcount in the call center is close to or around 1000 people, that is a lot of new tax revenue in the form of income tax from salaries. Not only that, but that is a boost to the local economy, because those people are going to tend to spend their money locally. This is the reason that I have a HUGE problem with the free trade agreements and the crap that comes out of Washington. They ALLOW companies like GE to influence them by making campaign contributions to write tax code to allow them to maneuver out of paying taxes. Then they ALLOW those same companies to take jobs out of this country, which lowers the economy.

Let's look at how I look at things when it comes to this, and tell me if this doesn't frost your short hairs just a little. Two days ago, Fareed Zakaria interviewed Jeffery Immelt. In the interview, Immelt said that GE was going to hire 15,000 people in this year. Now, because both he AND Fareed are Obama advisors (Immelt on the economic committee and Fareed on foreign policy) you can easily see why Fareed would forget to ask the tough question of that still leaves GE with a job deficit of 20,000 American jobs moved overseas that needs to be made up for.

The Tea Party has no basis in reality. Sure we need to control spending, however if you read their own manifesto, they want to eliminate everything that will build a modern society and keep us safe.

You mean this "Manifesto?" What I see there is 10 things that we should have been doing all along for the past 70 years. We should have been keeping spending under control. We should have been focusing inward instead of outward FIRST, then when things were great here start helping those that needed it instead of being the world's ATM. We should listening to the warnings of history and seeing that what we are doing now, has NEVER worked out good in the past. Eliminate everything that will build a modern society? Are you serious? So shipping all of our manufacturing over to China, while opening loads of restaurants, banks, car washes, etc. is a good thing? Importing 70% of our energy, while we have high unemployment, people screaming for good jobs, high and unstable oil prices, AND sending that money to people that don't like us very much is a good thing? How is that Progressive reality working out for us right now? Let's face it, America has been moving towards the Progressive agenda for more than 100 years now. It started back with Teddy Roosevelt, and we have had very few real Conservative presidents. Regan being one of them. Both Bushes were not real conservatives. Regan got into trouble because he spent like a drunken fool while bringing down the Soviet Union, but he worked in other areas (like with businesses) to bring Conservative principles to the fore. In doing so, he turned around the stagflation we had, the high unemployment we had, and brought about a time of fantastic economic growth. For those who think they are in "the know" and like to spout the lie that Trickle Down Economics don't work, think again after reading these reports. Report 1, Report 2, and Report 3.

Do your parents get SS or Medicare?

Yep, and I won't. I have paid into Social Security and Medicare since I was 16 years old. According to the Obama appointed trustees:

the trustees' report predicts that the trust fund from which Social Security payments are made will be unable to pay retirees full benefits by 2037, four years earlier than forecast a year ago. In particular, the trustees single out the financial weakness of the part of the program that subsidizes disabled Americans, saying that fund will run out of money in 2020.

I am 40 years old. 2037 - 2011 = 26 years. 40 + 26 = 66. When I am ready to retire, and Generation X hits their time, the money is going to be gone. Something HAS to change. I do not know of ANYONE in the Tea Party, or any politician that is a Tea Party candidate who is saying we need to get rid of Social Security and Medicare. Privitization or make changes to it, yes. Ending it, no.

Tea Party members need to get a clue, they were the ones responsible for the downgrading of the US credit rating, per the credit agency.

This one speaks for itself...

S&P Credit Report:

Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

Emphasis added is mine.

You spin me round round baby round round, like a record baby round round round round...

2011-09-16T08:26:00.007-04:00

Ok, it has been awhile since I posted something. Hey, I like to cook, and I am lazy. I also have been spending time on the weekends learning as much as I can from my neighbor, who is going to culinary school. Like I said, I like to cook, it is my outlet, more so than talking about politics is. Although my friend and I do talk about politics. He is a progressive, and I am not. It makes for some interesting conversations, but at least we are open minded towards each other about our views. I have learned that there are more things we agree on, than that which we disagree on. The differences are in how do we get there mainly.

My point is, I don't hate him, and he doesn't hate me because of our political views. He is Jewish, and I am not. I am not racist against him because we don't see eye to eye on politics. His being Jewish has never been a part of the equation, anymore than my being of Irish and German decent has been. I have been trying to work to show him this is philosophical, and not race based. I know he sees it between us, but when it comes to the Tea Party, he has the rose colored goggles on that the media has painted onto the face of the American people. Are there racists in the Tea Party? Sure, to think otherwise would be stupid. That does not however mean that the Tea Party is racist. The Democrat party has just as much racism in it as does the Republican party, but you don't hear many decrying that fact at all. Don't believe it? Take a look at the Black Panther philosophy sometime.

Case in point, Rep. Henry Waxmann (D-CA) who recently said:

There are Jews who are trending toward the Republican Party, some of it because of their misunderstanding of Obama’s policies in the Middle East, and some of it, quite frankly, for economic reasons. They feel they want to protect their wealth, which is why a lot of well-off voters vote for Republicans.

So let me get this straight, if they aren't in the camp of the Democrat party, then those Jews are greedy money hoarders, right? Imagine if it was a Republican that said something like this. Do you think that the media would ignore it as much as they are currently because the guy has a D after his name?

The Democrats are supposed to be so rational, compassionate, and understanding as compared to the evil Conservatives and Tea Party, yet when one of their own goes on to hate filled verbally abusive and physically accosts someone, they turn a blind eye and we never see a word about it. If a Tea Party person did what this guy did, the media would be playing it 24/7 for days to make sure people saw it. The fireworks start around 7:30ish into the video.

Did anyone else notice that that union people there were a bunch of white guys? I know that is what I saw. Maybe the unions are racists, I mean you have to believe the things that you see when it comes to groups like that, right? Look at the Tea Party, that is just a bunch of old, angry white men and they are clearly racist because of that, right?

The Tea Party is all racist white guys! At least that is what the leftist lapdog media WANTS you to believe. Unfortunately for them, a liberal UCLA grad student proved them wrong by actually going to a Tea Party and doing an actual scientific study. GASP! Science was used? Should we now start questioning the media and the left that say that the Tea Party is racist why they don't believe in science?

Republicans just want you to die! Remember when that arrogant jackass from Florida said that on the floor of the House of Representatives? Well, the liberal media is dragging that concept out once again. This time it comes from the Republican CNN/Tea Party debate from earlier this week. Here is the video of what they are harping about, as well as one of the more tame stories written about it. Now first off, the blogger (I will never call anyone from Huffingwind Post a Reporter, they are all commentators. Learn the difference people that don't know it) says "Yeah!" several members of the crowd yelled out." I have listened to that video now 4 times and hear 2 people holler out. They hollered out after Wolf asked his question. Now, just to play devil's advocate here, how do we know that those people weren't lefties that weren't saying ""YEAH" to Wolf for asking his question. As in, they were agreeing and cheering Wolf for asking the tough question that was sticking it to the evil Republican dude?It is possible.

Now, let's assume that those two guys were cheering to let the guy die. Have you seen the size of the crowd that was there? I have seen it reported that there were a few hundred people at that debate in the audience. All you get is two people that say/do something stupid or crazy? I am surprised that it was ONLY two. You get a crowd of that size and inject politics into it, and you are GOING to have a few crazy things happen. Ever seen some of the lefts bloopers? Oh wait, if all you watch is the lamestream media or the leftist blogs, you won't see those. EVER. I am not talking about someone just shouting out something stupid either, I mean really doing something that actually harms or invades the rights of another human being, because they disagree with them politically. Like these people had committed against them: Allee Bautsch and her boyfriend Joe Brown, Kenneth Gladney, 500 union members hold security guards hostage, etc the list goes on.

My point in all of this is that I am getting tired of people taking the few extreme circumstances of something, and making it into something it is not. The Tea Party IS NOT racist as a whole. The Tea Party IS NOT out to force the working man into slavery or poverty. The Tea Party IS NOT to blame for this country's problems, the Tea Party has only been around for 2 and a half years. It took us 70 years to get to where we are now, and if you really believe that the Tea Party caused it all, then you really are hopeless. Did you see the end of the video where protester and union people were civil with each other? Most people are going to be calm and rational, but you are always going to have those idiots that do stupid shit and cause problems. Ever been to a rock concert before? It happens all the time. Look at the bigger picture folks. Don't fall into the trap of calling someone stupid, or an idiot because you disagree with them. I have fallen into this trap quite a bit in the past, and most likely will do so in the future. I try not to, I instead try to call people a jackass (like Harry Reid and Nancy P) when they do something that deserves it, which is often in their cases. Do I think they are stupid or idiots? Nope, I just think they see things differently than I do and want to go in a different direction. When they start demonizing people who think like me, they are indirectly demonizing me as well. Do that and I am going to call you out for it, and point out why you are acting like a jackass.

My Dad Can Beat Up Your Dad! NUH UH, YOU'RE A STUPIDHEAD!

2011-07-26T15:03:00.009-04:00

Can we all please write our congressmen (or women) and tell them to knock this shit off already? Can someone please tell the President how dumb he sounds to people that actually pay attention?

Let me explain why these politicians just don't seem to get it. I will start with the Republicans and the shenanigans that they are pulling in this. As you know, I kind of pay attention to this stuff, so I have gotten to the point where I can make pretty good guesses on what I am observing our politicians doing. The Rs are playing the game of squeeze with Obama. I call it squeeze, but I am not sure if that is the real term for it or not. Squeeze is when you put your opponent between a rock and a hard place, then squeeze them out. Rs are doing this by wanting to have this same debate that we are having currently, during the election season next year. They are doing this because Obama's numbers are sinking like a stone in water.

Here is the thing though that my friends on the left side of the political spectrum miss though. The Ds do the same thing. Anyone remember the budget talks last year? During the mid-term election cycle? Anyone? Well, the Ds did the EXACT same thing that the Rs are doing now. They pushed the budget talks into the election cycle to attempt to hurt their opponent. They played squeeze with the Rs, and now the Rs are playing squeeze with them.

Now here is where we get to the little kid mentality in this week's posting, Harry Reid and the Senate Ds. These jackasses put down Cut, Cap, and Balance without any debate. Ok, so if you don't like it, then amend it, or put out your own plan. Oh no, CCB is among the worst legislation in history. Let's see if old Harry's words are true, or if CCB makes sense and he is just acting like he is 5 years old shall we?

First, let's see what the American people think of Cut, Cap, and Balance. CNN did a poll and asked two VERY significant questions that had answers they completely ignored when reporting on CCB:

23. In another proposal, Congress would raise the debt ceiling only if a balanced budget amendment were passed by both houses of Congress and substantial spending cuts and caps on future spending were approved. Would you favor or oppose this proposal? July 18-20 2011

Favor 66%
Oppose 33%
No opinion 1%

25. Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget? July 18-20 2011

Favor 74%
Oppose 24%
No opinion 1%

Harry, you are on the wrong side of the fence on this one buddy. The American people are your bosses, and you aren't listening to them it sounds like. Time for someone to find a new job in my opinion. But let's see if he argument holds out and maybe the American people are wrong?

http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/11/07/15/the-cut-cap#document

CUT

Cuts total spending by $111 billion in FY 2012. The savings is divided as follows:

* Reduce non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels, which saves $76 billion.
* $35 billion cut to non-veterans, non-Medicare, non-Social Security mandatory spending.
* Defense budget at President’s level.

Hey wait a minute here, the Progressive blogs were all telling us that CCB was going to destroy Medicare and Social Security if those evil Rs got it passed. What is this jibber jabber in bullet point two? Here is another one.

CAP

Total federal spending is scaled back based on the glide path for the fiscal years below:

* 2012, 22.5% of GDP.
* 2013, 21.7% of GDP.
* 2014, 20.8% of GDP.
* 2015, 20.2% of GDP.
* 2016, 20.2% of GDP.
* 2017, 20.0% of GDP.
* 2018, 19.7% of GDP.
* 2019, 19.9% of GDP.
* 2020, 19.9% of GDP.
* 2021, 19.9% of GDP.

So let me get this straight, we not only make spending cuts, but we scale back the amount of spending that the government is allowed to do so that they don't do what they have been doing since 1957 and start running up the credit card with new spending once the American people go back to sleep? WOW! That is truly dangerous and really bad policy there Harry...bad policy in not passing it you jackass.

BALANCE

Requires the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment before raising the nation’s debt limit.

DEBT CEILING INCREASE CONTINGENT ON BBA

Provides for the President’s request for a debt ceiling increase if a qualifying Balanced Budget Amendment passes Congress and is sent to the states for ratification.

Whoa now...THIS could be a dangerous and bad one here. A balanced budget. I mean its not like "e(E)very US state other than Vermont has some form of balanced budget amendment; the precise form varies." Wait, almost every state has one, so what is so bad then?

Many Keynesian economics and New Keynesian economics economists believe that, while a large federal deficit has an adverse effect on the economy, deficit spending has significant benefits in times of recession

Oh I get it now. This is why Paul Krugman and Obama don't like a balanced budget amendment. They are Keynesian, and for those that don't know, that style of economics is why we left the gold standard. How it works is that the value of the money is based on the reputation of the country that prints the money. In other words, the people that print the money try to maintain a delicate balance on how much money is in circulation at any one time. However, if a country needs more money, they just print more. This can EASILY lead to inflation (what we have now: rising costs in food, energy,and declining consumer power) or hyper-inflation:

The main cause of hyperinflation is a massive and rapid increase in the amount of money (including bank credit, deposits, and currency) that is not supported by a corresponding growth in the output of goods and services. This results in an imbalance between the supply and demand for the money, accompanied by a complete loss of confidence in the money, similar to a bank run. This loss of confidence causes a rapid increase in velocity of spending which causes a corresponding rapid increase in prices. Once inflation has become established, sellers try to hedge against it by increasing prices. This leads to further waves of price increases.

Come on Ds, start holding your people accountable. Stop buying what the media is selling you, it stinks even to you because you know already it is rotten. Are you going to let the jackasses like Harry Reid drive this country off the cliff or are you going to stand up? There is still a good number of Rs that need cleaned out of the chicken coop, and Flimsey Grahamnesty comes up in 2016. I plan on doing everything in my power to see that he gets thrown out in the primaries. The Rs have already had one house cleaning this past election cycle. Time for the Ds to start cleaning house also.

Budgets 101

2011-07-20T09:15:00.010-04:00

Ok, so the buzz this month is the budget and the debt ceiling. The Ds say "we HAVE to raise the debt ceiling, so we can borrow money to pay the people we already owe money to!" That doesn't make any sense. We have some Rs that are saying "we need to raise the debt ceiling, and we will do it if you really, really, really honestly promise us that you will let us have spending cuts in the future." Nevermind the fact that this has been promised in the past, and it never happened.

So let's just tear right into this whole budget thing then. How I will do this is by looking at home budgets for a minute and how they work. While we do this, I will point to the things we are seeing in the debt ceiling talks, and how they correlate with what happens in the real world to see if they jive and make sense.

REVENUE: This we have heard about quite often from the Ds. They propose that one thing that has to happen to take care of our bloated debt and budget is to increase revenues to help pay for everything that we are shelling out money for. Sounds good right? So in your life, if you find that you are not able to make your bills, do you go to your boss and tell them that you want more money? Sometimes that works (like yearly review time), and sometimes it doesn't. If the company you are working for is going through some lean times, rocking the boat can have some bad consequences. Like being fired or part of the "budget streamlining" that happens during times, just like we are having in this country right now. There is a reason there is 9.2% unemployment, business had to make cutbacks to keep from going bankrupt. See Ford Motor Company for reference on how most businesses handle things the right way, as compared to the wrong way like General Motors that is no where near where they need to be in profitability to repay the government the money it infused the company with.

Another possibility is that you go out and get a second job. More money coming in, means more money to pay the bills with right? This works also, in the case of the company that I work for, we are owned by a parent company. That parent company invested in my company, and we now pay them dividends.

http://www.1stock1.com/1stock1_062.htm

The overall return of Verizon for the past 20 years has been relatively poor in comparison to some of the other companies featured in the Stock Performance Guide. However, with the popularity of cell phones and Verizon's share of this market, the future could be brighter. Of course, cell phones only make up a portion of Verizon's large revenue stream.

The problem with this scenario is that this would then mean that our government would have to start dabbling in running businesses to make money, or raise taxes. Government dabbling in business is called Socialism at the least intrusive and Communism at the most intrusive with Facism somewhere in between. The problem with raising taxes is that it takes money away from others. So let's look at what the President is talking about when he says we need to raise taxes.

"The tax cuts I'm proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners," Obama said at a White House news conference.

TAX LOOPHOLES: What he is talking about is those pesky tax loopholes. But what is a tax loophole? A loophole is a legal tax deduction plain and simple. For you home owners out there, that tax deduction for interest you pay on your mortgage...guess what...that is a loophole. So YEAH! Let's make those bastards pay right? Make those corporate jet owners pay for those jets they fly around in. The question that I have is if history has anything to teach us about this? Why yes, it does! Anyone remember G.W. Bush? Yeah, Bush Sr., that guy. He tried back in 1990 to pass a luxury tax on yachts, because those evil bastards that own yachts needed to pay more. The problem was is that it killed the yacht manufacturing in this country. So when you impose a tax onto something, you have to be very careful in that you don't impose to much of a tax. Oh wait, that is that thing that every red blooded progressive says is pure bunk, the Laffer Curve theory of Taxes. How can something that is dumb and not true actually be proven by history? History is stupid I guess, pay no attention to it. I mean we are teaching it less and less in schools, and more and more moving towards teaching for those tests to compete against the smart kids of China. What? You don't think that little Ling-Ling on the rice farm is included in those tests in China do you?

SPENDING: Back to budgets. So when you have a budget at home, if you see that you are spending more than you are bringing in, we already talked about bringing in more money. Now most people I know, do that or they cut back on how much they are spending. I don't know very many people that go out and start taking out more loans, to pay for the money that they already owe to a bank or creditor. Currently, the Federal income stream netted $2.162 trillion dollars in fiscal year 2010. The budget for that same year was $2.173 trillion + $1.378 trillion = $3.551 trillion dollars in total spending. Simple math time kids. 2.162 - 3.551 = -1.389. 2.162 / 1.389 = 1.556. We are spending $1.56 for every $1.00 collected right now. The biggest part of that comes from Social Security and Medicare, making up 41% of our Federal Budget every year. It is only going to get worse unless we do something about it NOW. But don't take my word for it, listen to what the Social Security Trustees have to say about it:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided.

The financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare should be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that those affected can adequately prepare.

Our government has a problem. It is a spending problem. If we do not nip it in the butt now, and make sure that our politicians cannot give the keys to the kingdom away in the future like they have now, then we are doomed. Cut, Cap, and Balance is the best thing I have seen, we need to force the government to go into a spenders anonymous mode to break this spending addiction that our politicians have. Both parties have been spending us into this mess for decades. The debt has increased every single year for the last 60 years. Not one president has reduced it. Clinton lovers like to brag that he did, but he didn't. Even on his best year, the government still spent $17.91 billion dollars more than it took in.

Everything needs to be looked at when it comes to the red slashing pen. Democrats need to wake up to reality and stop with the demonizing and political game playing when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. Both need looked at as I showed above, in their own people's recommendation report (damn me for using their own words, I am going off into crazyland with Glenn Beck by doing that). Republicans need to get a grip and realize that the military budget and accounting is horrid and needs to be looked at. Foreign aid needs to STOP until we get our own country fixed. Corporate welfare handouts have to stop, tax breaks to stimulate business growth (which means there is more money to tax, thus increasing tax revenue) is one thing, but complete tax exemptions for companies like GE...WTF? Lastly, do we really need a government that is this huge? Really, we can't make do with a smaller, less intrusive government?

Panem Et Circensus

2011-06-08T14:21:00.011-04:00

So this week's topic is hopefully going to make some sheeple finally start taking notice of a few things. The title this week is "Panem Et Circensus," which is Latin for Bread and Circuses.

This phrase originates from Rome in Satire X of the Roman poet Juvenal (circa 100 AD ). In context, the Latin phrase panem et circenses (bread and circuses) identifies the only remaining cares of a Roman populace which has given up its birthright of political involvement. Here Juvenal displays his contempt for the declining heroism of his contemporary Romans. Roman politicians devised a plan in 140 B.C. to win the votes of the poor: giving out cheap food and entertainment, "bread and circuses", would be the most effective way to rise to power.

This is the same type of collusion that our politicians and the media have. They are giving up bread and circuses, while the empire is crumbling, so they can maintain power. Don't believe it is true? Take a look around at the news these days, and I mean a real good look. Take a look at the fact that between both parties, they have managed to put us $14 TRILLION dollars in debt, taken us from the only world super-power to fast becoming a broke laughing stock, and look at how many useful idiots there are for any lobbyist that will contribute money to their campaign fund, that are roaming the halls of our government.

With that, I will give you examples. READ THESE STORIES! If nothing else, read these, then go look for your own. Don't take my word for it, use it for a jumping point.

Let me show you the bread exhibits that I could think of to look up off the top of my head this morning.

The bribes of Panem:

Welfare is increasing to all time highs in the nation's history

We have politicians that know that the country is broke, and yet they want to continue pushing us down the road to economic ruin with programs that they are bribing the public with for votes to keep them in power or return them to power

Despite the fact that in almost every poll, the American people know we need to start cutting funds for programs we cannot afford, the politicians keep putting out new entitlements, while refusing to cut anything at the same time

The politicians are out and out bribing the public to buy cars, and who really benefits from this the most...those who can afford to go buy a new car (hint: I ain't one of them, and I bet most of you aren't either)

Now let's look at some of the Circenses that the media is entertaining you with to keep you fat, happy, and asleep:

Oh Lord, even though most people don't really care or think she has a chance, when was the last time that a week went by that you did not hear the media shrieking something about Sarah Palin?

How many people were tired of hearing about Weiner's weiner picture being sent to a college student on Monday, when the story broke originally on Saturday? Why is this headline news?

Lord give me strength, Sarah Palin twice in one week.

Now, for the whole Panem Et Circensus thing to make sense, we have to see what is happening that they are trying to cover up or downplay right? Ask yourself why these aren't the top stories, and those circuses that I mentioned above are.

Things they want to hide or make go away:

Because the politicians want to give us some bread, those of us who already were buying our own are about to have the rug yanked out from under us when businesses are not able to continue paying for our healthcare insurance and are expected to start dropping coverage on their employees.

China is saying that the U.S. is playing the weak dollar game. This means that the Treasury is intentionally causing inflation so that they do not have to pay back as much real dollars on the debt they owe now and in the future. The problem is that inflation hits the middle class and poor the most, because we do not have the cash reserves to weather the storm like the rich, the banks, the government, and the financial hotshots in the Fed Reserve or IMF do.

The number one foreign owner of U.S. debt just dumped 97% of their assets in the short term bonds that they were holding. China sees the writing on the wall even though most Americans do not. Thanks for keeping the masses so well informed Main Stream Media!

The inflation that we are already seeing in the form of higher prices in gas and food are the direct result of the Fed Reserve and their attempt to curb the systemic problems that the economy is facing thanks to the politicians in D.C. Both parties btw. Quantitative Easing phase 1 and 2. Learn what they are because...

The Fed Reserve wanted to do a third round, but they felt that inflation already is to high. They are waiting for a little bit before going ahead with QE3.

Has anyone told you the the impact of inflation is that the dollar is worth less than it was before? Has your paycheck gone up as much as the inflation has, or are you spending more for the things you need, while not making more? Which is the best description of your budget at home today compared to 2 years ago?

I am sure glad that we spent all that money on those banks back in 2008 with TARP that Bush pushed to have created and Obama expanded. I mean it was supposed to keep unemployment from going over 8% which would have been super bad. Too bad it hasn't been under 8% in over two years and things aren't looking any better AFTER 2 years!

How is your largest investment doing? Is it worth more money than what you bought it for, or is it worth less money than what you owe now? Get ready for things to get worse...again. Thanks again to those who voted YAY on TARP and lent money to people who couldn't afford to borrow that much in the first place (and thank those people too for buying homes they couldn't afford)!

Wake up people. Stop playing the "D and R hate" game. Start playing "the get rid of them all and get new blood in there to try and fix this" game. Obama promised this, and then hired all ex-Clinton White House people (they helped put us where we are today just as much as the GWB people did, see past posts for that information), so much for Hope and Change (change back to the people that fucked it up in the 90s more like). Lord knows those career politicians like John McCain, John Kerry, Barney Frank, and John Boehner have royally screwed the pooch enough already, and the Panem they have given us isn't worth it if the entire country collapses under the burden of the debt it is creating. New people with different ideas can't do any worse. My personal belief is that the Tea Party has to be onto something, considering all the screaming about them that those who are pushing the Circenses on us all the time, are doing!

Lies of the Media, polls, and Economics 101

2011-06-05T17:33:00.004-04:00

We always see polls for every subject in politics, and from all kinds of sources. The problem with polls is a few fold.

First, the polls have to be from a reputable polling organization. If it comes from a media organization like Fox or MSNBC for instance, then you can bet that the polling data is going to be skewed one way or the other. The reason is, because polls from media sources themselves, tend to draw from those who follow their news. This means that no matter which way that news media leans, the data that they get out of their poll is going to be leaning towards their agenda to start with.

Next, the polling data should be printed in whatever source is quoting from it, so that the data can be looked at to see exactly what types of demographics are answering the questions.

Last, sometimes polling organizations will team up with media sources of a like mind, if the polling organization is slanted such as Pew is for the left and Rassmussen is slanted to the right. This is the trickiest ones of all to decipher, but sometimes it is easy when you know what to look for.

See, a true poll will concentrate on what exactly the question is, and get a demographic set of people to answer it, from people that the question actually matters to. What am I talking about? Well, for instance, if I want to know which set of hamburgers taste good, I am not going to go out and find 6 vegans and 4 meat eaters to ask the question to. I could do this if I wanted to prove that 60% of the population think that hamburgers are nauseating no matter who makes them, but would it really give me a good idea or not?

So with that said, on with the topic of my post this time. See earlier this week I found a Pew/Washington Post poll that Americans think that the GOP presidential candidates are unimpressive. Then I started taking a closer look at what I was seeing. Yes, 44% of Americans had bad things to say about the nominees. Yes, only 12% had positive words. And yes, 19% were neutral with 25% had no words. Then you start looking at the demographics. 387 Republican or right leaning likely voters, OK. AND 456 Democrat or left leaning voters? Why are people that are not likely or cannot vote for primary candidates included in a poll about said candidates? Because it is a propaganda tool. The actual numbers from those that actually would vote on those candidates shows a bit differently. 22% positive, 37% negative, 18% neutral, and 23% no words. So what was the question? Can you give us one word that can describe the current GOP nominees? Not how do you feel about XXX or YYY...but can you give us one word? Myself looking at the field I would say terrible. On an individual level though, I would say my favorite currently, and the one who is actually talking the talk would be Herman Cain. I like what he has to say. I don't agree with him on everything (I would like a flat tax, not the fair tax...I am not sure prayer in school is the answer...school voucher system wouldn't be good in every school district, but we need to get the kids that need the help out of the atrocious inner city schools for instance).

Another article that I saw was in the Daily Beast that featured a TDB/Newsweek poll. Now this one is a great poll to display how partisan sites will skew data because it is their readers that are doing the voting. TBD has a fair amount of left and right leaners that visit it, but Newsweek? That place goes left more than a NASCAR race driver does. Take for instance this:

Listen up, Republicans: Our respondents overwhelmingly say they support increasing taxes on the wealthiest as a means of balancing the budget, 68 percent to 27 percent.

Ok, like I helped out my wife for her economics class earlier this week, I will do the same thing for this one. She was asked what can government do to help bring an economy out of a recession, and get businesses that aren't hiring people to hire the unemployed again? So I started off by telling her that the first thing is that a government should ease the tax burden on the rich and those who create jobs. She asked me why I say that, shouldn't they raise taxes to help pay unemployment until the recession is done> I reminded her, that neither her nor I have EVER worked for anyone that was on welfare. NOT ONE poor person has ever offered us a job. Now, rich people are usually rich, because they own a business. When you raise taxes on the rich, you raise their costs of doing business. This also takes money away from their business that they use to employ/hire people with. For instance, when the economic downturn started, my company trimmed its budgets by trimming departments that had more people than needed. When Obama and the Democrat congress talked last year about raising taxes on the rich, the economy slowed down just from talking about letting those tax cuts expire. Think about that, uncertainty about what the cost of doing business was going to cost made the economy that was starting to come back a little, grind to a halt. Think it isn't true, it is happening right now too! May has seen unemployment increases and the economy slowing again, because of a few different factors. First, rising energy costs (cost of business increasing). Next uncertainty of what the future will bring, like will the Congress put out a bill that will bring the economy back, or will the President, Pelosi, and Reid get their wish of raising taxes on the rich (cost of business increasing).

Back to my wife's college question. So when you allow business to keep more of their money, I asked her what do they typically do with it?

"Reinvest it in their business once the shareholders are paid their share of the profits" she said.

When they reinvest that money in their business what does that typically do?

"It means their business grows" was her response.

And what does that mean for the business in terms of work? Do they have more or less?

"They have more work to do."

Who does that work?

"Their employees."

But if they have more work to do, aren't those employees already doing enough work?

"Well they hire people to do the extra work."

Where did they get the extra money from?

"From the profits they make for their services or goods sold."

You just answered your economy class question Deb.

"OH! OK, I understand now!"

Context Is King

2011-05-23T09:41:00.007-04:00

Ok, so today I am motivated to talk about how context matters. See, lately I have been hearing how everyone that believes in state’s rights is a racist. BZZZZT! Wrong, and I am going to explain why today. First, the left loves to bash the right over the head with the race card. They love it so much, that they end up showing in the end exactly how racist they in fact are, while feigning that they really aren’t. Any form of racism isn’t acceptable in my book, even if it is racism against whites. I know, I am talking that crazy talk again. You can’t be racist against whites, they are the ones who are racists, and if someone says something bad about whites, it is because they deserve it! BZZZT! Wrong again.

First we have Paul Krugman, Noble Peace Prize winning (LOL, that prize lost all credibility when they gave one to Yassir Arrafat in 1994 LOL!) economist for the New York Times, who thinks Regan was a racist. See, his whole premise is when conservatives like Regan talk about state’s rights, that this is super unsecret code for a calling to return to slavery or at the very least segregation. BZZZT! Wrong again. Let me give you an example of how context is king here, and not the blathering of the mental midget that is Paul Krugman. If I say “driving it to her,” this phrase can be used in a few very distinct ways. If for instance I use it in the context of: “My wife left her purse at home before going to Wal-Mart. She called me, so I am now driving it to her.” We have a context that has no sinister meaning to it in any way shape or form. Now if I instead said: “Last night in bed, I was really driving it to her.” We have a completely different context than the first phrase. This is something that the media loves to play on with the public. When for instance, the Tea Party says it is the state’s right to determine how to handle healthcare or education in their state, and not the federal government’s, this is not code for the 60s version of state’s rights when the states were saying it is their right to determine if segregation is the thing to do or not. EVEN THOUGH, they are the same basis of an argument, which if you know the Constitution then you know that the fed shouldn’t have jurisdiction in either case, one is about race and the other is not. Was segregation bad? Yep, glad it was gotten rid of. Should it have been the fed that stepped in to get rid of it? Not according to the Constitution, and it is my firm belief that there should be an amendment added to the Constitution to make segregation of any form, against any race, illegal in America. We did something similar with the 13th-15th amendments.

Remember, context is king in this post, so I want to stick with that theme. Next on my list would be this nonsense that the media and left have been spouting about the oil companies lately. Really, if you fall for this, you really need to re-evaluate your knowledge of business, or else you are someone that has never been in a business environment. The oil companies have done bad things in the past, TRUE. The oil companies are not however always looking to do evil as the left would have you believe. One of the things I have heard for the past few years is how the oil companies are reporting record profits, while the middle-class is hurting and feeling the pinch at the pump. When looking at profits, to get a true estimate of what is going on, you have to look at the profit margin. In this case, the average for big oil companies is between 6%-10% in profit margin. Sounds like a lot right? Not really. When you compare it to other profit margins, you begin to see that that is really the low end of making a profit for a business. Apple, for instance, had a profit margin of 22.36% in 2010. GE, the powerhouse corporation behind the Obama administrations rise to the White House and owner of NBC/MSNBC, had an average profit margin for the last 5 years of 9.93%. That wonderful green energy sector that the lefties are always trying to cram down our throats, had one of its premier companies SunTech (manufacturer of solar panels), with a profit margin of 16.2%. Say what you want, but none of these companies is doing anything wrong. What they are doing is what EVERY business does. They try to grow their business year over year. The media, and anyone who parrots what they say, sound like idiots saying “record profits,” because that just means the company was successful in selling more product than it did last year. In the case of the oil companies they increased their profits by 53% (over last year’s profit margin, not 53% profit margin this year mind you. 53% of 8% profit is a little over 4% in increase or 12% total), but they also increased production of domestic oil by 19% through shale oil extraction (think about that one for a moment, 19% increased production but they only got about a 4% profit bump...evil huh?). Meaning that they made more product and sold it…record profit or business growth as it is more commonly known as in the real world. If we really wanted to see oil prices come down, we would get government out of the way, and have it doing what it should be doing. Regulate the industry and go after those that are doing something wrong, while the ones that are doing what they should be we leave the hell alone. Let them explore for oil. Let them drill if they are doing so responsibly. Stop messing with them and making foreign imported oil more attractive because of all the asinine legislation that the left loves to pile on.

There is a reason that some of the most feared words in the world are "We are from the government, we're here to help."

Can you answer honestly or not?

2011-04-30T10:21:00.005-04:00

The big talk this week has been about gas prices. So this week I wanted to delve into exactly what is going on, why gas prices are going up, and what other factors does this entail. This week I have seen a lot of things said that just do not make sense coming out of our politicians, and things that do make sense when you look at them from a basic economics sense.

According to Obama, the oil companies are to blame. See, he seems to think that the oil companies are raising prices because they get tax breaks while reporting record profits. Let’s look into this from an economic and standard business practices view for a minute. First, I work for a large corporation (Verizon Wireless), and when I first started working for them, I did customer service. Specifically my job at that time was 99% explaining the customer’s bill to them. One of the things that I learned early on is that any extra expense that the company had to deal with would be reflected in an increase in the customer bill. Many times, this was in the form of a new tax. Prime example of this was the enactment of Number Portability. With this new law, you could take your phone number from one carrier to the next, and even across platforms from mobile to landline and vise versus. Now, with this the companies had to setup support centers and new processes to handle this new procedure. Also created was an agency that works as a go-between for those companies to resolve any issues with number portability from one carrier to another. This agency is funded by the carriers. To pay for these extra expenses, congress allowed carriers to collect $.10 or more from each customer that they service (even those not taking advantage of the portability service), thus everyone’s monthly bills increased. This is the way things work. When the cost of business goes up, so do prices. For everyone, end of story. So let’s pose this question then: If Obama gets congress to either cut tax breaks or just raises taxes on oil companies, will this increase prices for we the consumers or lower them? This is a rhetorical question; anyone with any type of business know how at all can answer this question without even thinking. It makes prices go up.

Next, I want to address why prices are going up which is going to actually take a couple of things that need to be looked at.

First, our government has a long history of cow-towing to the environmentalist groups when it comes to oil and gas. For decades, we have not been able to build new refineries that could be more efficient at producing gasoline. There are a few reasons for this. The fact that profits have not been stable to warrant the outlay of the $3 billion needed to build a new facility, combined with the oil companies taking this reason and just upgrading their existing facilities and not building any new ones. Part of this is because oil production in America has been declining since 1970. Oil production has been declining thanks to Congress. During the 1970s oil shortage, Congress passed the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act (EPAA) which created a 3 tiered pricing system on domestic oil. In their infinite wisdom, the Congress did this:

Expensive imported oil was not subject to price controls and it determined the marginal cost, and thus price, of gasoline sold in the United States. But since many refiners had access to domestic old oil that was subject to price controls, they made larger profits than refiners dependent on new domestic oil. In response to this situation, the Federal Energy Administration created complex new rules in 1974 to spread around the refiner benefits of price-controlled old oil. Those rules, in turn, created incentives for refiners to further increase oil imports.

What this means is that oil that was around before the price controls allowed the refineries to sell that oil for a profit and it was competitive with imported oil that was not subject to price controls. When that old oil ran out, or for the smaller refineries that did not have old oil stockpiles, then the imported oil produced greater profits than the price controlled domestic oil. Demand for domestic oil decreased, so of course production was cut back. When demand is low and supply is high, and then pricing plummets. In the case where there is no profit to be made because the government is regulating what price you can sell it for means that people have no interest or incentive to do it. Jobs are lost since there is no work or money to sustain them. This is why oil production sucks in this country, even though those regulations were lifted in the 1990s, because by that time the damage was already done. Mission accomplished environmentalists, you just put a bunch of money that could have been in American worker pockets into the pockets of countries that don’t like us very much (Venezuela, Middle East, etc.).

The domestic assault doesn’t end there though. Just this week, Shell was forced to scrap one of their Alaskan oil production projects, because of our wonderful EPA deciding to withhold critical air permits. This will cost Shell an estimated $4 billion dollars in lost money already invested, 5 years’ worth of time for work already done, and of course all that future revenue that would be generated by the production of that oil. Do you think this will make your gas prices go up, or down? As a side benefit of this, the Alaskan Pipeline that the environmentalists don’t like, has had steadily declining production rates for decades. Because of this, it is now only utilizing 1/3rd of it capacity. It is now in danger of being shut down because it won’t be making enough money to keep it running. Do you think this will make your gas prices go up or down? How many American jobs will this effect? Will we see jobs created by this, or jobs lost?

I think we already know the answers to most of these questions already. The question left to answer is, are you the reader ready to face the truth of the matter and answer the questions honestly?

The Budget Battle...

2011-04-11T19:23:00.010-04:00

Oh how quickly the media forgets...uh...wants you to forget that should be! Yes, the media seems to have forgotten a few things from the past during this last few weeks of Tea Party bashing and Republican demonizing. Unfortunately for them, there are people like me that don't forget, and since people like me also know how to use that awesomely secret power tool of information (http://www.google.com), I not only am able to remind people, but do so by quickly calling up where I saw it way back in the past! So without further ado, let's get started!

1. The budget cuts that Republicans want to make are draconian and we cannot afford to cut spending - Well, this isn't exactly true, and it really shows how absolutely hypocritical that our politicians and the main stream media can really be. Why you ask? Well, way way way back in the so very distant past, our government survived on the amount of money that the Republicans wanted to return the level of spending to. See according to the Republicans, they wanted to return to that level of spending as a start. Democrats went absolutely berserk that this is extreme and will kill the children. What level of spending were they wanting to go back to should be your next question. Well, by golly gee it is back to that so long ago spending level of 2008. WOW! Those slash and burn bastards! They want to go back to the spending levels of George W. Bush, which as we all know the Lefty Liberals praised GWB on his level of spending...oh wait. Well, don't look here either I guess. Or here. I mean come on, Obama isn't GWB when it comes to spending, he is worse...OOPS, did I just say that out loud? Inside voice, inside voice!

2. Does anyone remember the calls for civil discourse - Back in the oh so distant past of January 2011, those nasty Republicans used such violent political rhetoric in campaign ads and in drumming up support for candidates they support, like Sarah Palin and her bulls eyes on political districts, which we all know is the real reason that crazy leftist leaning nut job shot Giffords, I mean even though he had almost all leftist views, and probably would not have been a Palin fan, we all know that her picture mesmerized him and through the powers of telepathic osmosis, she is the one that pushed him to get a gun and take pictures of himself in a woman's thong before shooting a congresswoman and a bunch of her supporters. Back to the rhetoric stuff though...I mean where is the civility? Those Republicans don't want any of course, only Democrats and the leftys do. Those peaceful democrats would never say things that would make people want to hurt Republicans, like Republicans say things that make people want to hurt Democrats, like: Republicans want to kill women, Conservatives want to destroy the whole world, Only Republicans call for violence against those that they politically disagree with, and those violent Tea Party people...they are always getting arrested for being violent (I only see 1 arrest there and that was a guy that charged a podium at a Democrat convention, and we all know that Democrats never charge Republican convention podiums).

Ok, enough poking holes in the Progressives stupidity. I want to talk about the real implications of our budget and how we got here. First, what we are doing in this country is unsustainable. Don't take my word for it, take the Treasury Secretary's word that was appointed by Obama talking about Obama's budget proposal:

During the Senate Budget Committee hearing, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) asked the Treasury secretary, “Under your budget, the interest increases each year. It was $187 billion in 2009. Under your proposal, it increases to $844 billion”

Geithner responded, “Senator, absolutely, it is an excessively high interest burden, it’s unsustainable.”

Sessions said, “Well it’s your plan. That’s the plan the president submitted.”

At that point, Geithner partially agreed with the ranking member.

“You’re absolutely right that with the president’s plan, even if Congress were to enact it, and even if Congress were to hold to it and reduce those deficits to three percent of GDP over the next five years, we would still be left with a very large interest burden and unsustainable obligations over time,” Geithner said.

Bill Clinton did not balance the budget. People that don't think I am speaking the truth here, answer a simple question for me then. How is it that if you have a balanced budget and are taking in more money than you are spending, that from 1993-1997 you increase your total debt by $1.18 Trillion dollars, and from 1997-2001 you increase it again by $450 Billion? He and the Republicans raided the Social Security bank account to make their numbers look better. In doing so, they legitimized the time honored politician practice of taking the money. See this is how it works, first you have money coming in by people that are paying into Social Security thinking it is going to bee grown and fund their retirement sort of like a government forced 401K. But what has been happening for DECADES is that both parties drooled over that money, and almost immediately began sticking it into their budgets to fund various pet projects. Instead of putting money in the vault, they started putting in IOUs. Finally under Clinton, the Republican congress struck a deal with him whereby they stopped even with the pretense of IOUs and said that it would just come out of the governments yearly budget (food for thought, how does one budget for an item that is an automatic withdrawal based on how many people sign up for it, not how much money is available). So now, how it works is that the money that I am paying is being used to pay for my mother's retirement Social Security, since the money she paid in went for various spending projects that past politicians thought were more important than saving her money. This is where the problem comes in, the Baby Boomers. There are more of them than there are people to pay for their retirements, and for the first time since the 1983 overhaul, Social Security is in the red taking in less money than is going out. This is why I call this the greatest ponzi scheme of all time. Our politicians should be right in jail alongside Bernie Maddof. Social Secuurity is going to have real bad issues within a very short period of time. I point you to 2 articles that illustrate this better than I ever could here. There are 2 articles that explain it all. The author even takes time to update his articles to refute those who claim his research is false, http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.giflying, or not right. He provides links to the information he uses to put it all in easy to understand language.

If we don't get serious about fixing our broke country, that both our political parties are to blame for, then this country is in for some really bad times ahead. Our politicians know this, the media knows this, the Treasury Secretary knows this, the IMF knows this, and most of the world knows this also. The only ones who don't seem to know this is the people that listen to the main stream media (I still contend we should change that name to be Lame Steam Media) in this country like the NYT, CNN, MSNBC, etc. The only reason that I didn't include Fox is because they are actually talking about it now, since their boy isn't in the White House anymore. I am 100% confident that once a Republican is sitting behind that desk again, they will turn a blind eye as they did during the Bush administration.

My last thoughts for you to consider. If I go out and borrow money, I run into this thing called the Debt-to-Income Ratio. This is a measure of how much money I can have going out as expenses, compared to how much money I have coming in. If I have more money going out than I have coming in, I am not allowed to borrow money. As a matter of fact, if I do that for long enough and accumulate to much debt, I will go bankrupt. In 2008, the U.S. total tax revenue was 2.8 Trillion dollars. I have heard the talking heads saying that our current revenue is approximately 2.9 Trillion in 2009 according to the CBO. We have a budget deficit of 1.4 Trillion dollars. Doing that simple math that I love so much 2.9 + 1.5 = 4.4 trillion in spending. Tonight I heard that our government in this country spends about $100 Million dollars an hour. To give you an idea of the enormity of that level of spending, Warren Buffet in 2008 was listed as the richest man in America with $62 Billion dollars. If we did what every Democrat lefty would love to do and take all that money from the old rich white guy, our government would burn through every penny in about 25.8 days ($62,000,000,000 / 100,000,000 = 620...620/24 = 25.83333). the last part of this is when both sides say "well, but this isn't anything compared to the GDP...blah blah blah." I am going to give you another example of how you are being bullshitted by even the CBO. I want a Bugatti Veyron. They cost $2.6 Million dollars. I make less than $70,000 a year (as do most Americans since the average median income is $42,000 and I am closer to it than $70,000 I will tell you). I work for Verizon Wireless, and they make billions of dollars every year. Can someone let me know of a bank that will loan me $2.6 million dollars since I collect my paycheck from a company that makes billions? I won't be holding my breath waiting for that bank name, so no rush.

Craziness is spreading like wildfire

2011-01-13T13:56:00.007-05:00

So this past weekend, I was looking at some of the comments by some of my left leaning friends that were on Facebook and was disappointed by them. A person whom I thought was above the name calling and stupid vitriol that is projected on the base of the opposing political side by the media, ended up doing exactly that. I believe that the media in this country is biased. I believe that the media in this country only gives the information to the American public that they want them to hear. I believe that the media are to blame for the spreading of propaganda to push political agendas and candidates. I believe that the media is a great source of discord in this country. I DO NOT believe that most Americans, from the left or the right, hate each other and would degenerate into name calling when discussing politics when face-to-face with each other, or when talking to someone that they know personally. Take my friend for instance, I hold no animosity for her being a big progressive. I like to believe that she holds no animosity for me being conservative. We are political opposites on a number of issues, and yes we do have a few points where we agree. Yet, this weekend I saw her railing, belittling, and name calling people who have the same beliefs that I do. Not the media, but the voters, the people of America, those who are standing up for their rights as citizens to have their voices heard. That in my opinion is wrong. I may think that the people of the Progressive movement in America are misguided by the media, but I won't denigrate them for it. I denigrate the media and career politicians all the time, but I won't do that to the people. If I ever do, someone please point it out to me and I will do my best to correct it.

That being said, I travel on down the road of idiot media blabberings. Within minutes of the shootings, the forum despots at The Daily Kos (yes I intentionally called them despots, just try posting an opinion on their forums sometime that they don't agree with. I dare you.) started blaming Sarah Palin for the shootings, because of a douchebag sheriff in AZ not doing his job (catching the killer and letting the facts lead him to why), and instead decided to make political hay. It also happens that this sheriff was on the campaign staff of the congresswoman during the last election. To me this guy sees an opportunity to step into her shoes, and decided the way to do so is to play to the far left. That makes him a perfect career politician in my book, a slimeball that will do anything to keep or gain power. Now I have said before that I am not a Sarah Palin supporter per say, but I don't dislike her either. The people that peruse the Daily Kos, Media Matters, Center for American Progress, and The Huffingwind Post though actually hate her, and the only reasoning that I can see behind it is because she disagrees with them politically. That is wrong.

Anyways, they blamed Sarah Palin for the shooting because a year ago she had a political "map" up on her campaign website that had crosshair graphics on it over districts that the Tea Party were "Targetting." In the words of Rahm Emanuel, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." Immediately we have the media and politicians from the left calling for new legislation to restrict the rights of Americans that are in-numerated in the Constitution, you know the First Amendment which covers free speech and freedom of the press among other things. One such loud mouthed propaganda spewer is Paul Kanjorski, a former Senator from PA. So he has an op-ed in the NYT calling for a bill that would limit the rhetoric that caused violence like what was done in AZ. Well golly gee Mr. Kanjorski, can you please explain to me how crosshairs on a map from over a year ago caused some crazy guy to go shoot a congresswoman today? I am sure that it was all that violent rhetoric from those crazy wingnuts on the right, I mean it is only them wingnuts who say things like "That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida, instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. Nah, you would never say anything like that....oh wait, you did. So does that mean that you are to blame for the violent rhetoric as well?

So as I said, this guy is crazy. Crazy people will do crazy things. Sometimes it is that homeless guy on the street who you see mumbling to his imaginary friend. Other times, the crazy person is violent like this guy was. No sane person is going to shoot a 9 year old girl in the head at point blank range and then turn on a crowd and start firing. He was insane. I have seen the argument made that since this guy bought his gun legally, that we have made the bad bad boom stick that kills people to easy to obtain. First, guns do not kill people. People kill people. I can set a loaded gun on a table and it will sit there for eternity and not get up and kill someone on its own. It need some outside force to make it fire, like a person to use it. Second, this happened in a grocery store parking lot. If this guy had not had access to a gun, he would have used something else, because that is what crazy people do. He could have used a car. He could have taken all of 5 minutes to search Google on how to make a fertilizer and diesel fuel bomb. He could have gone on the same rampage with a knife or sword. You get the idea. He could have used anything. Also, we do have gun control laws in place already. If you are crazy, you can't buy a gun. How is it that everyone who had contact with this guy (friends at school, people who were in his classes, people who knew him, teachers, his parents, even the Tuscon cops), and yet nothing was ever put on his record to indicate that he was insane and should not be allowed to purchase a gun? Where were his parents that should have stepped up and said "My kid is crackers, I need to get him some help before he ends up hurting himself (which most crazy people do) or hurting someone else (luckily few crazy people do this, but it does happen)?

The media and Politicians are lying to us, and doing so every day. Why do people continue to believe 1 or 2 sources instead of finding out what is really happening to their country boggles my mind. Knowledge is power, and the pen is mightier than the sword. I just hope that I am inspiring my kids to not listen to just those who seem to think like them, and instead search for and find the truth as best they can. As the joke goes: How can you tell when a politician is lying to you? When their lips are moving. The media is fast becoming part of that punchline as well (is PUNCHline considered violent rhetoric?).

Time to stop being lazy

2011-01-03T10:38:00.024-05:00

Ok, so the new year is here, and I have been slack about posting my thoughts and beliefs lately. I need to get back in the swing of things, so I am starting out the new year and seeing where it goes from here.

So first let's start off with MSNBC and their host mocking the political beliefs of the GOProud chairman. First, isn't the left supposed to be the ones that are the most tolerant of others views? Second, I will be the first to admit that the right does have its share of idiots (read as people that hold stupid ideals of how far they should poke their noses into others private lives), but maybe just maybe this guy believes like me, in that social aspects are secondary to making sure that the country is financially sound and secure from foreign threats first. Maybe the guy thinks that we should worry more about taking care of our own country and people first, rather than giving a rat's ass about what the other countries of the world think about our country or how their economies are doing. Maybe he believes that we should take care of ourselves, before we go taking care of the rest of the world. Maybe he believes that people should stand on their own two feet and learn to fish, rather than handing them a fish for the rest of their lives. Maybe he believes that we should give a helping hand to those that need it, when they need it, but not let them take advantage of us and live off of us like parasites. Maybe he believes that if you want to come to this country you should do so by respecting the laws of this country and becoming a citizen in the manner that our country has set forth as the way to do it, rather than just showing up and then demanding to be given citizenship because you came here illegally and worked a few years under the radar while paying little to no taxes. Just a few things off the top of my head there. It is all about priorities, and while I may not know what this guys priorities and beliefs are, I am guessing that they are not what the host ridiculing him holds as near and dear either. Besides, isn't it the left wing MSM that keeps telling us how unbiased they are? What happened here hmmmmmm?

Next, we have Fox News correspondent Kirsten Powers, a lefty journalist/blogger employed by Fox as a contributor (unpossible! Faux News is all right wingers who are just Republican shills like Juan Williams, Sheppard Smith, Giraldo Rivera, and Greta Van Sustern! Oh wait), who wrongly thinks that GWB passed death panel legislation. Just as many news outlets are pushing, like Politico and The Hill are wrongly pushing as well. The problem with their assumptions is that GWB vetoed the bill, and the Congress of 2008 (Democrat controlled) OVERRODE Bush's veto. At least Kirsten has come out on her Twitter account and apologized for her untrue accusations. Politico and The Hill on the other hand have not posted any type of retraction or corrections. They are instead allowing the continuation of false information to be disseminated to fit their agenda. Hmmmmmm, now isn't that interesting? Wasn't there a "outrage" back during the Obamacare debate when a certain former governor said that the Progressives were pushing for death panels (more widely described as bureaucrats encouraging doctors to push end of life counseling when the money gets tight for the elderly)?

You can't make this stuff up. I mean really, I was looking recently at some news stories and seen where Obama says to CEOs "I Want to Dispel Any Notion We Want to Inhibit Your Success." On the same day that I read this, I was looking around and found out that Japan has decided to lower their corporate tax rate by 5%, making the U.S. the highest corporate tax rate in the world! Can someone from the left please explain to me how this doesn't hamper success? Can anyone please explain to me how it is that we ever expect to stem the tide of corporations outsourcing American jobs to other countries like this? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

I am going to keep it short this week, but I want to finish up with another bit of media fawning over the lunatic fringe of the left. The last story of the week I am going to point to is about the rabid pathological liar Alan Grayson. In the NYT, Grayson is portrayed as a defeated hero, when he is really a disgrace, and the good people of Florida's 8th district saw him for what he really is after only 1 term in the House, and promptly booted his ass out. With such hits to his name as the infamous Taliban Dan campaign video, calling for a criminal investigation of a blogger who mocked him, making an ass of himself by crashing a local GOP meeting in a Perkin's restaurant, and of course the oldy but goody when he made those infamously idiotic comments on the floor of the House during the healthcare debate (isn't it his party that overrode the veto of Medicaid funded end-of-life counseling?). It is odd that the good people of Florida's 8th district threw out such a fine and level-headed politician.

Until next week, and Happy New Year!

Progressives: pushing the boundaries of absurdity

2010-09-27T09:18:00.011-04:00

That's right, I am back. So now that my Political Science course is over, I don't have any outlet for my political ramblings.

A lot of things have been happening in the political arena since I last wrote on this blog, and I am not going to go and rehash old information. Instead I am going to press on with the news of the week and what I think of it.

First on my hit list for the week is an anonymous opinion person on the New York Times, who thinks that the Tea Party is some horrid body of people who are threatening the establishment, and are far extremist in their views. I have one thing to say to this guy/gal: "Grow a set of balls and sign your name to your op-ed if you are going to insult so many people." This kind of fluff, while maddening, is the typical drivel we see coming from the elitist bastards in the media and politicians everyday. Don't you get tired of stroking your self importance after awhile?

Next up is more elitists spewing drivel and trying their best to marginalize the shit storm they know is coming in November which will put them back under the rock they so rightly deserve to be under. First up is David Brooks "the conservative voice at the NYT." This guy is not a conservative. He is a Progressive Republican. Yes, there is a difference. First off, fiscal conservatives like Jim DeMint, know that it isn't just the deficit, but spending as well that needs to be cut to have any lasting impact on reestablishing this country as a world leader. Spending $1 Million+ on a turtle tunnel under a highway in Florida, $800 thousand to teach uncircumcised men in Africa to wash their penises properly, or $117 thousand to study the effects of party drugs on gay men in Brazil is not something we should be doing. Ever. Instead of cutting the budget and letting go of: teachers, police, and setting prisoners free like California threatened to do, how about we cut all the crap out of our spending like these? Yet all of these things were paid for by U.S. taxpayers in the T.A.R.P. fund that Congress passed. It was Progressive Republicans and Democrats that pushed that travesty on America. Look at those who started it or voted for it for reference. It was started by Bush. Voted favorably on by both McCain and Obama. Then further expanded by Obama and Nancy P to make it an even bigger monstrosity than Bush originally made it.

The next elitist joins the fray from across the pond in jolly old England. This guy Seems to want to perpetuate the fallacy that the Tea Party is just a bunch of jew hating, black hating, gay hating, racist biggots that should have no voice since it is just a rehash of the GWB years. Psst, hey buddy. I got a news scoop for you. The Tea Party didn't like GWB, nor what him and the rest of the Progressive Republicans did to this country anymore than we like what the Progressive Democrats are doing to it now. Why do you think the Tea Party has been booting incumbent Progressive Republicans like Lisa Murkowski, Bob Bennet, and Mike Castle out during the primaries? I can tell you why, because the Tea Party sprang up in protest of the first T.A.R.P. bill that was pushed by GWB. That was the final straw that broke the camels back. We didn't like Bush and his people saying they were conservative to get us to vote for them, then turning around and breaking the bank by passing spending bill after spending bill. I keep hearing on the Bill Maher Show how the Tea Party is mad because of a black man being president. Well, the Tea Party sprang up on the national radar because of the T.A.R.P. bill proposed by GWB. Does that mean that GWB was a black man? Wow, I had no idea. The Obama became president. Healthcare and the continued passing of monster bills with monster spending that no one read, just made the Tea Party movement grow bigger. Stop with the racist defense, it makes you look bad. As a "reporter" when you blatantly spread "facts" that aren't true, it makes you look like you are just a shill for the left and not really a reporter. Oh wait...

Next is the total contradiction that the elitist media is spreading about the Party of No (see past posts where we went over how much bullshit this is since the Democrats have a trifecta of power in the government right now). So now even though the Tea Party has been accused of not having a plan (Hey dumbass elitists, we have had a plan now for over 200 years. It is this crazy document you may have heard of before called "The Constitution"), and the Democrats have been saying for the past few months that the Republicans have no plan, the Republicans have released the details of their plan in response to wanting to court the Tea Party for votes. The left is now saying their plan is just a bunch of hooey and more of the GWB stuff all over. This bring to me the question of "what is your plan?" More spending money we don't have? More redistributing the U.S. taxes to other countries to fund things similar to the penis washing classes in Africa? More business killing legislation that makes businesses hoard their money since they don't know what you are going to a toss at them next, instead of hiring people to end high unemployment? No thank you, I will be voting against you come November.

Next up, Maureen Dowd. She thinks that if you don't agree with her, you are a stupid moron that is unfit to be a leader (she may be on to something here...). The difference between me and her though is that while I think that the bulk of American voters are not morons but people of different beliefs who are just trying to do the right thing. She thinks that the American voters by in large are stupid Wal-Mart shoppers that don't know how to take care of themselves, so the ruling elite need to do it for us. She goes on about how leaders have to look at things scientifically: like believing in global warming, fetal tissue stem cell research, and evolution. Hey Maureen, last I knew, our country is based upon the standing of innocent until proven guilty. The scientific extension of this theory would be: be skeptical until proven as fact. None of those things you mention are proven facts (with embryonic stem cell research actually showing that it yields no results other than side effects no one wants when compared to adult stem cell research, which is actually having success), so being skeptical is exactly in line with the American way of thinking.

Last is the entertainer Lady Gaga. I will admit that her brand of music is not something I like (not enough screaming or guitars in it). I want to also state up front that I believe that gay couples should be allowed to have the same "rights" as a married heterosexual couple, but that marriage is an institution of religion. I only know of one religion that is having the debate about allowing homosexuality, and those Episcopals are having many heated debates over it in their elder councils. So Lady Gaga has brought her personal flamboyant flair to the table by wanting to become an ordained minister to marry her gay friends. This is wrong, but there is a reason why her and people like her do this. They do it because they can get away with it. The Christian religion is very pacifistic in its nature, and while what she is doing will ruffle some feathers, she really has no fear of reprisal. Conversely, I wonder what would happen to her if she tried to become an Imam of Islam to marry her gay friends. Would the religion of peace be so pacifistic with her, or would a fatwa be issued against her calling for her to be beheaded. I think that we already know this answer and that Lady Gaga has chosen her opponent carefully so that she can bully her victim without fear of death, like she would face if she picked on someone else.

Update on why I haven't been posting

2010-07-26T13:52:00.002-04:00

Simple answer: I am taking Political Science 313 World Politics this semester. I am getting tons of "talk" time in there. I don't feel like hashing it out twice. See you after the semester is over!

Crackerjack Logic?

2010-06-30T08:03:00.008-04:00

What kind of crackerjack logic does the leftist, statist media use? I am really beginning to wonder why so many people fall for this stuff. I mean come on, this is just to much to seriously believe. You have to have blinders on to think this stuff is real and not part of an agenda. This week, I am going to be tackling a lot of different subjects, but the underlying theme is the same. The media and the left want you to be good little sheeple and believe that the Progressive agenda is working. It isn't, it never has, and never will. It fails every time that Marxism is tried. Progressivism is Marxism. Look at Obama chastising the Europeans at the G20 meetings this past week for not spending enough. Europe moving away from Socialism and going Conservative. Hmmmmm, why do you think that is happening?

I want to start off with the oil spill. On 9/11/2001 America was attacked by Islamic radicals (even though our new State Department doesn't want to admit there are Islamic radicals). Even though he was in office for less than 8 months, thanks to Al Gore's incessant whining about actually losing, George Bush is to blame for 9/11 according to the left. Why? Because he was in office and didn't make things happen fast enough to stop it. Why are the left leaders never to blame for the same thing? The same reason that the media has thrills up their legs when a Democrat gains office. Because left leaders are sauve, intelligent, sexy, and charismatic. While the right leaders are old, out of touch, crazy, stupid, or worse. Look at how the media fawns over: JFK (smart, sexy, and sauve), Clinton (smart, sexy, sauve), Obama (super smart, sexy, charismatic), LBJ (smart, charismatic), and the list goes on. Now look at how the leaders of the right are portrayed: (the greatest leader of the 20th century) Regan (old, out of touch, warhawk, senile, uneducated, no experience), GHB (stupid, out of touch, old), GWB (do I really need to go over him?), Nixon (yeah, un huh), and the list goes on. Now look at how over one year in office, the oil spill is Bush's fault because his appointees were still in the MMS. Let's look a little closer at that. Who is supposed to protect us from 9/11? The FBI. Who was the Director of the FBI at the time? Robert Mueller, who had just taken office exactly 7 days before 9/11 happened. Who was in there before that? Other than a brief acting director (June 25 - Sept 4) it was Clinton appointee Louis Freeh. Who dropped the ball here? Whose fault is it again? Own up media. Whose is to blame for the oil? Bush or Obama. If you say Bush, then you need to make Clinton man up on 9/11. If you say Obama, then 9/11 is already written as Bush's problem and you would remain consistent and unbiased. You set the double standard, now which side is really the side it should fall on?

Now lets look at some interesting things happening in politics around the country and the coverage that the press gives it. First I want to deal with Dave Weigel. If you haven't heard of this one yet, Dave resigned from the Washington Post last week where he was the reporter assigned to the "Conservative Beat." Meaning he was supposedly a Conservative whom was assigned to cover the Conservative issues. Problem #1: He isn't a Conservative, and has been shown in his leaked emails, he is actually hostile to Conservatives and their beliefs. Problem #2: No one has asked the question on why is there no "Liberal or Progressive Beat" reporters. Why do you think it is that none of the lamestream media outlets have one of those, but they all have a "Conservative Beat" person? Could it be because the "Liberal/Progressive Beat" is already extensively covered by everyone else there? Notice how the left denounces Fox News (or Faux/Fake News as they call it) because it is a Conservative news organization. They know their stranglehold on choking off news that they don't like is seriously threatened by Fox. When you give people both sides, they start looking into things for themselves, and that is unacceptable for keeping the sheeple voting the same tired politicians like Charlie Rangle, John McCain (Progressive Republican that crosses the isle often and advances Progressive beliefs), and John Conyers into office.

Onto the good stuff now. Tim Scott was just elected to the GOP ticket in the runoff primaries here in SC. He is who I will be voting for come November for the SC-1 District seat in the House of Representatives. Why is it that whenever a black man or woman runs for office as a Democrat, he is courageous and intelligent, like BHO. However, when a black man runs for office on a Conservative ticket we see things like this:

With GOP primary, GOP finally buries Strom Thurmond:

Scott, too, has his zany side. He still believes in the Laffer Curve, the theory disproved a quarter-century ago that cutting taxes increases government revenue.

Really? Disproved? By who? According to the Heritage Foundation, Regan proved that it does work with a 99.4% increase in tax revenue by cutting taxes across the board!

Another oldie but goodie we saw with right-wing black people in power, is when Al Sharpton called Collin Powell and Condolezza Rice house negros.

Good stuff there Al.

Oh! How about Gloria Steinem saying that if you are prolife as a women you are not a feminist.

Feminism refers to political, cultural, and economic movements aimed at establishing greater rights, legal protection for women and/or women's liberation. Feminism includes some of the sociological theories and philosophies concerned with issues of gender difference. It is also a movement that campaigns for women's rights and interests.

If you don't agree with abortion, you are against women being liberated and having protections. Uh huh...riiiiight.

Ok, back to where the media thinks that YOU are stupid. The media thinks this, because most of America has blindly taken what they say as fact without researching anything on their own or even moderately thinking things through as to what the media is saying. Last week I watched Glenn Beck talking about George Soros, Obama, and their connections to PetroBras in relation to the spill that is happening in the gulf and Obama wanting to shut down all offshore oil drilling in the U.S. and why he would be doing such a thing. Of course, money. George Soros is invested heavily in PetroBras, the state run oil company of Brazil. He invested $900M with them. Now Media Matters immediately flew into a tizzy, because not only is he talking about Obama, but the mack daddy of the Liberal world, or Bizarroland as I call it. So I read their arguments, and I found myself slapping my forehead to keep my brain from falling out in disbelief at how stupid their arguments were. First, MM says that Obama isn't to blame because....wait for it...wait for it...George Bush appointed the Ex-Im bank panel that approved the $2B loan to PetroBras to finance their offshore drilling. WOW, HOW ORIGINAL ANOTHER GEORGE BUSH BLAME! So if Bush is to blame for 9/11 because it happened on his watch 8 months into his presidency, then shouldn't Obama be the one to blame for this happening 8 months into his (they started the decision process on the loan in Sept of 2009)? Why hadn't he replaced them if he didn't agree with them? Now I am no rocket scientist, but I have a feeling that Obama may have at least heard that the 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats that were on the approval committee, which was appointed by Bush, would be approving a $2B loan. Considering how much George gives to Bizarroworld (at least $500M a year that he is willing to admit too publically) and how much he is in bed with the Obama administration (please go look up The Center for American Progress and their ties to Obama through John Podesta, also look up the Tides Foundation and their ties to the Healthcare bill, the Cash for Clunkers bill, and the TARP bill), I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't give his friend a heads up, when he is invested so heavily into the recipient of that loan. See below also for further head scratching.

Completely unrelated, other than MM thinks that this is another show of disproving Beck, George Soros sold his 22 million shares of common stock and bought 5.4 million preferred stock shares 2 weeks before the loan was approved. SEE, HE SOLD 16.6 MILLION SHARES! Not so much when you find out what the difference is between common and preferred stocks. Preferred stocks are for long term investors. They get their share of dividends no matter if the economy is doing good, or if it is doing bad.

I will leave you with some food for thought: If the economy is on the verge of rebounding tremendously because of Obama's policies and spending, why is George Soros divesting himself of stock that would be based on actual market performance for dividends payout, and instead buying up stock that is set up for long term investment and pays out regardless of what the economy is doing?

Let's talk about oil baby, and Alvin Greene!

2010-06-15T11:03:00.010-04:00

So the picture above is what the BP Oil Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico looks like from space. Everyone is talking about it. All the talking heads, and the media are going nuts on the subject. I have been thinking about this one myself since it began, because I am kind of torn over how to think about this situation. Knee jerk angry reaction is to immediately blame BP and be angry at the oil companies. Instead of that though, I decided to do a little research and find out more about offshore drilling.

So the first thing that I learned is that Norway is considered to be the most environmentally friendly and safest offshore oil drilling. Now Norway is a Constitutional Monarchy, meaning they have a king and a representative government. Here is the thing though about StatOil, they are owned by the Norwegian government.

So this brought me to the question of WHY is Norway so much safer than others? Well, see Norway's oil rigs are in a water depth of about 125 meters of water. So WHY is that important? Well, the BP Deepwater Oil Well is 1500 meters under water, which is 12 times the depth. Now I wonder WHY the well capping techniques that work in 125 meters of water don't work when there is 12 times as much water on top? Hmmmmmm? This isn't rocket science. 1500 meter is roughly 5000 feet under water. For every 33 feet of water, it is considered to be the pressure of 1 atmosphere. Simeple math time: 5000 / 33 = 151 atmospheres worth of pressure. Not to mention that the temperature of the water at that depth is much lower than when at about 315 feet. At 315 feet or 125 meters, divers can work to cap a blown well as was done in the last oil well problem in Temsah, Mediterranean Sea, Egypt platform accident.

So is it all BP's fault then? Nope. Thanks to Time Magazine's "Dirty Dozen" article, we have a place to start looking at who is to blame. There is one group of people that are suspiciously missing from their list though. Environmentalists. Why are we drilling out so far? Well, in 2008 the Democrat dominated Congress rammed through a bill that pushed all future offshore drilling to 50 miles ofshore. BP's Tiber "giant" oil find was in 2009. So when you add all this up, can someone at Time Magazine or from the left please explain to me how environmentalists are not to blame in this disaster?

While on this subject, I tried to look up how many rigs are in the Gulf and came up with a story that showed there were around 4000 rigs as of 2005, and yet the Democrats are going with business as usual and pushing for a larger expansion of regulation. So let's get this straight, Democrat Congress rams through legislation pushing companies into exploring in water depths we don't have the technology to really handle, and when something goes wrong, they want to heap more of the same on? Why am I thinking this is not going to end well?

BP is treating this like an asset recovery, instead of fixing the problem and then worrying about salvage.

Obama and crew are looking at this politically, and how to use this crisis to their advantage.

While you are thinking about these things, ask yourself another question: Why is Obama sending in the State Department to investigate now, instead of fixing the problem and then worrying about who is to blame?

Ok, off the oil subject and on to Alvin Greene. So I think this story starts out funny, but then turns into turning my stomach on how the useful idiots are climbing out from under the rocks on this one. Clyburn says the guy is a Republican plant, and now the media is falling all over themselves trying to make it so. An LA Times editorial is now saying that it is a plan by racist Republicans in South Carolina to put a black man on the ballot so that the white man incumbent will win for sure.

Can we use some common sense here for just a minute? First, I am registered Republican (I have seriously thought of switching to Independent, but haven't gotten around to it). For the Republican Party to put this guy on the Democrat ballot and then vote in the Democrat primaries to get him elected over Rawl would have taken at least 40,000 Republican spy voters since he won 99,000 votes. That's assuming that both candidates would have garnered the 59,000 votes that Rawl did. Now, again I am registered Republican, and I don't remember getting my super secret Republican shadow ops email memo telling me to say I am a Democrat in the primaries and vote for the black guy, so that the white guy can win in November. Really? Is there anyone with at least a modicum of a brain cell that takes this asinine farce seriously?

I find it more probable, as was put forth on a Democrat forum I read recently, that Rawl was the chosen golden boy by the DNC. He raised money in this race, knowing that he will lose anyways to DeMint who is not going to lose since he is a fiscal conservative that is popular. DeMint is a fiscal conservative that votes that way, regardless of what party is pushing the bill, I like that, a lot. So anyways, their strategy was to sit through the loss to DeMint and raise money to his campaign. Then in 2014 run against Flimsy Grahamnesty, whom I don't like as well as many other fiscal conservatives not liking him, or whoever beats him in his primary.

The snag in this strategy is that people are anti-incumbent, or old retired politician in this instance, right now. Name recognition worked against their boy, and now the Dems are PISSED. So because they didn't get their way, they throw their usual temper tantrum and cry racist or vast right wing conspiracy...the epitome of predictable.

How far is too far?

2010-06-01T11:56:00.007-04:00

So I don't know about the rest of you, but I have been seeing some disturbing things happening in the U.S. lately. So of course, since this is my area to spout off about it, that is exactly what I am going to do!

First up is Michigan State Senator Bruce Patterson (D). Bruce has the absolutely stipud idea that being a "journalist" should require a license. Ok, As the article I am lining to says, "what part of "no law" does he not understand?" All the useful idiots out there whose political party is in office are probably saying "YEAH! STICK IT TO THOSE EVIL RIGHT WINGNUTS!" But unbunch those panties for a second people. Will you mirror those comments when those right wingnuts take back power? The pendulum swings, and it is on the backward swing now. 2010 is here, and November is coming fast. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech means we don't need a license to point out what is wrong with our government. It means we don't need to demonstrate standards to some board either. I know that what I do is commentary. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Anderson Cooper, Larry King, Keith Obermann and Chris Matthews all know that they are commentators and not journalists. Journalists would be Major Garret, Jake Tapper, and really anyone in the White House Press Corps. There is a difference, commentators and journalists. don't confuse them as so many usually do both intentionally and unintentionally.

Next I have to ask how far is to far once again? This time it is about Sarah Palin's new neighbor. So in case you missed this story, a guy who in the past has written some hit pieces on Sarah Palin has moved in next door as he is writing a non-sanctioned biography about her. Now as everyone knows, most unsanctioned biographies are usually not so flattering to the victim. Yes, I used victim because these types of books usually take a mole hill and make it into a mountain to sell books. Really? Right next door? You don't think that is just going a little bit to far for someone that holds no public office currently? Apparently the hyenas that read the Huffingwind Post on a regular basis don't seem to think so as is seen by looking at the bottom of that article and seeing the comments of the gaggle of useful idiots there. Let me be clear here, Mr. Mcginnis has every right to move into whatever house he wants to move into. What I am talking about here is how far is too far though. What is pushing the boundaries of good taste, and what is just being an ass that everyone should be chastising. I wouldn't care who it is, there are some things that are just wrong and should be called out. It doesn't matter who it was. If it was some book writer who was from the right doing this to say Hillary Clinton, I would be saying the same thing. Leave people's families out of it, and give them some breathing room when they are at home. Paparazzi come to mind, and I think that those jackasses are scum of the earth.

Speaking of the Huffingwind Post and their stories, the wonderful "journalists" at that site put out the story about the SEIU protest that was held outside of a Bank of America executive's home. Yeah, except they forgot to mention a few things in the article. Like the fact that Gregory Baer wasn't just a Treasury Department employee, but the Assistant Secretary to Financial Institutions at the Department of the Treasury for the Clinton Administration. That evil left wing banker! Oh wait, I thought only right wingnuts could be evil bankers. Wait a minute here, could there be more that we are missing also? Why yes we are! Like the fact that the SEIU protesters weren't in the street out front, but on his front porch and lawn. Last time I checked, that is called trespassing. Oh, and the cops were called, but didn't respond because they possibly were escorting the protesters! It is so nice to know that instead of protesting Bank of America at their place of business, that protesters are now targetting private citizen's homes because they work for the company. Let's not worry about details like the guy they were there to protest wasn't even home, but at his youngest son's baseball game. The only person at home was the guy's 14 year old son. So think to yourself and see if you can answer this question: As a 14 year old kid at home alone, how would you react and feel if 500+ people showed up on your front porch and yard with bullhorns, chants, and signs?

Last on my list, we come across the plans to build a 13 story Muslim Mosque 600 feet from Ground Zero in NYC. Are you serious? Now I am all for the separation of church and the government as far as either telling the other what to do. I am all for the right of anyone to build whatever they want within reason on their property. I am not a big fan of the government stepping in to stop development. However, I also know that there has to be some limit on things also. I personally find this highly offensive. It makes me mad that on the site of a large amount of people killed by Muslim Religious Extremists, Muslims want to come in and build temple near that spot. To add insult to injury, the mosque is to have its dedication ceremony on September 11th, 2011. Rally? Really? You don't think that this isn't going to piss people off? You don't think that this might just be the spark to the fire pile for people who lost family and friends on that day? You don't think that this is just a tad bit insensitive and uncouth?

How far is too far?

What am I? What the hell are they doing?

2010-05-18T12:53:00.004-04:00

So I find myself asking what exactly am I in terms of my political beliefs. I am wondering what exactly I can classify myself as. Yes, yes I will get to what is happening to this week in due time. So at first I thought myself to be a Libertarian.

Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty

While this is certainly at the core of my social beliefs, this doesn't really cover the entirety of the things I believe in. So I continued on in my searching for the answer to what I am. I of course looked at I look at Libertarian Conservative, but it just doesn't quite fit with me. I do not agree with Free Trade Agreements when our country is in a trade deficit and exporting American manufacturing jobs out of this country.

Also, I am not against abortion just for the sake of abortion. I do not think it should be used as a form of birth control, when there are so many other options available. I have heard the tired arguments about rape and incest, but those are not the norm. They are the minority of the abortions that are preformed. Most abortions are for unwanted pregnancies, and there are plenty of options both before the act and after the fact for handling that scenario. Nor do I do not think it should be subsidized by taxpayers, if abortion is so needed and lucrative, then it should be able to sustain itself:

Planned Parenthood receives about a third of its money in government grants and contracts ($349.6 million in FY 2008).

Looking down, I have a lot in common with the Fiscal Conservatives, but again, I do not agree with Free Trade Agreements. Everything else looks good in that description to me though.

So what is that part of me that is against Free Trade Agreements and is pro-American then? I looked and found Protectionist. So that makes me a Protectionist Fiscal Libertarian Conservative that has Liberal Social tendencies. Now that is a mouthful.

Ok, one thing has really been bugging the hell out of me lately. The new Arizona law and the amount of misinformation that is out there about this law. If you haven't read it yet, I have since it isn't that big of a bill, then please make yourself informed and READ THE DAMN THING BEFORE YOU SPOUT OFF ABOUT IT! To many useful idiots are coming out, spouting absolute bullshit, while being completely oblivious about how stupid they sound. People in power are showing that they are Pavlovian Lapdogs with no concept of the useful idiots they have become. So far this week 3 major people in power have proven that they are not worth the money we are paying for their salaries. They get paid a lot better money than me, and they have not even read the Arizona law, but have all come out and said that it violates Federal law based on what they have heard in the media. In this list we have: Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, and P.J. Crowley, State Department Spokesman while defending comments made by Michael Posner. Again, these are people that are paid to know what the law of the land is: Attorney General, Homeland Security, and the State Department that are making political statements based on second hand information, not the facts.

I am not paid any money to read this stuff, but I have. Maybe we have to criticize the law first, and then find out what is in it like we had to pass the bill to find out what is in it? These politicians are absolutely amazing. Amazingly stupid.

Speaking of Nancy P, how do the Liberals respond to this one? Last week she comes out and says the Catholic Church needs to start preaching immigration reform from the altar. What happened to the separation of church and state long championed by the left? Hypocrites crying wolf when it suits them.

Pulling on unraveling threads

2010-05-03T11:19:00.016-04:00

Ok, so over the weekend I had a discussion with a friend of mine from High School on Facebook. I had mentioned a few of the things that I know about the whole Global Warming/Cap and Trade scam that is being foisted on the country right now. So in the true spirit of what I do with my blog here, I decided that this week's topic is going to be delving into the depths of just who is profiting off of the scam.

Ok, first on the list is the topic of Al Gore, which kicked this whole train of thought off. Al Gore is a huge pundit of the Global Warming crowd and is pushing for Cap and Trade. Al Gore has other motives though than just saving the planet. Al Gore wants his share of the $10 trillion dollar pie that is going to be created by the Cap and Trade law and the establishment of the whole carbon offsets industry. Not only is Al gore wrapped up in this, but our president had his hand in the foundation funding this whole thing from 1994 to 2002. So how is Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) tied to Al Gore? Well, Al Gore is a major investor in General Investment Management (GIM) along with David Blood formerly the chief executive officer of Goldman-Sachs. If you were Al Gore and stood to make so much money, wouldn't you be saying that the science is settled, the debate is over too? Oops, the science isn't settled according to one of the author of the IPCC report that the environmentalists are always pointing to (see the last link).

So what are these guys actually proposing then? Well, that would be Carbon Offsets. We are pretty close to getting this jammed onto us also, since the Cap and Trade bill has passed the House and is currently only being held up in the Senate. So what is this bill going to mean to the average American? Well, of course whenever the government gets involved in something, there is a consequence of them sticking their noses in. In this case, according to that far far right wing organization the EPA, this will cause: manufacturing in America to decrease, cause electric and gasoline prices to increase faster than predicted, and my favorite part "Overall, lower-income households are still disproportionately impacted relative to higher-income households.” Who is benefiting from this again? Oh that's right, a rich ex-VP and a former Goldman-Sachs CEO! Who thought this gem of an idea up? Why Enron did! Isn't that great? A company that we all know did so many good things, thought this scheme up. If people like that stand-up Senator from my state, Flimsey Grahamnesty...I mean Lindsey Graham have their way, we will have this as a law of the land soon. I don't see this ending well.

European countries have had Cap and Trade laws in effect for some time now. Spain in particular has been diligently working on one of the current buzz phrases in Washington, by pushing for the country to start promoting "green jobs" to help push the country forward. The problem with this is that Spain loses 2.2 real world jobs for every 1 green jobs that is created. Green jobs don't work. The world keeps proving this, and yet we keep trying expecting different results. That's called insanity.

With the talk of the oil spill this week, that is the main focus of any of the energy talks, and will be for some time to come. After all, according to our benevolent, gets along with everyone friend, Rahm Emanuel you "Never let a serious crisis go to waste." Even though BP admits that they are mostly to blame and that they will pay to clean it up, you know that agendas will be pushed. Knee-jerk legislation will be rammed through, and in the long run it will be the consumer that pays for it. By the way, we are the consumers. I work for a large corporation, and I can tell you that any time the cost of doing business increases, so do prices. Any tax that is passed onto this company gets rolled over into the customer's monthly bill and they pay it. This is how business works, yet people seem to think it is the cool thing to do to levy punitive taxes on companies for some reason. Do they not know the basics of business?

ADD moment: Talking to one of my co-wrkers today about this he asked me the question: How would you do it then to get us off oil if not by taxing the companies that supply it?

I answered: "Instead of smacking the dog in the nose with the newspaper to do something you want it to do, you give it a treat once it performs its trick instead. How about pass a bill in Congress, to set it in ink, that the first company to come up with a clean, renewable energy source that will finally get us off oil gets a tax break of 50% off any taxes they would have to pay (profit or whatever) for the preceding 10 years after that. Not only would you give them incentive to research the new energy source, but you would also be helping out the little guy too. How? Once the energy source is found, to stay competitive, that company that is getting a 50% pass on their taxes would be able to have lower pricing, since their cost of doing business is cheaper. This would spark them into pricing themselves low to garner as much business from the other companies out there as possible. Lower consumer prices, and a renewable, clean energy source at relatively no cost to the public to fund the research of, and done in such a manner that fits with the American way of doing things.

Lead the world, not be lead by the world people.

American dependence on oil imports grew from 24% in 1970 to 65% by the end of 2005. At the current rate of unchecked import growth, the US would be 70% to 75% reliant on foreign oil by the middle of the next decade.[64] Transportation has the highest consumption rates, accounting for approximately 68.9% of the oil used in the United States in 2006,[65] and 55% of oil use worldwide as documented in the Hirsch report.

In this country, we import close to 70% of the oil we use on a yearly basis now, up from 24% just 40 years ago when we produced more oil in this country than we do now. We currently have a economic downturn with 9.7% unemployment as a national average. How many jobs would we create by stopping the importing of 70% and knocking that down to 35% by producing our own oil here? How many good paying jobs would we create? We need to stop worrying about the world first, America second and go back to what made this country the greatest country in the world. America first, world second. We lead the world, not them leading us. Right now we have everything backwards and are emulating the European countries instead of them emulating us. We are not a Socialistic Democracy, we are a Democratic Republic, and yes there is a very very big difference. We are being turned into a Socialistic Democracy though, and have been for the last 100+ years. We need to get back to the phrase that started it all in this country: "We the People of the United States of America..."

The Sh%$ is getting deep now!

2010-04-27T11:19:00.003-04:00

Forget just rolling up my pant legs, I need chest waders for this one people! So I was looking at the news articles yesterday in my daily ritual of seeing what is going on in the world today, and what the government is planning on screwing me with next, when I came across the single most outrageous piece of propaganda I have seen in a long long time.

Mark Halperin at Time Magazine wrote the article: The Secrets of Obama's Underappreciated Success. I am moved to rebut this article claim by claim. I have never done this before with just a single article, but I am going to give it a shot, but I am also going to give you the links to the information that proves this guy wrong wrong wrong also.

First false claim:

But by Election Day 2010, Obama will have soundly achieved many of his chief campaign promises while running a highly competent, scandal-free government.

Scandal free? I guess all those tax cheat appointee nominations meant nothing. I guess that the whole behind the scenes bullying by Rahm Emanuel means nothing. I guess that the Van Jones thing meant nothing. I guess that the brewing scandal of who gave Blago the go ahead to pick a Senator to replace the man himself means nothing. How about the whole Goldman-Sachs thing and the $994,000 that company gave to Team Obama and they are now the evil Wall Street guys. Meanwhile they are are also big time in bed with Al Gore on the Global Warming Hoax. These are just a few of the things.

ADD Moment:

Ever notice that the same people that are screaming Global Warming today, were screaming Global Cooling in the 70s. Weird I know.

Moving right along:

Let's start with the competence Obama has shown. As he proved in the campaign, he is a master of personnel decisions, choosing people who are excellent at what they do, but also requiring that they play nicely with others.

Read that link again about Rahm Emanuel or check out more about how benevolent Rahm is to others.

In the two most vital areas, national security and economic policy, all the President's women and men generally get along well with one another, and have had critical roles in advancing the agenda. It is true that the economics team has some rivalries, and the Administration still hasn't figured out how to overcome its collectively weak public-communications skills on the economy.

Good news everyone! We have fixed the economy and it is recovering....no wait, it isn't now unemployment was at 9.7% in Feburary...Good news everyone! We have fixed the economy and it is recovering....no wait, it isn't now unemployment held at 9.7% again in March...Good news everyone! I won't blow smoke up your ass and change my tune next week!

Obama's two best personnel decisions are probably the two men serving right below him: Vice President Joe Biden and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

LOL! More Rahmbo LOL!

Obama — who proved during the campaign that he knows how to maintain control of his operation without micromanaging — sets the tone and overall goals, and then allows his Veep and chief, along with other senior advisers, to execute his plans.

Hellooooooooooooooo? Anyone ever heard of what the Campaign Manager of Team Obama does? If you think that Obama ran his own campaign and didn't have a manager that did all the work for him so he could go out and be charming, I have some land in South Florida I want to sell to you.

It's easy to forget what circumstances could be like, what problems Obama might have encountered. Think back just a few years ago, to the last time a young Democrat was swept into the White House on a message of change. Unlike Bill Clinton, especially early in his presidency, Obama has largely maintained control of his public image, preserved the majesty of the office (a job that has become harder than ever because of the toxic freak-show nature of our politico-media culture) and maintained good relations, in public and private, with the armed services brass, the intelligence community and law enforcement.

Well lookey there, he got one thing right. Obama has seen a jump in approval among the military. I am sure that prosecuting the CIA agents makes them love Obama so very much. As for law enforcement, I am sure that they remember well that they were judged as acting stupidly even though Obama didn't know all the details of the story.

The passage of the health care bill and the pledge to help Democrats wherever possible with fundraising and political assistance has (for now at least) quieted the Capitol Hill voices that until recently were questioning the White House's competence and commitment. Control of Congress makes things easier, for sure, but so does an absence of indicted, disgraced or bungling appointees.

That's why it took them over a year to get their healthcare passed while enjoying that control over the Congress? As for the disgraced, indicted, or bungling appointees...first he had more problem appointees than the past 3 presidents combined! Second, they have a habit of resigning in the middle of the night like Van Jones or get replaced quietly like Anita Dunn. Or they just keep on bungling it up like Timmy Geitner who is in charge of the U.S. tax code, but can't figure out TurboTax?

The health care bill's passage is, of course, the White House's signal achievement, and was accomplished without revealing the Administration's cognizance (thanks to internal polling and focus groups) of the legislation's stark unpopularity among the public. But beyond health care, Obama acted decisively to stop the world from going into economic depression, after inheriting a mess from his predecessor. Quibble all you wish about the dimensions of the stimulus law or the administration of TARP or the Detroit bailout, but the actions taken were professionally handled, apparently necessary and, so far, constructive. Strikingly underrated by the Washington press corps are Obama's gains on education policy, including a willingness to confront the education establishment on standards for both teachers and students. Overseas, Obama has snagged an arms-reduction deal with Russia, managed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq exactly as promised, eliminated numerous terrorist leaders through an aggressive targeting operation and laid the groundwork for dealing with Iran and, perhaps, North Korea.

So much fail in this paragraph. So much fail. The writer even points this out by mentioning that the health care bill is the first signal achievement. He stopped a world depression with TARP(arguable at best), education policy, promise about Iraq, Rogue nuclear countries like North Korea and soon to be Iran...yeah, he has laid the groundwork alright. He has so much groundwork laid, that he has no plan at all! Maybe he plans on bowing to them to put them in their place since he has a predilection for bowing to every leader of the world already.

Assuming the President will need a game-changing move in the wake of any significant midterm losses, Emanuel has already played a clever bit of inside-baseball, installing his old friend and Clinton Administration ally Bruce Reed as staff director of the bipartisan deficit-reduction commission that is due to make recommendations in December. If there are big Republican electoral gains, expect the analysis from conservatives and the media to be that the country wanted a check on big spending from Washington. That overriding concern could shape the outcome of the elections more than any of Obama's accomplishments or appreciation for the job he has done thus far. The commission's proposals could then be coordinated with an "I get it" message from Obama, providing a bold opening to the second half of his term, as he sets about tackling another campaign promise: long-term deficit reduction. A difficult pledge to achieve, perhaps, but given the President's track record, it is one that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

This one actually makes sense. Clinton did that exact thing when he got his nose bloodied and lost huge to the Republican Contract with America in 1994. The question is will Obama do like Clinton, or will he continue to try to push a socialist agenda?

Who are the violent ones? Who is uninformed?

2010-04-14T11:31:00.010-04:00

So this week I find myself getting drawn back into pointing out the sheer fallacy of the media and the useful idiots that believe every thing that they are spoon fed without looking for their own information sources. This week I found a number of things that aren't exactly true that our media and politicians are dowsing our ears with. Shocker I know, but they are.

So the first thing I see is from the wonderfully well informed and balanced reporting (I think I just threw up a little bit typing that) done by the Huffington Post. So in their story, their "reporter" (actually commentator, go look up what the difference is) is talking about George Stephenopoulos asking the president what he thought about Sarah Palin's comments about the new nuclear weapons policy. Now Obama returns with the response "since when did Sarah Palin become an expert on nuclear weapons." Well Mr. President, I have a few things I would like to point out. First, Sarah Palin was the Governor of Alaska. One of her duties was being the commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard which the 49th Missile Defense Battalion is a part of. So who are they? Well:

Soldiers of the 49th Missile Defense Battalion defend America from an intercontinental ballistic missile threat 24 hours a day, seven days a week, while maintaining competency in all warrior tasks.

So do you think that the commander in chief just might know a little bit about what these guys do, and what they are protecting us from? Maybe?

So then I come across the Washington Post, and their interpretation that the fact that people are sending in their census forms, that this is a sign that the Tea Parties aren't as influential as some think. I got my form, I filled out the few questions, and sent it back. The form I got wasn't a big deal. The form was changed however and trimmed down. See, the lefties are talking about when people were complaining about the census form when they were planning on sending out a 10 page questionnaire. The census bureau only sent the short form, not the more intrusively questioned form, that the right was moaning about last year. But what do facts have to do with it? They just get in the way of the potshots and the "educated" people that know what is best for the country.

A Patriot's History of the United States (pg. 90)

All did not show such a low view of the yeomen though, especially (Thomas) Jefferson, who thought that if a farmer and a professor were confronted with the same problem, the "former will decide it often better than the latter, because he had not been led astray by artificial rules."

So next I once again am confronted with the left attacks on the Tea Parties. Can we stop with this stupid rhetoric that the Tea Party people are: racist, violent, stupid, red-necks, tea baggers, etc. It is really getting old now. America likes to root for the underdog. Marginalizing the Tea Partiers and pulling stupid crap like infiltrating them to make them appear even farther from the main stream American only makes people like me, who support the Tea Party and their freedom of speech, even more and more disgusted with your behaviors.

Let's look once again at who the violent ones are shall we? Last week there was the SRLC in New Orleans. A campaign fund-raiser for Governor Bobby Jindal was attacked for political reasons. The young lady and her boyfriend were beaten up by thugs. She sustained a broken leg, and her boyfriend suffered a concussion, a broken jaw, and a broken nose. That's so peaceful of these leftist activists. Think this is just an isolated case? Think again. How about Kenneth Gladney? Kenneth is a black man who just happens to be a Tea Party protester. Kenneth was handing out yellow "Don't Tread On Me" flags outside a town hall meeting by Russ Carnahan and was beaten down by SEIU thugs and had to have treatment for "injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face." Once the two union thugs got him on the ground, they started kicking and stomping on him. These benevolent leftist protesters are so much more peaceful than compared to those violent Tea Party People! Oh wait, I only see insinuations that Tea Party people are going to get violent, but strangely I don't see any actual incidents.

How about this gem from the left? The teacher's union boss sending out an email that prays for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to be "taken" by God. Look at all the outrage against Tom Colburn a few months ago for praying that some Senators can't make it tonight for the vote, saying this was a clear death prayer for Robert Byrd and not because of the massive snow storm that had hit the entire East Coast at the time, right? Where is the outrage now?

And I will answer the biggest question I see asked of people like me here and now. Where were you when Bush was spending all that money for 8 years?

I freely admit, I voted for him for him in 2000, and again in 2004. The spending he did for the Iraq War was expected. That is what happens in times of war. His expantion of Medicare part D (2006), Amnesty (2007), and the first stimulus package (2008) were all things that I strongly disagreed with and railed against when I researched them and found out exactly what they were. If you notice though, they were all done after he was elected the second time. He turned away from the conservative principles he espoused in his campaigns, and that I didn't like. So yes, I also didn't like Bush's policies just like you, and joined you in decrying what he was doing to this country during his second term. It took me some time to see that he was not what he said he was, and instead was a Progressive Republican and not a Conservative. Once I realized this, I joined you in your protest of his policies. I do however have a question for those that complained about Bush and his wild spending and expansion of government, and are now spewing venom and bile at those like me and the good people of the Tea Party: Where are you now?

UPDATE 4/15/2010: I just read about the Contract From America started by the Tea Party Patriots, and signed my name to the contract this morning. As I am reading the list of what the Tea Party is espousing, I am strangely mystified why I see nothing that appears racist. I mean our media and the left seem to think that we are all racists, why isn't it in what we believe? Oh, I know. We are hiding it so we can put it on signs and scream racial epitaths at politicians instead amirite? (misspelled on purpose by the way)

Racism? Or is it fear?

2010-04-06T10:08:00.014-04:00

WOW! This week is drawing my slightly ADHD infected mind to talk about once again, the attacks against the Tea Parties. This past week, Maxine Waters leveled some pretty hefty charges against the Tea Party "Kill the Bill" protests in Washington D.C. a few weeks ago.

So first, she says that the fringe of the movement is drowning out the main bulk of the protesters and their message. Huh, really? So if there are a few, it drowns out the message of the many? Kind of like Congress is doing? Also, Maxine is a tab bit of a hypocrite and gets caught as seen in this video:

Ok, so Maxine wasn't the only one spouting off about the "racism" of the Tea Parties. Steven Cohen had a phone interview with the "Young Turks" a Liberal Internet Talk Show, reminiscent of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and they talked about the Tea Party. So in this interview Steven makes the statement that the only thing that the "Tea Baggers" (do you think this is just a little bit of hate speech here refering to Americans as people that engage in a gross sexual act Steven???) are missing is the white hoods and robes. Really?

Think it is just Congress people that are suddenly forgetting their past performances and being just a tad bit hypocritical? Nope, Chris Matthews shows his true colors that he is not just a hypocrite, but one that isn't very smart either. You walked into the wall there buddy on your own accord. Does it feel good? You are such a sleezeball. You complain about the right being hateful or racist, yet you are much more vitriolic and spit more hatred for your own race than I have ever seen. Oops sorry, that's really not fair. You are only spitting hatred against those who don't politically believe the same way you do.

I keep hearing about all the violence that is just boiling under the surface at the Tea Parties. The problem I have with this is that simple Google searches for tea party protest arrests washington d.c. I don't get any articles about any arrests of a Tea Party member. I DO see arrests made in Washington of anti-war people. You know, people from the left. Those people that are patriots and have the right to disagree with the administration. Not those kooky Tea Partiers who are racist, violent, stupid Wal-Mart shopping red necks that have no right to disagree with the government. Does that sound just a tad bit wrong to anyone besides me?

Last time I checked, Congressmen and women have to take the Oath of Office when they take their seat in Washington. It goes like this:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[30]

Now we come across Phil Hare of Illinois, whom doesn't quite seem to get that. He had to take the oath before being let in, but yet he comments that he doesn't care what the Constitution says in this case. Doesn't care? Why are you in office then? Aren't you supposed to show "true faith" in that document? How can you show "true faith" if you don't care what it says?

Hey Phil, just a hint too...the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is not guaranteed in the Constitution either. That is the Declaration of Independence. But since you don't care, I guess that means you don't worry about knowing what either document contains, right? Who elected this buffoon? Illinois 17th district, either you were lied to and duped by this Useful Idiot, or else you knowingly voted in a guy that knows nothing about what his job is. Shame on you if you elected him on purpose.

It is your job to care what is in the Constitution buddy. It is a 6-15 page document depending on which source you are getting your page count from. Let's do some simple math here. 8,100 page bill of legalese. Giving him 1 minute per page is being very very conservative. I can guarantee you I couldn't sit through a page of legalese and blow through it in a minute, but let's just give him 1 minute worth of time. Now it is safe to assume that he would probably work at least an 8 hour day, or should anyways. so 8100 * 1 = 8100 minutes to read the bill through 1 time. Now Phil said he read it 3 times, so I am going to have to take him at his word on this. 8100 * 3 = 24300 minutes to read the Health Care bill through 3 times. 60 minutes in an hour 24300 / 60 = 405 hours worth of reading. 405 hours / 8 hours a day = 50.625 days to read the Health Care bill 3 times. Reading every minute of the day for 8 hours a day. Hey Phil. I think you are full of shit, because I need to roll up my pants to wade through that if you think I am going to believe that you read that bill 3 times. As a matter of fact, I would bet $100 that you didn't even read it once.

The final thing I saw about the Tea Party protesters was a piece by the AP. According to them, the Tea Party is not a force to be worried about in the 2010 elections. They are unorganized and underfunded. There is no clear leadership. Really? Tell that to Martha Coakley after she lost to Scott Brown. I mean Ted Kennedy's seat? LOLOLOLOL! How do you say that when the reason she lost is:

The PAC of the Tea Party Express has not spent the most of any conservative group..., but it is taking the movement past protests at town hall meetings and using its money for more than a dozen targeted outreach and communications efforts to help get Brown elected.

LOLOLOL! Keep thinking that the Tea Parties aren't going to chew you up and throw you out in November. Your newspapers and media outlets are already failing because people aren't buying into your propaganda anymore. Shutting your eyes, plugging your ears, and saying "lalalalalala" isn't going to make it go away.

Ok, last thing that caught my eye this week has nothing to do with the Tea Parties. It has to do with a lesbian high school girl who is being jerked around by the parents of the community and the school she attends. So she wants to go to the prom and thinks she is going to the prom that her friends are organizing for her to attend. It was actually a fake prom, where she and a few other guests were invited. They went to this prom because it was set up for those that weren't wanted at the real prom that was organized by the parents of the community. This is something that is unacceptable, and I hope that the people that did this are made to pay in some way for their stupidity. I will leave it at that, because what I really would want to say wouldn't be very nice at all.

Updates!!!

2010-03-31T07:44:00.004-04:00

A few quick things. I know, I know this isn't a new week, but a few things came up about my last 2 postings that I wanted to update on.

First, the spitting thing apparently is sort of true. Sort of meaning, I found the linked video which shows the congressman who might have been spit on. After watching the segment a few times, it seems pretty clear to me that the protester is yelling at the congressman and probably had some spit flying unintentionally. If you watch him closely, he is cupping his mouth yelling the whole time. I don't see any movement at all like he is hocking a lugie at the guy. Also, if you watch the guy, you can see he is all nervous too. You actually can see his hands shaking in the video after the congressman starts walking away. I could be wrong, but this is the way I see it. Please feel free to contact me and let me know how I am wrong if you think I am. I will be glad to discuss it more with you.

Second update. In my Useful Idiots post, I have heard rumblings that the person isn't eligible for COBRA and that my facts aren't right, blah blah blah. Show me in my post where I said COBRA. Those are the non-group insurance rates that EVERYONE is eligible for. I stand by my post. Useful Idiots will try to make their point, even when they don't have a leg to stand on or any facts to back it up. I stand by my original ideal of check and research everything for yourself. Blindly following the word of a political party or someone who is espousing the lines of a political party, without doing their own fact finding is what makes someone a Useful Idiot. They follow along with a party line no matter how wrong something sounds and is. Hence why Stalin coined the term Useful Idiot. They helped him push his agenda and he kept them around, until they were no longer Useful. I found those quotes in less than 10 minutes with a simple Google search. Anyone with a little bit of common sense should immediately realize that $700 a month, at the cheapest plan, for a single female college student to be covered by health care insurance is not right as soon as they hear it.

Scattergun Week

2010-03-29T11:46:00.011-04:00

Ok, so this week I received word about a story that directly interested me. It was a story in the Wall Street Journal, and it concerned the parent company of the company I work for. Verizon Communications released an email to employees that explained that due to the amount that Verizon supplies us with for our benefits packages, we would be falling under the new Cadillac Tax as it has been dubbed. GREAT!!! Not really. So now, I am going to have to count that $27,000+ that my company pays me in the form of benefits (money I never see in my paycheck) at a rate of 40% come 2018. Let me give you a little simple math on this one. $27,000 * .4 = $10,800 in taxes. This program kicks off in 2018. I make an average pay raise every year of $1300. $1300 * 8 = $10,400. So between now and 2018, every single pay raise that I get from my company is going to be wiped out to pay for other people's health care. Oh, and those fantastic government employees who make on average twice what I do, are exempt from this, because all union employees are exempt from the Cadillac Tax. You have to go be kidding me!?!?

Useful Idiots had better start doing their research. It only gets worse.

On with the scattergun post of this week. The next subject that has been drawing my eye is the Tea Party movement in America. Yes I have written about this in the past, but the media is at it again. Only this time, there is a lot more information available on just how slanted and wrong they are.

First off, the AP was reporting about Tea Party protesters used racial slurs on the CBC as they walked to the Capitol building to vote on Health Care. Yeah, little problem with that though is that a video appeared the next day showing it was not entirely true. Could one kook have done something like that in the crowd? Sure, I could believe it, but as far as all Tea Party people being bigots and racists....not so much. As a matter of fact, the devil himself Andrew Breitbart issued a challenge back to the AP to put up, or shut up. Produce a video that shows the Tea Party protesters shouting racial slurs at the Congressmen, and he will donate $100,00 to the United Negro College Fund. Put your money where your mouth is AP.

Let me put this into perspective for people for just a moment. The goofy bastards at the Westboro Baptist Church were in Charleston last week protesting at the Air Force base, a number of schools, and just around town being the complete idiots we all know them to be. Now I am living in the South, where there are a TON of Baptists. Wait a minute...Westboro Baptist Church. Lots of Baptist Churches around. OH MY GOD! All those Baptists must be homophobic racist lunatics!!!!!

Sounds kind of stupid doesn't it? So why do people fall for that crap when the press talks about the Tea Parties?

So who are these Tea Party protesters that are all bigots, homophobes, and racists? Well, Quinnipiac did a study on just who makes up the Tea Party on average. 55% women, 88% white (Chris Matthews said they are all white...88% does not equal 100%), etc. This isn't looking very lopsided, I mean there is a wide variety of people that make up those numbers. So then it isn't surprising that This Rassmussen Report shows that more Americans feel their views are more in line with the Tea Party protestors than with their Congressmen. Not only that, but a large majority feel that the Tea Party protesters are more informed about the issues America is facing than those Congressmen!

So back to the racial slurs, and spitting! Did I forget spitting? Oh yeah, supposedly Tea Party protestors spit on them too! Only, I didn't see any spit flying in the video. I didn't see any of the Congressmen duck or flinch. If someone spit at me, I am sure I would have at least flinched, if not given the jerk a fat lip. Oh, but there was some attacks made on a group though. Supporters of Harry Reid lined up alongside the street and threw eggs at the Tea Party buses. While being childish and rude, the attack did little harm. I personally wouldn't call it an attack, as much as some people just being assholes, but how did the press react to this? I mean to be fair, they should have reported this and been giving out all the information right? Nope, the AP reports that the Tea Party "drew some scrutiny" from other protesters. WHAT????

I saw an awesome, but true, sign in my internet wanderings searching for information this week and thought I would share it.

Don't believe that it is true? Look at what this nutjob has to say about the Tea Parties. Hey lady, did you not read your history, where the Nazi Party was first called "The National Socialist German Worker's Party?" The last time I looked, there was more than a few KKK people in the Democrat party like Robert Byrd and the KKK supported Obama in the election, because of their hatred for Hilary. If this was during the Democrat Caucus, answer me this. Why are the KKK leaders registered Democrat and not Republican if the Republicans are all racist? Last time I looked, the Conservatives didn't like Socialism very much, and I don't see many of them running around with bed sheets over their heads so, where are you getting this from lady? Are you sure you want to go there on which political party espouses a liking for Communism, Socialism, and supporting real racism? There is a timeline of the Tea Party and it's origins. Now I don't know about you, but I don't see any reference to the Nazi Party or the Aryan Nation or the KKK in there at all.

Let me clue all you Lame Stream Media con artists out there in on something. Disagreeing with someone on politics is not racism. Looking at the Tea Parties and saying it is all whites that are racists, is racism. It is my right in this country to disagree with this or any administration, just ask Hilary Clinton. Stop with the name calling already. Your ratings and subscriptions are in the pits for a reason, we are tired of it, and we don't believe you anymore.

Useful idiots

2010-03-22T18:14:00.008-04:00

Definition: Useful idiot

The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile government, or business, whether or not the group is Communist in nature.

So this weekend, Congress rammed the health care bill down our throats. Never mind that the majority of America did not want this bill (54% against to 46% in favor), but wanted them to start over and get something that was more bi-partisan. But this is old news Shane, you have talked about health care already. Yeah, yeah, I have. This time though, I heard about something that left me scratching my head. It proved to me that the person was either ill-informed or was lying. Either they had not looked up their facts, or they were blindly following a political party.

Some background. I have this friend, and this friend doesn't make a lot of money. He is divorced, and as part of his divorce, he has to provide his kids with health care. He works for a company that provides him health care. Instead of paying for health care as a single person, he has to pay for family health care. On top of being single, his kids only get to see him once a year for about 3 weeks, and he pays their mother a lot of child support. Again, this friend doesn't make a lot of money after all that.

So anyways, he is telling me about a woman he knows who is happy about health care being passed. She claims that she can't find health care for a single, female college student, 31 years old, and living in Charleston SC for less than $700 a month. And average Americans like her make up the 31 million people that can't afford health care. WOW! $700 a month, that is a lot of money. I mean, I couldn't afford that, so I know what she means. Wait a minute, I pay about $500 a month out of my paycheck for family coverage. Hang on, something doesn't sound right here. Yes, my company pays for some of my health care costs, but is it really enough to make up that much of a difference? I mean, if it is going to cost $700 a month for a single female, then how much is my company chipping in? -OR- is there something not quite right here? Let's do some simple Google searching shall we?

So our first stop is Google and we put in for keywords "health insurance quote" which one of the results is eHealthInsurance. I put in some simple information: Female - 29406 zip code - Charleston County - she is 31 - non-smoker - Full-time college student. So I asked my friend some basic information about this lady and the information I got is that this lady is a full-time college student, single, lives in Charleston who is 31 years old and living downtown Charleston. Some other information I found out by asking my friend questions: lives in a townhouse downtown Charleston somewhere, has a newer car with a car payment he thinks, works 2 part-time jobs at the hospital (which is why she doesn't have health care), she goes out to eat with her friends at least once a week if not more, and is putting herself through medical school to be a doctor. We will touch back on this information. Oh yes we will.

Ok, so I do the search for a free quote based on this information and see that there is a total of 123 listings. As I scroll through them, I am not seeing any for $700 a month. To be frankly honest, the highest priced plan I see if for $471.21 from Blue Cross Blue Shield. Now that is a lot of money, except when you start looking at it and see it has a drug plan and dental. $250 deductible per year for major medical, $35 copay for doctor office visits, annual out of pocket limit of $1500 then everything is paid for by the insurance, $4 copay on generic drugs or $30 copay for brand name drugs, and it is a PPO meaning she can go out of network to see a doctor that normally doesn't take Blue Cross Blue Shield. WOW! That sounds almost like what I have, she would pay $472 a month, and I pay over $500 a month for family. That sounds a little more plausible with my company paying some of my expenses.

Ok, so if this is the highest, what else is there? I mean chances are, I am going to need better coverage since I have a family, and most younger single people don't need as much coverage right? So as I scroll through the list, I find a plan for $178.80 a month from Celtic. Under this plan, the insured gets for their money: 2 doctor visits a year with a $15 copay, a $2,500 deducible per year after which the insurance company pays 20% up to a maximum of $4,500 out of pocket of the insured, $20 copay on generic drugs and $40 copay on brand name, $300 on OBGYN tests (no deductible), $300 pre-natal care (no deductible), and again it is a PPO so the insured can go to doctors outside of their network.

Ok, so now that the $700 bullshit is debunked it is time for some questions to be asked. Why is it mine and everyone else in this country's responsibility to buy her health care? First, she is going to MUSC as a medical student. MUSC is a private school. Let's say she is paying $25,000 a year for her schooling. That means she is forking out the money now. She could get student loans. When I went to school, I had to take out student loans. Now I think it is great if she isn't getting student loans so that she isn't deep in debt once she graduates. Can someone tell me how her making that choice, equates to me and everyone else being responsible for providing her with health care though please?

Next, according to the information I was given, she lives downtown Charleston in a townhouse. The average price is anywhere from $800 - $1200 a month. That low end is about what I pay a month for my house in Summerville SC. I can't afford to live downtown or in West Ashley. Can someone please enlighten me how it is everyone in America's responsibility to pay for her health care because she can't afford her own health care, but can afford to pay more to live in an area that I can't afford to live in?

She has a newer car. I drive a 1999 Ford Ranger pickup that I bought for cash so I wouldn't have a car payment. My wife drives a Chevy van that is paid for also. Can someone please explain why she can afford a car payment, while I can't and do everything I can to avoid one, and I am now responsible for paying for her health care?

I don't go out to eat, except on special occasions. I pack my own lunch every day for work the night before. I stay home on the weekends. I don't go on vacations. I do pay for my own health care. Why am I now forced to pay for everyone else? I am waiting for someone to please explain to me how it is their right to have me pay for their health care.

Make no mistake. Taxes are going up for everyone. If I hear some useful idiot tell me that taxes aren't going to go up for me because I don't make enough money to be taxed, I will scream. Answer me this, if it is the rich that are taxed, where are they getting their money from? From their businesses. If their cost of doing business goes up because they have to pay higher taxes, what do they do? They raise prices. Who pays for those higher prices? WE ALL DO!

Don't be a useful idiot. Do your own research.

Texas and Education

2010-03-17T10:18:00.014-04:00

So this week brings all kinds of new ways in which my opinions of the media are reinforced. First, I ran across a story that made me just do a palmface. For those that don't know what a palmface is, it is a gamer term where you cover your face with your hand and shake your head at the stupidity of the person that made you do the palmface. So in this story, a writer for the Chicgo Tribune went around showing his colleagues a photo of the flag raising in Iwo Jima after the taking of that island by the Allied forces in 1945. Now I immediately recognized it, because you know, I have a living grandfather who fought in WWII specifically in the Pacific theater. He was a nose gunner in one of the B-17 Flying Fortresses. He has told me stories about how he was in on the bombing of Iwo Jima, and the fire-bombing of Tokyo.

Now being the kind of guy I am, I have to ask why it is that the young reporters at the Chicago Tribune could not immediately identify one of the most famous pictures of that war also. The problem is a deep rooted problem that has been happening for a very long long time. It all starts with the public school system and it foundations. It has continued through the years and finally Texas has had enough and is standing up against the slanted propaganda, misinformation, and ommissions of anything that doesn't fit the elitist leftists agenda.

See, I read this story about how conservatives in the Texas congress are voting to pass a bill that will add more conservative history into textbooks in schools. They want to add such things as the Black Panther movement alongside of Martin Luther King, to show that not all civil rights activists in history have been peaceful. Nothing wrong there. I remember learning about the Nazis, the KKK, and the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. They want to de-emphasize Thomas Jefferson's comments about the separation of state and church, which has caused so much controversy in this country in the past 50 years.

While I agree somewhat, because those who want total separation are wrong about Jefferson's intentions, I don't agree that we should completely de-emphasize it either. Our founding fathers were deeply religious for the most part, a few were Atheists like Madison. See, they knew that they didn't want a Theocracy, but a Republic. In doing so, they wanted to limit the role that religion would play in the governing of our country. They acknowledged that our country was founded by Christians, and that as a majority we were a Christian nation, but that you were not forced to be a Christian to live here, nor did you have to follow the doctrines of a church. Instead we had a system of law that was loosely based on the 10 commandments. Hence the legal system we have today, and the Freedom of Religion statement in the First Amendment. This is why there are not so subtle references to religion on a lot of our government buildings, printed money, documents etc. The founding fathers didn't want a governance by religion, but they didn't want a complete disconnect between the government and religion either. They wanted us to be lead morally, by morale people. They wanted religion to play a role in the morale foundation of this country as guiding principles. They wanted it to be inclusive of other religions. They didn't want the total disconnect that the left and the ACLU push.

Anyways, this is just one way that recent history has been skewed to fit a more left leaning viewpoint. While I agree that we should be teaching a more balanced curriculum like teaching Friedman economics when teaching Keynesian economics, I would expect things to be factually done. Most of the textbooks that are going into our school systems are coming from New York City, Boston, and San Fransisco. Do you really think that those views really fit well with the rest of America? Take Global Warming for instance. Global Warming is a HIGHLY contested science. A scientist that is one of the biggest names in that arena has come out and said recently that the science isn't settled, and there is a lot of debate going on about the impact it is having, if any, or even if it is happening. The left is by far the biggest backers of the AGW theory, and yet in schools we see posters like this which was in my 12 year old son's school. Really?

Think that the textbooks aren't slanted left? Think again, as is shown in this story. See, I remember this event, because I lived through it. I remember the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, and the fall of the Soviet government. I know that Ronald Regan pulled off the biggest poker bluff of all time and made the Soviets spend themselves into collapse, and yet the textbooks are crediting the Soviets for ending the Cold War? W-h-a-t T-h-e H-e-l-l? So they economically collapsed themselves to end the Cold War? How does that even begin to make sense to anyone?

But Shane, that is just one thing, you can't just count one thing and get upset about that. Really? Just one thing? I remember back in the day in Mrs. Siple's history class how we learned about how great the New Deal was, and how good FDR was as a president, since he ended the Great Depression with his wonderful expansion of government handouts. Really? Not so much. FDR and the New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression with their massive spending that was supposed to help curb unemployment and create jobs. Wait a minute, where have I heard that one before? I know I have heard that somewhere recently.

Let's continue with the revisions of recent history, shall we? Next on the ticket is Jimmy Carter. The left is trying to portray him and Nixon as better than GWB, and it looks like their white washing is having just the effect they want it to have. GWB has many many faults, but he doesn't compare to these guys. Carter had a ton of problems. Stagflation of 14%, unemployment at 9.7% (wait a minute, that number sounds familiar to me also. Where have I heard that one before?), the Iran Hostage Crisis (why do you leave our people there for 444 days? Can someone answer this for me?), and probably the biggest farse of recent history is the re-writing of the subprime mortgage crisis being painted over right in front of our very eyes. For those who don't know, please read up on the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, passed by the Democrat super majority controlled congress and signed into law by the Democrat president Jimmy Carter (again, this sounds familiar to me, super majority of Democrats in Congress passing stuff that the Democrat president signs into law). Once you have read that, then you will begin to understand how that bill was a big contributor and started the bubble growing in the first place. For reference on how, read this story. Do I have to talk about Nixon? I will just skip him, we all know what a racist, arrogant, waste of votes that guy was worth by now I would hope. The left has never been kind with him.

Now let's look at a few more examples. Easy one first. Bush is bad for spending money on a stimulus bill, but Obama is good for doing it? As a matter of fact, if you question Obama on his stimulus bill, you belong to the Party of Stupid. These reporters really make this too easy by archiving their past drivel.

Let's push on to one that is an equally big white washing of history, the McCarthy era. See McCarthy did make some false accusations. But the black listing he is accused of, wasn't him. It was the HUAC, which McCarthy was not a member of. What McCarthy did was go after Alger Hiss, who was an important figure in the creation of the United Nations, and a top level advisor to FDR. McCarthy went after him for being a Soviet spy. For many years, McCarthy has been attacked for his persecution of Alger Hiss, many saying that Hiss was an innocent man. Well in 1998, the Venona Papers were released, and they showed that Hiss was indeed a Soviet spy in a high level government position. Even with the release of this information, to this day McCarthy is demonized by the left. While old Joe did do some bad things, he was right on the money more than he wasn't.

I have one last story this week that I found. I read this and discussed it this morning with my mother who has been a teacher now for 30+ years. When I started describing what was in this article, she said that it is correct. The public school system as a whole does not resemble anything that a free market society like ours should have put together, but more like a Communist creation and way of solving something. Think that it is just the left I am pounding on about this? Think again, and think who pushed and passed "The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." Teachers are now forced to conform with federal and state standards which force them to teach for the test. All students are taught to take the test that is given at the end of the year. See anything wrong with this?

Alternative Energy and more

2010-03-11T12:00:00.006-05:00

So Lindsey Graham is back at it. He is a Progressive Republican from South Carolina. I voted for him 2 years ago unfortunately, because the looney toon that was running against him was even worse. I compromised and voted for someone I really didn't want to see in office again. So he is back, and pushing for Crap & Tax...I mean Cap & Trade. So I find myself asking the question once again "ARE YOU CRAZY?" See the whole premise behind Crap & Tax is to put a Carbon Tax onto businesses based on their Carbon Footprint. They "buy" points off of the government. If they do not use all their points in a year, they can sell those points to other companies. If they use all their points, they either need to buy points off other companies that haven't used all their points, or else pay penalty taxes. Does anyone other than me see anything wrong with this? That is a rhetorical question by the way.

Ok, first off, in America we have this thing called a "recession" happening, and there are a lot of people that are unemployed. Depending on what state you are in, then the unemployment rate can be as high as 14.3%, like it is in Michigan, or as low as 4.6%, as it is in Nebraska, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in this report. According to a George C. Marshall Institute Study:

The assumptions driving the price of carbon allowances also affect employment. A higher predicted carbon allowance price gives producers a tighter margin and they are forced to shed jobs to maintain profit levels. The estimates of job losses range from hundreds of thousands to millions.

Three of the analysis model changes in employment. The ACCF/NAM, CDA and CRA estimate the net changes in employment. They assume that jobs will be created in new “green” industries, such as CCS power plants, replacing older and more carbon-intensive economic sectors. In each study, the changes in employment correlate with movements in the price of carbon allowances. The ACCF/NAM study shows carbon prices steadily rising as the number of allowances falls over time; as a result, the net change in employment is negative and increasing. The ACCF/NAM study predicts the loss of 850,000 to 1.86 million jobs in 2014 and up to 3.04 to 4.05 million jobs lost by 2030. Alternatively, the CDA study predicts an increase in employment of 120,000 jobs in 2015 as people are hired in the new “green” industries, under generous assumptions. However, the CDA predicts that more than 500,000 jobs could be lost by 2015 and approximately 430,000 to 460,000 by 2030.

Now from the report I linked above, South Carolina is already at 12.6% unemployment, since we have a lot of military contractors in this state. As soon as Obama was voted into office, those employers started laying people off in droves. Good paying jobs. Manufacturing jobs. Think about that. Democrats are bad for business for military contractors and they know it. They started slashing budgets to weather the next presidency right away. So I have to again ask Lindsey: "ARE YOU CRAZY?" Let's see, first you call your constituents racists a few years ago when they stopped the absolutely horrid amnesty bill, and now you want to keep them unemployed even more. What are you smoking douchebag? I want this guy out next election. I don't care who runs against him, I will go through 6 years of Liberal hell before I vote one more time for this idiot. Take some pointers from your partner senator from South Carolina Jim DeMint. He has his head on straight and will continue to garner my vote as long as he keeps on the same track he has kept so far. IDIOT! Have you learned NOTHING from Spain and their "green job initiative" and its disastrous results?

So Let's talk about alternative fuel sources. While seeing that stuff about Crap & Tax, I ran across a story that Ethanol is back. I have heard all the arguments on Ethanol before. That is isn't efficient to make. Well, according to this study, it is. I have heard that Ethanol fuel gums up your engine and it will cost more to repair it. Not according to this information. The two arguments that I am still researching are studies that show if it causes food prices to increase since we are burning our food supply, and how much land will need to be put aside for agriculture to produce the amount of reagents needed to power the world. More on those in the future when I get around to it.

So what is really wrong with Ethanol then? Well, first the engines being manufactured to day, are not produced to handle ethanol fuel effectively. Next, we do not have near enough infrastructure in place to handle a complete switch: such as fueling stations, and repair shops. Now as I said, I am all for replacing a 100+ year old technology. I am not for shutting us down, or choking us off, until that new thing is developed and is feasible though. That's just plain stupid to cut your own throat. Why are we not tapping our own resources giving good paying jobs to Americans during a recession, and instead funding the Middle East's economy?

On a side note, Michael Medved hits the nail on the head with a piece about what Americans really want. He is right, I don't care if it is a D or an R beside their name. I am not blindly following them. I want common sense. I want them to pay attention to the voters, and not to the big business or unions that are buying their votes with campaign contributions no matter what letter they have beside their name. I am tired of the media slanting things when an R is in office, like they did with Bush on Iraq and the daily barrage of the death counter. Then come Obama's presidency, they are silent about Afghanistan. I am not the only one, and I can't believe I am saying this, but I actually agree with a Kennedy here. He is absolutely right, the media is despicable. Crying foul when it is an R, but silent when it is a D.

By the way, if I hear one more time that the Supreme Court allowed Republicans to take unlimited amounts of money from big business now, because of their decision on McCain-Feingold, I am going to scream. Please make yourself informed and read this story.

U.S. Political Procedures for $200 Alex...

2010-03-05T08:26:00.010-05:00

So this week, the great LMS, Lame Stream Media, is trying to crucify A Republican senator for holding the Dems feet to the fire with their own legislation. Under the PAYGO act, any bill that has an impact on the national deficit has to be offset with a gain in funds from somewhere else to pay for the increase in spending. Well, Congress wanted to increase spending, for unemployment benefits among other things (yes, there is more to it than just unemployment benefits), but didn't have any way of paying for it. Thus it would increase the deficit and would be going against the Dems own legislation which was signed by BHOpe himself. So how cruel does a person have to be to hold out unemployment benefits from unemployed people? Well, let's ask ABC (All Barack Channel) to find out. ABC gave the Senator Bunning ordeal four times as much coverage as they gave to a real scandal involving Charlie Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Wow! I am amazed. A guy standing up and trying to enforce the law is being given more attention, than the guy breaking the laws he helped write is given. Simply amazing...not really. The LSM has been in the hip pocket of the Dems for a long time now.

Ok, let's talk a little here also about something that I feel is even worse than that though. Does anyone else notice that the media is also trying to pull a fast one over on us and re-educate people? Yes, even Fox News is guilty of this one. The entire time I spent watching this piece of non-important news, I kept on hearing how Bunning was single handedly doing this. The Republican Party of No was screwing it up again for the country. Not so much, and any fifth grader should have been able to debunk this bold-faced lie within a few seconds. See, the Congress has these things called rules. They were set up a long time ago by people who wore white powder dusted wigs a lot. Anyways, they created the rule that for anything to pass, it requires a simple majority to pass as a bill in both the House and Senate. Once the bill passes those 2 bodies, they go to the President to be signed. If the President vetoes the bill, it goes back to Congress who can still pass it if they have a 2/3 majority voting on the bill to override the President's veto. Currently, the Congress is split with Dems in the controlling majority. This means that the Republicans could all go to Aruba for the next 6 months as a vacation, and the Dems could still pass anything that they wanted to pass.

So who is stopping what? They are stopping themselves. Wake up America. The LSM is mis-informing you.

So what really happened? Well, see Bunning objected to the Dems pushing through another spending bill as being exepmted from their own law. He didn't filibuster, he didn't vote no, he objected to passing a bill that wasn't paid for. That's it. OH THE HORROR! HOW DARE HE DO SUCH A THING? Why that is so much more of a terrible act than lying about your taxes for the last 10 years when you are the chairman of the committee that writes the tax code you are cheating.

I also want to touch on a few points other than this subject that caught my eye this week also. First, I saw a kooky blog by a San Fransisco Psychologist who was talking about the Tea Party protesters. First off, there is nothing wrong with stocking up on foods and canned goods to prepare for a rainy day. I spent $200 doing just that, two weeks ago when I got my income tax refund back. You never know when bad weather is going to happen. You never know when you or your spouse may lose your job and money could become tight. In this economy, if you don't stock up, I would say you are a foolish and short sighted individual. What is going on with the economies of the world should make people take pause and look to what they need to do for the future. Pay off those credit cards and get out of debt. I am debt free other than my house and student loan now (thank you Dave Ramsey). I have a back stock of corn, peas, carrots, beans, noodles, beets, etc (Thank you Grandma Hamblin and Calhoun, they do the same thing since they both lived through The Great Depression).

Anyways, back to our shrink. Besides being a vulgar, self-important, unreasonable ass, the guy thinks that San Fransisco logic is the "real world" and that the Progressive way of thinking is what the educated do, and the uneducated mass of Wal-Mart shoppers in America are to be pitied and held in comtempt if they disagree with him and his fellow Progressives. Hey Mikey, pssst, let me let you in on a little something. There are people in this world that think differently than one another, and it is ok. Yeah, crazy I know, but the First Amendment applies to everyone, even you as a citizen of this country. So while I think you are an ignorant troll from the insults and general non-facts you posted, you have the right to spew your vulgarity. I disagree with you politically and on your views about the population of this country. We can do that in this country. Oh, if you are curious on who has the more popular outlook, there was a recent poll that shows that the majority of Americans 54.4% (36% Moderates X .4 = 14.4% + 40% = 54.4%) consider themselves to be Conservative or Moderate Conservatives. Conversely, 27.2% of Americans (36% X .2 = 7.2% + 20% - 27.2%) consider themselves to be Liberal or Moderate Liberal. Dude, you just insulted a lot of people. I wonder how they would feel about you if they knew what you think of them?

Crazy people do crazy things...

2010-02-10T08:40:00.010-05:00

So I once again was following a train of thought for this week's blog, and I got side tracked. I saw a piece that caught my eye, and it occupied my thoughts until I had to go research it and write about it here. This week's topic is crazy people, and the fact that crazy people will do crazy things no matter what.

Today I start off with a story that happened last April. A lone gunman, Richard Poplawski, killed 3 cops in Pittsburgh. The guy was a nutbag. He is a white supremest who hates Jews. He thinks that the Jews are trying to take over the world and push their agenda. So, as any crazy person can do, he acted upon his fears and 3 cops paid with their lives.

What does this have to do with politics? Some nutjob goes nuts and kills some people, what is the political edge here? Well, I asked myself that also. The guy is a white supremest, the KKK is nuts, and most people don't want anything to do with them. Me included, I think they are a very bad blight on society. It isn't just them either, but the Black Panthers, or any extremest organization that uses intimidation and violence to get their message across. But I digress.

Anyways, I come to what caught my eye. In my news surfing, I like to read the comments at the bottom of articles to see what others that read them are thinking about also. I don't read all of them, but I do read some of them. That is where I see really scary stuff usually. The amount of vitriol and bile that is spewed by proponents of both the left and right makes my stomach turn sometimes. Again, I digress.

So in a few of the comments, I see that Glenn Beck is a vile, hate mongering, violence inciting, crybaby, and general big dummy. Now normally I just ignore all that kind of useless rhetoric, because I watch him and know what he is all about. I watch a lot of news organizations, and know what they are about. I research everything on my own. I use those sources as my grapevine to find a place to start, and branch out from there. I look at more than a single source for my news, so I can get a better read on what is really happening. When you do this, you begin to see patterns of bias and which way those media sources lean. There I go digressing again.

So in this video linked from 00:25 to 00:30 seconds on the timer, Beck blatantly says that he doesn't believe in the FEMA camps thing that the conspiracy nuts believe in. The guy in Pittsburgh believed that Obama was coming to take his guns away from him and that the Jews were trying to take over the world. Can someone please show me where the correlation is on these two things? Anyone? Maybe it is near the middle of the video when Beck oh so sneakily says in a whisper "their making me say this, HELP" at 01:09. I mean, I would never ever get the impression that he could have been being sarcastic when he said that. Maybe it is where he puts together the pieces of the puzzle of our government passing legislation to publicize health care, add abortion clauses to it, and then cutting the tax deductible amount of charitable donations allowed by "the rich" and saying that all of this is about control by a bigger government that is super secret crazy code for "grab a gun and go shoot someone" around 02:18? Could it be when Beck and Congressman Ron Paul talk about if the FEMA camps are real, and Ron Paul says he couldn't find any evidence of these FEMA camps around 03:15? Maybe it was where Dr. Paul says that in emergency areas, FEMA has the power to override other agencies and setup emergency areas at the end of the video, AHA! OH THE HORROR AND HATE FILLED SPEECH! IT BURNS MY SOUL!!!! Right...

Ok, so you might want to say that this is just some far out blog like mine and blame it on that, right? Check out what Media Matters had to say about this.

We all know Glenn Beck lies right? That must be what caused all these nutjobs to go shoot policemen right? It would never be just the bits and pieces that the Daily Kos pasted together to make a video that amateurishly makes it sound like Beck is a raving lunatic. It couldn't be possible that Beck is just passionate about what he believes and has the right to speak it. I mean we know already that the founder and owner of the Huffington Post stands up for his right to free speech every time she is asked about him right? Oops, maybe not.

So let's next look more at our media, and their beliefs. Media Matters sole mission is to point out the inaccuracies of conservative media. They are touted by the Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and a slew of other media outlets all the time. Their mission statement says nothing about the fact that the media is mostly controlled by the left. So surely, Media Matters wouldn't be as extreme in their thinking as some blogger, right? I guess not.

Think this is an isolated incident? Nope, the left have tried this before. Back on the last time that really sticks out in my mind was when they tried to pin Timothy McVeigh onto Rush Limbaugh and conservatives. The Salon has an excerpt from a book called "The Patriot" which has the following in it:

This belief system is not confined to the fringes of American society. It has deep roots in the American psyche. What historian David H. Bennett calls "the party of fear" recurs in many related forms throughout our history, from nativist, anti-foreigner fraternities like the Know-Nothings to the Ku Klux Klan, Father Coughlin's anti-Semitic radio broadcasts, McCarthyism, the John Birch Society, the Moral Majority and Christian Identity. People who subscribe to such views are to be found at gun shows and NRA rallies, in militia groups, on government-bashing Internet forums, in radical anti-abortion groups, at anti-tax rallies, at Klan rallies and holed up in survivalist cabins in the West. They devour "The Turner Diaries" and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and Tom Clancy novels, listen to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh and the hundreds of resentment-spewing right-wing radio ranters all over the country. They avidly read Matt Drudge and fire off angry, often obscenity-filled e-tirades to liberal Web sites, sometimes boasting ominously that "our side has the guns." And, of course, in a more toned-down, respectable form, most of McVeigh's beliefs are shared by the activist core of the Republican Party.

So not just Limbaugh is to blame, but the entire Republican party. Every single person that is registered as a Republican is to blame for McVeigh. I am going to point this out, but to me, that sounds like hate/fear speech there to me.

Maybe it is because Beck called Obama a racist. GASP! How dare he do that? What? Obama is black, he can't be racist! Ok, I watched that episode, and while I didn't agree with him, I knew exactly where he was coming from. You know, I watched the show, not the clipped spinbites that were all over the news and internet. The background was Obama saying the night before that the cops had acted stupidly when he didn't know all the facts. Now, I know that people get a tad bit offended if they are profiled, based on a stereotype. So in this situation, we have 2 black men "breaking" into a home, and a neighbor calls the cops that there is a possible burglary in progress, when she knows her neighbor is out of town. The cops come on scene and ask for ID, the man blows up saying this is all based on race, and the cops arrest him for disturbing the peace. The president, in his own words, did not know all the facts (but the news media WAS reporting that it was a white cop), says the police acted stupidly. That sounds like profiling a police officer. I can see how some could call it racism. I don't believe Obama is a racist, but I do think he acted stupidly and jumped to a conclusion based on very few facts and a splash of profiling.

Profiling like this has been done for years, that the cops are all racially motivated to arrest blacks unjustly. I know, I have 3 uncles that were/are cops. I can tell you from having so many cops in my family, that most cops are indeed racists, racist against all color, skin, and creed. Cops see the worst of society and their actions. Cops become jaded, and most take a very bleak outlook on all of their fellow humans. As my uncle once told me "you attitude starts to change when you have to clean up the body of a 14 year old girl, after her pimp poured draino down her throat for holding out some of the money from her last trick." I will defer to his experience. I have never had to deal with that, but I can tell you that the more you see something that goes against everything you believe in, you start to project that onto everything. Maybe since there is so much profiling of blacks done by cops, Obama immediately jumped to the conclusion that the police had done so in this situation also. Some would call that racist, or technically reverse racism, since he profiled the cops without having all the information, by thinking that the cops had profiled a black man breaking into a house as a criminal and arresting him. The old shoot first, ask questions later analogy. It happens, and it will continue to happen. Kind of like the way that people do with their political outlook. That is my opinion.

The confusion created by our politicians

2010-02-02T08:47:00.012-05:00

So over the past week, I have been watching all the things going on in the media as always. The first thing that caught my attention was the leftists blog-o-sphere has been going nuts over Sarah Palin buying her own book off her publisher for $5 a copy and sending them to campaign contributors that gave more than $100 to her past campaigns. Let that one sink in a minute. So the lefties have been up in a storm about this, and how it is so corrupt of her to do this, if she is smart enough to have thought it in the first place that is. The thing that I find wrong with this is that what she did is actually cheaper for her than what other politicians already do. Our president gives lavish dinner parties for his campaign contributors, so can someone please tell me how it is wrong to give away ones own book instead? Anyone? Confused yet? Let's press on...

The president gave his SOTU last week also. A few things stuck out in it to me as I listened to it. A few actually made me want to pull imaginary hair from my bald scalp. First, he talked about a spending freeze...next year, because that's how budgets work, we plan them out ahead of time. Now I am no great economist, nor do I pretend to be, but I know from watching things that go on around me, that this is complete B.S. See, the company I work for makes its budget up the year before also. Last year, we had to cut our budgets, sometimes by as much as 50%, throughout the year to meet company expectations. According to polls, the majority of the American people think that the government spending is out of control. We think that not only do we need to cut government spending, but we need to cut taxes and get government the hell out of our way to get things going in the right direction once again. This comes from Rasmussen polls, who polled We the people. Barak comes out and tries to blow smoke up our ass and we saw right through it. He then brings out his budget plan, which increases spending instead of cutting it. I am beginning to think he really doesn't get it. No surprise there, he was a congressman. Their approval ratings have been in the toilet for a long time now. Is this really that confusing?

The next thing that caught my eye was Nancy Pelosi. No, I was not admiring her stunning plastic surgery, but her complete lack of understanding what We the people want. She came out stating that congress was going to continue to push through the healthcare reform bill, or else they would break it up and push it through as sidecar politics. That is more commonly known as adding it into other bills and passing it in pieces. Again, the poll numbers show that the majority of Americans are against this health care reform bill. We don't want a bill puts us into the situation that Canada and England are in, we want something better. BTW, for those out there that think Canada's medicine is so great, check this out: great advertisement for why we should NOT go with a health care plan like Canada's. Does that one confuse you?

So then I ran across a blog from an economist, Steven Landsberg, that was really confusing to me. He first talks about how when he teaches economics he tries to put a sense of meaning into what he is teaching. He then goes on to explain how he was listening to another economist on the radio was talking about the debt and the questions that were asked.

When we say that an American child is born owing $45,000, (or $40,000, or $350,000) what does that mean for the life of the child?

Answer: Pretty much nothing. What matters to your kids is not their share of the national debt, but their overall inheritance. There are two parts to that inheritance. First, there’s what your kids get directly from you. Second, there are the factories, machines and tools that other kids inherit, creating opportunities for your kids to earn higher wages.

Ok, once again I am no economist, but I do know a few things about debt. I have enough of my own, trust me. When you start out in debt, that means that you owe somebody, be it a bank, a loan company, or even a family member. You have to pay them back most of the time. If you don't, then they come looking for ways to get that money owed to them, or else they start liquidating your assets, or garnishing your future earnings, or you have to declare bankruptcy, until they get what they want. There is nothing you can do about it either. In this case who is our bank?

Answer: The Fed Reserve (49.37%), and foreign countries (27.90%). China being the number 1 holder of foreign investors with 23.35%.

Ok, so China is a major contributor in owning our debt. The rest is being held by the Federal Reserve and "other Intergovernmental Holdings." So we own our own debt? From what I could find, this is exactly the case. Our debt is being held by the people that hold our retirements. We are buying up our own debt in the hopes of making a profit off of it later when we retire. What happens if we can't pay it back because the debt is more than we can afford?

According to this article the natioanl debt ratio to GDP is at 54% as of last year, climbing to 66% in the next 9 years. That prediction was made before the new budget increases that Obama made earlier this week also. How long till it is unsustainable? Confused yet?

What happens if China suddenly looks at our debt ratio and decides that they no longer want to lend us money, or else they start asking for repayment in other ways that could be dangerous to us and the rest of the world?

We cannot continue on the path that we are on with out-of-control spending by our government. We cannot sustain borrowing money off Red China, and expect to maintain our national sovereignty and security. Think this won't lead to possible bad things coming from the worst human rights violating government on the planet? Think again, check this link out for yourself about how we are making it easier for China to develop missile technology like ours by loosening the control of trade for that type of technology. What the...?

What happens to me, if I can't afford to pay my house payment every month? We have seen this happen with the current housing foreclosure disaster blowing up our economy. People bought houses that they couldn't afford, they got foreclosed upon, which led to our current economic meltdown. This was not the whole cause, but it was a part of it.

Confused yet? I am not, but our politicians sure appear to be. At least I hope it is confusion on their part.

Sarah Palin hands out books to donors
Obama's state dinner for donors
Another donor party
We the people know what we want
Obama doesn't get it on exports
He doesn't get it on the budget
Nancy P pushes health care...still
We the people speak again
Congress hits a new low
Do you really want Steven Landsberg teaching your kids?
Who owns our debt?
What are Intergovernmental Holdings?

The Real Third Reich vs. U.S. Politics

2010-01-25T09:17:00.019-05:00

So Friday, I watched the Glenn Beck documentary about the despot dictators of the Socialist and Communist movements of the last century. He went over how each of them butchered millions. He started with Hitler, and ended with Chairman Mao. He showed the brutality of Stalin, and the murderous Che who people want to wear as a T-shirt like some iconic hero. So today in my media browsing, I find Media Matters is absolutely livid over his special. Media Matters is a far left organization, out to shine the light on the media biased towards the right wingnuts of the conservative side of politics. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Ok, I couldn't say that with a straight face, sorry. The bias in the media for the right. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, it happened again.

Ok, anyways, this brings us to the comments at the bottom of the article on Media Matters. Of course there are the usual attacks on Glenn Beck's person, but almost nothing of substance on disproving what he actually is saying. So, I went to look for myself to see if I could disprove it. I mean surely all those people saying he is a lying, violence insighting, right wingnut nutjob couldn't be wrong, right?

I think we need to understand what Fascism really is. I mean really what it is and what it stands for.

Fascism holds a common philosophical belief with other forms of government, such as socialism and communism, that is the antithesis of the classical liberal beliefs upon which America was founded - that government derives its "just powers" only through the consent of the governed. Instead, these forms of government hold that the state comes prior to the individual. As Mussolini said:

The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature's plans. If classical liberalism spells individualism, fascism spells government.

In other words, government is the master, and "we the people" are the servants.

That sure doesn't sound very Right to me. I thought that the Right and Conservatives were all about the Constitution and system of small government that our founding fathers laid out for us back then? Then again, maybe they are referring to the part where Mussolini refers to Liberals and applying the modern meaning of Liberal to what he was referring to then? Back before WWII Liberal had a different meaning than it does right now. Back then, a Liberal would have been called a Conservative today.

Well that is when I went looking for, and found using Google of course, something to prove one way or the other if Fascism is right wing or left wing politics. I found: The Programme of the NSDAP. This document is the demands that Hitler made upon coming to power. It was adopted by Hitler in 1920. Let's just go over the demands and see if they are right wing slanted, or left wing slanted.

Demand 1:

We demand the union of all Germany in a Greater Germany on the basis of the right of national self-determination.

Sounds like the opening of any speech from a subjugated country or nation. Remember, at the end of WWI, Germany was at the mercy of the rest of the world, and forced to pay massive reperations to the rest of Europe as part of their surrendering in that war. In effect, they were subjugated to the rest of the world. Sounds pretty typical right now.

Right: 0 Left: 0 Both: 1

Demand 2:

We demand equality of rights for the German people in its dealings with other nations, and the revocation of the peace treaties of Versailles and Saint-Germain.

Again, typical so far. I see nothing left or right slanted here....yet.

R: 0 L: 0 B: 2

Demand 3:

We demand land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.

Again, nothing out of the ordinary. Demanding to have adequate land to house and supply their people is nothing out of the ordinary.

R: 0 L: 0 B: 3

Demand 4:

Only members of the nation may be citizens of the State. Only those of German blood, whatever be their creed, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Jew may be a member of the nation.

Here we go! Ok, this is a little right wing slanted, sort of. First, many on the right in American politics want our country to enforce the laws we have in place to stop illegal immigrants. Most all agree that legal immigrants are what built this country, and have no problem with people coming here legally. It is the people that sneak in during the night and show up for welfare the next day that we have problems with. The part about the Jews, I would hope that both sides have problems with that other than the extremes on both sides maybe.

R: 1 L: 0 B: 3

Demand 5:

Non-citizens may live in Germany only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens.

I don't see a problem here, both sides agree that the laws we have in place should be enforced. At least I would hope so. There are those on both sides though that also think we should change those laws and loosen the restrictions so I classify this as both.

R: 1 L: 0 B: 4

Demand 6:

The right to vote on the State's government and legislation shall be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, in the states or in the smaller localities, shall be held by none but citizens.

We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of filling posts merely in accordance with party considerations, and without reference to character or abilities.

Right wing there, the left in this country wants illegals to vote, since the majority of those coming to this country illegally like what the left is preaching. Giving the keys to the kingdom to anyone who cops a squat in this country regardless if they are a taxpayer or not.

R: 2 L: 0 B: 3

Demand 7:

We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich.

Both, Left likes to say that everyone has a right to a job, and the government should provide it for them. The right wants to deport illegals saying that Americans can do those jobs just as effectively. Both hit this category.

R: 2 L: 0 B: 4

Demand 8:

All non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after 2 August 1914 shall be required to leave the Reich forthwith.

Neither political view is advocating this one, so I have to add a new selection to my counter below.

R: 2 L: 0 B: 4 Neither: 1

Demand 9:

All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.

Definately goes into the both category for this one.

R: 2 L: 0 B: 5 N: 1

Demand 10:

It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.

This is a left leaning one for sure. We hear more about the greater good from the left than the right.

R: 2 L: 1 B: 5 N: 1

Demand 11:

The abolition of incomes unearned by work.

The breaking of the slavery of interest

Right wing, welfare is bad.

R: 3 L: 1 B: 5 N: 1

Demand 12:

In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.

Left wing for sure. Listen to how they scream about Halliburton sometime.

R: 3 L: 2 B: 5 N: 1

Demand 13:

We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

GM anyone? The banks? Look up Mark Llyod's (Obama FCC guy) view on radio stations sometime. Definitely left wing here.

R: 3 L: 3 B: 5 N: 1

Demand 14:

We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

Windfall profit taxes on the oil companies anyone? Left wing.

R: 3 L: 4 B: 5 N: 1

Demand 15:

We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

Even though this was brought in by FDR, I am going to put this into the Both category since Bush just bumped this one a few years ago. We won't touch the fact that Bush was a progressive, we will just leave him in the right wing and call it a both.

R: 3 L: 4 B: 6 N: 1

Demand 16:

We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.

I can safely say that this is definitely left wing. Eminent domain anyone?

R: 3 L: 5 B: 6 N: 1

Demand 17:

We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *

Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae anyone? National Parks? Yes, I know Teddy Roosevelt was right wing, progressive right wing, but still right wing. This one goes down as a both.

R: 3 L: 5 B: 7 N: 1

Demand 18:

We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

Both again. Why? Because the right is against criminals and push the death penalty. The left pushes for the "death" of businesses with fines and penalties for those companies or individuals who are deemed as hurting the enironment which hurts the greater good.

R: 3 L: 5 B: 8 N: 1

Demand 19:

We demand that Roman Law, which serves a materialistic world order, be replaced by a German common law.

Left wing. Internationalism at its finest right there.

R: 3 L: 6 B: 8 N: 1

Demand 20:

The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

Both again. Both push their own view of education. No Child Left Behind anyone?

R: 3 L: 6 B: 9 N: 1

Demand 21:

The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.

Left wing. Midnight Basketball anyone? Labor Unions were entrenched for the left last I knew.

R: 3 L: 7 B: 9 N: 1

Demand 22:

We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the foundation of a people's army.

Neither in my opinion. both are all about lending out our security to contractors. Security and military contractors work under both parties without much rumbling from either side.

R: 3 L: 7 B: 9 N: 2

Demand 23:

We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press. To facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand:

(a) that all editors of, and contributors to newspapers appearing in the German language must be members of the nation;
(b) that no non-German newspapers may appear without the express permission of the State. They must not be printed in the German language;
(c) that non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and that the penalty for contravening such a law shall be the suppression of any such newspaper, and the immediate deportation of the non-Germans involved.

The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand.

Most definately left here. Think not? Look at how Fox News and talk radio has been attacked over the last few years. Not only has there been a push to put them out of business, but there has been talks of bailing out the newspapers. Ask the companies that have been bailed out if they have had any control asserted upon them by the government after taking that money. Do you really think that it would be different with the press? Really?

Look up the Ellie Light letters if you have any questions on if it is happening behind the scenes even.

The last part of this is the arts suppression. Now I know that is usually the right's position, but overall the Left dominates this field. Hitler's book burning, Communist suppression of dissenting opinions, and China with the recent censorship of the internet. I acknowledge that both have their hands dirtied with this, but the left is worse than the right on this one by a mile in historical context of the past century.

R: 3 L: 8 B: 9 N: 2

Demand 24:

We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence not offend the moral feelings of the German race.

The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.

Right wing. Right wing in America pushes for this, except for the Jew part. I am still labeling this right wing though.

R: 4 L: 8 B: 9 N: 2

Demand 25:

To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.

The leaders of the Party promise to work ruthlessly -- if need be to sacrifice their very lives -- to translate this programme into action.

Socialism.

Traditionally, the Left includes: progressives, social liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists[2][3][4][5] while the Right includes: conservatives, reactionaries, monarchists, nationalists and fascists.[6]

Socialism is left wing.

R: 4 L: 9 B: 9 N: 2

Socialism is a left wing political view. It is not a right wing political view. To say that socialism in any form is right wing, is trying to deny what the real message is. Right wing beliefs are quantified as:

Today the term the Right is primarily used to refer to political groups that have a historical connection with the traditional Right, including conservatives, reactionaries, monarchists, aristocrats and theocrats.

Socialism does not fit in this list. One of these things is not like the other. Who decided that Fascism is right wing? What left wing nutjob thought that blaming those policies on right wing was a smart thing to try? Does this mean the right is completely innocuous? Hell no, the right have their own bad people hanging around on the fringe. A phrase comes to mind about this, "if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck. It is a duck."

I think the numbers speak for themselves. Now it is your turn to decide.

Glenn Beck is calling for violence!!! But is asking for it peacefully. Say What?
What is Fascism?
History of the Liberal
History of the Programme of the NSDAP
Programme of the NSDAP
Ellie Light is not a White House employee/cheerleader...nope not at all!
Left wing politics
Right wing politics
Socialism is left wing, not right wing...FACT!

The double standard is strong in the media

2010-01-19T08:35:00.013-05:00

Ok, so I have said in the past that the media is biased, and I think it is time to discuss this a little more in depth. The double standard is that Conservatives are bad or stupid, and Liberals and Progressives are good and smart. Unless that Progressive is a Republican who runs against a Democrat Progressive, and then they are stupid and bad. Case in point, McCain is a Progressive Republican who was the darling of the media-ites, until he ran for president. Then he was stupid, old, senile, and bad. Now I am not a big fan of John McCain, not a fan at all, but I don't think he is any of those things. He stands up for what he believes in, which is his God given right, as well as Constitutionally protected right to do so. Just like it is my right to speak the things that I believe, or the right of anyone to disagree with me. That is one of the things that separates us from many of the countries of the world. I wouldn't think of posting a blog like this if I lived in say China, or North Korea, or Iran for instance.

So what is the double standard? Well, since the media in this country is vastly leftist elitists that think we are to stupid to form our own opinions, any politician that thinks like they do is good, and any that don't are bad. A good example of this came up last week with Harry Reid. In an upcoming book, Reid was quoted saying something that had it been someone from the right side of politics would be drummed out of office.

The authors quote Reid as saying privately that Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks, in part, to his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

He isn't the only one either. Bill Clinton, the first black president according to many, isn't exactly a paragon of anti-racism as he was originally thought to be either. His comment was even worse than Harry's in my opinion, yet there was almost no coverage of what he said to Ted Kennedy. It made Kennedy so angry, that he backed Obama over Hillary because of it.

"A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee," the former president told the liberal lion from Massachusetts, according to the gossipy new campaign book, "Game Change."

Anyone remember Joe Wilson? He was the Republican that lost his temper during the president's speech trying to sell Obamacare to the public. Joe blurted out "You lie!" when our president said that the health-care bill would not cover illegal aliens. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times said this was racist.

But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.

How about some more examples? Last week, Pat Robertson who is decidedly not a Liberal, said something that I personally agree is stupid. Yesterday, Danny Glover, who is decidedly not a Conservative said something just as equally stupid, but almost no one is talking about it. Pat Robertson is being ridiculed and mocked, Danny Glover is being swept under the rug.

How about responses to natural disasters? Bush is excoriated for what some called a slow response to hurricane Katrina and the disaster it caused in New Orleans. Obama is cut huge slack on his supposed slow response to the earthquakes in Haiti. We all have seen the news stories on these two issues. Who got the easier treatment? Check out this little gem I found, that was written by a black minister from Louisiana:

By Rev. Wayne Perryman

The media reported that the federal response to Katrina was too slow, and as a consequence, many lives were lost. However the facts will show the United States Coast Guard which is a division of the federal government was on the scene rescuing citizens just two hours after the storm passed - and by the week’s end 4,000 members of the Coast Guard had rescued more than 33,000 persons. Rescuing trapped and stranded citizens was the government’s top priority immediately after the storm. During the next three days, an estimated 100,000 emergency personnel had arrived to offer their services. Even though critics believe the federal response to Hurricane Katrina could have been faster, it was the fastest response ever recorded in U.S. history.

"George Bush hates black people," I don't think we can ever forget Kanye's proclamation on the money raising telethon, or Michael Myers bewildered look as the guy next to him made such a stupid statement.

Look at how the tea parties are covered, versus the anti-war protests that happened under Bush's presidency. Media darling Cindy Sheehan shows up at the Crawford Ranch with 10 other anti-war protesters, and the media goes absolutely ga-ga over covering her and her exploits for the next year. Anti-war protesters got a 4 page write up on the Washington Post's website. 4 PAGES! Let that sink in. Tear jerking stories that will make anyone want to just go out and protest such an unjust war. The tea party shows up in Washington D.C. with 1 million plus protesters and almost no media sources cover it. When they do talk about the tea party protests, they make jokes about the people, calling them uneducated rednecks, or make sophomoric innuendos to the act of teabagging which has a completely different meaning. The media does everything they can to ridicule those people or they just simply ignore them and try to erase them from history. In the year 2009, there was a lot of things happening. A lot of events that shaped the year. The tea parties were a big event that attracted many Americans who had never protested before in their lives, who now felt compelled to stand up and protest a government that is out of control when it comes to spending. Time Magazine covered a koala bear with an IV in its arm as an important picture moment in 2009, the tea party didn't get a single picture. Ben Bernanke, whom most consider responsible for much of the economic problems (and put in at the Fed Reserve by Bush I might add), is voted as Most Influential Man of the Year alongside such nominations as the Chinese Workers, but the tea party protesters don't even get a footnote.

Our media, still think they aren't biased?

Democrats love McCain, before he ran for President that is
Harry Reid not racist
Bill Clinton, not a racist either
Joe Wilson is a racist
Danny Glover on Haiti Earthquake
Pat Robertson on Haiti
Obama's slow Haiti reponse
Bush's slow response to New Orleans
Bush Protesters get 4 pages of tear jerk-er stories
Over 1 million! Ho-hum
Tea party is just racist and all white people
More "Teabagger" jokes from Rachael Maddow
CNN is the bastion of unbiased news? Really?
Unbiased NPR? Really?

The public option

2010-01-12T08:50:00.010-05:00

So this morning I was on my way to work and talking to my mother. We were talking about the hurdles and hassles that my grandfather has been having to go through to get his Thyroid looked at and taken care of since he has been having problems with it. He retired from Brockway Glass and has excellent benefits, supplemented by Medicare, and he has assets behind him if he needs to pay anything out of pocket. The problem they are having is all the paperwork and processes that they have to go through to get to actually taking care of the problem.

This got me to thinking, why does there have to be all this paperwork anyways? That is how the government works. Everything has to be filled out. Everything has to be done just so. Miss one thing, and you have to redo it again, and the process gets held up. This makes things frustrating and even more costly than it should be. On average, it ends up costing $1 out of every $5. As a matter of fact, it is even more complicated than that:

Using conservative estimates, they found that:

* Private insurers spent 8 percent of their premiums on billing, marketing and other financial activities.
* Physician offices spent 14 percent of revenues and hospitals 7 to 11 percent of revenues on these activities.
* Overall, 21 percent of private health spending went to billing-related tasks, and an additional 13 percent of spending went to non-billing administrative functions.
* Only 66 percent went to medical care.

66%! That works out to a cost savings of 1/3rd just by getting rid of all the paperwork that is imposed by insurance companies. Well, why do insurance companies require all of that paperwork? Well, the government requires it of course. Insurance companies have no choice but to require patients to fill out so much paperwork, even if they just did so a few hours previously. The government once again increasing costs, simply by sticking their nose into the pot.

Even when the government tries to reduce the amount of paperwork required for the various things it has corrupted with its bureaucratic red tape, it fails miserably. In the FDA report linked below, we see that a Congressional passed bill to reduce paperwork, did not reduce paperwork at all. It didn't increase it, but it didn't lower it either. We all know from visiting our local DMVs just how easy and uncomplicated the government makes those processes, right? Right?

So now the politicians, and Liberals, want us to turn over health care to the government with a public option. Not counting the Post Office, AmTrack, the DMV, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and various other government organizations the government has a horrid track record running, they want to add health care to the fold. You may wonder what I am talking about, but we already have examples of public run health care in this country. The American Indian is one such group that has government run health care. According to the medical director of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma:

Knife Chief said Indian health care is funded at 51 percent of its need, which leads to a lack of health care access and facilities and contributes to poor health care for Indians.

If our government can't provide the funding needed for a small group people that they are already required to provide for by treaty, how do we expect them to on a larger scale? The media and Liberals laughed at Sarah Palin for talking about the "Death Panels," but what exactly was she talking about? Well, if we don't have the money get by with our bills in the real world, we start by cutting costs until we reach the point where we are again living within our budgets. Unlike what the government has doing, continuing to spend spend spend for the last 10 years, the rest of us know that something is going to have to give sooner or later. At that point, the budget slashing pen is going to have to be fed. When slashing the budget to cut costs, which is more likely to happen? A) We cut costs by denying care to those who are young and productive, who will continue to funnel money into the system in the form of taxes earned from working, or B) We cut costs by denying funds to those who are not adding to the funds, but instead draining funds since they are retired and no longer paying into the system? There is of course the third option, which is just as bad, the entire system has its budget cut to bring it in line, thus decreasing funding for all. All three are called rationing, which is what Palin was talking about. Denying care based on dollars and cents by a bureaucrat, because they will be controlling the purse strings paying for it all. Our own tax money at that I might add.

Finally, my mother and I spoke about her cosmetic surgery costs. She has had a few things done, to remove wrinkles. I asked her which costs more, those cosmetic procedures, or anything she has done besides cosmetic. She said the cosmetic surgery is a lot cheaper. Cosmetic surgery isn't covered by health care insurance, since it is elective. As such, there is a lot less paperwork involved. Not only that, but since there is less paperwork involved, this leads to less money needed to process patients. This savings is passed onto the customer. Also since the prices are driven by competition, this keeps the prices going down, while the health care industry that is regulated by government and insurance companies has seen costs going up. Maybe there is something to this whole Capitalism thing after all.

Paperwork costs
Why is there so much paperwork?!?!
When the government tries to reduce paperwork, all it does is stay the same!
American Indian Health Care Quality Explained
Why is cosmetic surgery cheaper?

Tax, tax. tax. tax...

2010-01-08T15:30:00.006-05:00

Just like the ticking of a clock, our government is going to have to tax, tax, tax, tax...Anyone who has any shred of common sense knew that the politicians were going to have to raise taxes to pay for these perks that they want to pass. The problem is, no one really knew how much it was really going to cost us. Well, the proof is in the pudding as the saying goes.

So this estimate figures that the average married couple is going to have to pay more for health care than an unmarried couple making the same amount of income. That sounds so awesome! Way to go Washington! Why did you get voted in again? Oh that's right, you were going to give people free stuff and it wasn't going to cost us anything! While you are at it making miracles happen, can you do something about all the cold weather we are having here in sunny SC? Oh that's right you are already with Crap & Tax...I mean Cap & Trade to help reduce the effects of Global Warming. HEY! Wait a minute, I said cold, not hot. Oh yeah, it is now called "Climate Change" because we all know that the weather changing never happens on its own. Pay no attention to the fact that since 1998 global temperatures have gone down. Only look at the 28 years before so you just see the increases!!!!

So how much is all this going to cost us. Well, Bush and the boys racked up a hefty amount in the neighborhood of 6 trillion dollars in funded debt, and Obama is set to go for 12. The unfunded debt is now up to $107 trillion dollars, so every citizen in the country is now on the hook for $346K. I think I have that in my pocket right now. BAHAHAHA! Seriously, why are we rushing to spend more money and not slashing the hell out of frivolous expenses? If I was this far in debt with a national median income of $50K, I wouldn't be just slashing the budget, I would have to be declaring bankruptcy. So how bad is it? Look at the last link of the day. Read and see why the unemployment rate keeps going up.

The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much. -- Ronald Reagan

Healthcare will make you pay!
Obama's stash of money will make us all rich!
Marriage, the new sin to be taxed
This is unsustainable
Holy monkey that's a big number for tax percentage!

Arrogance is unbecoming

2010-01-06T07:55:00.006-05:00

So yesterday as I was reading the news sites gathering my information for the post of the day, I came across an editorial that really set me off. It was written by David Brooks, who is a far left commentator, book writer, and Op-Ed column writer for the New York Times. In his editorial, Mr. Brooks extols about how it is "the educated class" that believes in all the leftist agenda. The independents with whom the Tea Party movement is so popular, has strangely gained a majority of support over both the Democrats and the Republicans. WOW! Newsflash David, this has been going on for awhile now. Welcome to America 2009+ buddy. By the way, if you are the "educated class" for believing in internationalism, socialism, global warming fear mongering, and all the other extreme agenda of the liberal movement, then I want no part of it. You arrogant asshole. How dare you make a comment like that? There are many many educated people that do not agree with you, and for you to imply that only the educated will agree with you sets my anger to boiling.

First off Mr. Brooks, haven't you noticed that your subscriber base has been dwindling more and more as time has gone by? Didn't you ever wonder why all across America you and your "educated" elitist friends at the bastions of liberal media are actually losing followers to other media sources that are more towards the center or even to the right? Did you ever wonder why your propaganda spewing establishments are losing the ratings war? People are on to you guys. We know you are elitist snobs and aren't taking your crap anymore. We are turning to other sources for the news we want to get and you are not providing. Personally, I freely admit that I watch Fox News, among a multitude of other media sources. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE from this country, that relies on just 1 or 2 media sources that are all of the same political ilk is an uninformed fool.

Not only do I know you have wondered about why you are losing David, but now you and your brood are asking for the taxpayer to bail you out. Your failing business is out of date, out of touch, and becoming unprofitable, but you also want we the people of the United States to subsidize your agenda. All the while, you are making tongue in cheek comments about how the "educated" class believe in the things that you do? You arrogant asshole. I may not agree with someone politically, but I don't consider them uneducated just based on the fact that they do not agree with me. I may consider someone uninformed if they are receiving their information from 1 or 2 sources that only agree with their point of view and are slanted as such, but I am not so arrogant as to make such a blanket statement as David has. I will always respect someone that has formed an opinion after obtaining a decent amount of information. If I have ever come across that I am making blanket statements like this tool did, it definitely is not my intention.

Asshole alert!
The results are in, the war is lost. -- almost a Harry Reid historical moment
I may have to pay for their swill now?!?!?!

Coddling is working out so good for us....

2010-01-05T07:53:00.009-05:00

So I have been doing my daily ritual of looking at the various news sites I peruse to see what is going on in the world today. There is a lot of things happening, and I find it tough to just pick on one topic to focus on. Then I came across today's gem. The underpants bomber is going to probably get a plea bargain. I am flabbergasted. Have we learned nothing about terrorists yet? You would think that we might have gotten a clue considering that W. 42 released 54 of them and quite a few of those have rejoined their brothers in arms to fight the Great Satan, otherwise known as us. 2 of the detainees released even planned the underpants bombers attempted plane destruction.

So first we catch these terrorists trying to do bad things to Americans or our allies, then we put them into Art Therapy classes, and finally we call them useful members of society again! To bad it doesn't quite work out that way in the real world. Come on, anyone with even a shred of common sense can see the disaster written all over that plan. Next time some idiot comes up with an obviously stupid plan like this, we should force them to house the released terrorists since they think it is such a good idea. When I say house them, I mean in their own home. Maybe then people would start using their heads to make decisions.

A good example of this is the stupidity of our State Department. Every year, they continue to grant special work visas to Yemanese nationals for this country. Now you would think that during a time when there is an economic downturn, that the government might want to take care of the people here first, before worrying about granting the right to work here to someone from another country. Unfortunately this is not the case. Instead we continue down the road of leaving one more possible way for these religious wackos to find a way into our country. If people realized exactly what these people want to do to Americans and those whom they deem as infidels (meaning those that do not follow the teachings of Islam), there would be no question about why we are there. Unfortunately, the media in this country doesn't report the truth anymore. Instead they report what will get them ratings with their target audiences.

***WARNING*** DO NOT click on this link if you are squeamish. Exactly what Muslim Extremists have planned for those that do not follow Islam

Yes, I know that not all Muslims believe that this is right, nor do they condone it. Yes, I know that these radicals have hijacked their religion and perverted it. According to most reports, these extremists are a small portion of the Muslim population. Let's just say that they make up 1% to be conservative. We are talking about 1/4th of the total world population. With a world population of 6.6 billion people, that would mean that 1.65 billion people are Muslims. 1% of 1.65 billion is 16.5 million Muslim extremists in the world. That's a lot of suicide bombers running around don't you think?

To make things worse, which is very possible, on Sunday a guy just waltzed on through security at an airport in New Jersey, and no one stopped him. Not only that, but security couldn't find him once they realized what had happened. Was this guy a test run? Was he just some random schmuck that by-passed security in ignorance? Maybe we will find out when the next plane either falls out of the sky, or slams into a building somewhere.

This subject so frustrates me, that I am keeping it short today.

FREEDOM! It is within sight
Art therapy? BAHAHAHA!
Still scratching my head over this one
Catch and release might need to be rethought
Yeman workers are here
Muslim population of the world
World Population
I feel so safe now

A few stupid assholes...

2010-01-04T10:43:00.008-05:00

I'm baaaaaaaaaaack! Yes, I took some time off from my blog and from work, since it was my favorite time of the year. I got to go back home, the place in this great country where I grew up. While I was on vacation though, I was surprised to see just how many people are talking about politics these days along the way. Everywhere I went, people were talking about the current issues that are facing the country today. The biggest of course was the Health Care bill that Congress passed on Christmas Eve.

Almost universally, the reaction was the same from everyone I talked to: "Those assholes are going to ruin this country." Generally speaking, if not in those exact words. I talked to a guy in the military that I haven't seen since high school. I talked to a female friend of mine from high school. i talked to my brother-in-law, who is mostly liberal and gay. I talked to various family members. I listened in to people talking at the bar I was at while reminiscing about our high school days with my female friend. I listened to a few sarcastic folks in line at the grocery store. They were all saying the same thing. The spending our politicians are doing is incredibly stupid. I happen to agree with them.

If all you do is listen to our mainstream media, and the liberal blogs attached to most newspapers, or even just the Huffingwind Post, you might think that the Tea Party movement in America is a right wing conspiracy because we have a black man in office. You would be wrong of course, but that is what the far far left wants you to believe. If you go out into the actual world, and take a look around at who those people really are, you start to realize that they are the people of this country. They are the people that might not be the movers and shakers, but they are the ones that put those movers and shakers into power. 2010 is here, I can't wait to see what those few puffed up stupid assholes think about what is coming their way in November.

Look at the current state of the economy. This was again caused by a few stupid assholes. Ok, more than a few, a bunch of them. It all started back with the first super majority of Democrats in the government. The Carter administration. He had an overwhelming majority in Congress. He passed the Community Reinvestment Act, which while it sounded good, has caused us all kinds of woes today. He wanted to get more poor people owning their homes, the American Dream. The housing bubble formed, and for the first time in economic history, housing prices broke away from the rate of the cost of living increase. Supply remained roughly the same, but demand went way up. When this happens, prices go up, and housing started getting more and more expensive. Enter the ARM loans. To meet the imposed quotas, banks had to find some way to get people to be able to afford to buy a home, but still to make money doing so. In 1994, Clinton furthered this by expanding the act and lowering lending standards. Supply again remained about the same, and demand skyrocketed. Due to the lowered lending standards, and the quotas that were imposed by Clinton's expansion of the act, banks were forced to make loans to those that should not have gotten those loans in the first place. Some of those people then took out loans that they knew deep down they couldn't afford. Others were just to damn dumb to realize what they were signing up for, or were just to damn stupid to read it and arrogantly signed away without care. Others were duped by predatory lenders into signing something they couldn't really afford. Then take all those loans and dump them into inefficiently ran government subsidized loan guarantee institutions (Fannie and Freddie), sell some of those bad pieces of paper (The mortgages) on the open markets around the world, then add all those stupid assholes and their actions up, and you get the current problems with the global economy today. Yes, there is more to it than this, like the fact that Republicans are just as much to blame as the Democrats I mentioned, because they did nothing to fix it and actually encouraged it in a lot of cases, but the fact still remains that all those assholes contributed to this dung pile we are in today.

It isn't just politics or finances though that effect our lives. While on vacation, I looked around me for more than just the political things happening that effected me. I had to stop in West Virginia for gas on the way back home. I didn't want to use my debit card, and wanted to pay cash. Please pay inside first...ok. So I go inside and tell the lady I want to fill it up. She tells me I have to pre-pay. Newsflash, I don't know how much it will be, because I don't know exactly how much it is going to take to fill the tank. I don't want to under fill it, I still have to travel from WV, back home to South Carolina. I ended up having to give her $100 and then making a second trip into the store to get my change. Why? A few stupid assholes is why. Businesses are forced to figure out ways to defeat criminals who want to steal things that don't belong to them, in this case gasoline. To stop a few idiots, the businesses have to punish the many that aren't trying to rip them off. This means, what the few do, effects the many.

I know most of you who read this have never been to DuBois PA, so this next example, you are going to have to imagine as I describe it. The main roadway into DuBois from Brockway is a 2 lane road. Meaning 1 lane for traffic going either way. This one dumb asshole trucker decided that he was going to go through the light into DuBois, heading God knows where, and ended up taking out the traffic light that is the T intersection of town where you can either go towards Wal-Mart and the Mall, downtown DuBois, or back to Brockway. His cargo was higher than the plainly posted height limit. To fix this accident, the township had to block off a lane of traffic, get 3 cop cars out there, plus a repair crew, to direct traffic and fix the light. It took them from 9 am till around 3:30 pm to get the pole that holds the lights bent back into shape and the lights repaired, on Christmas Eve. One of the busiest traffic days of the year for that poorly engineered intersection, and one stupid asshole caused it. Traffic was backed up for a long ways on all three sides of the intersection.

When you start looking around at what happens in your life, and how those events effect you, you realize that a few stupid assholes can really mess your enjoyment up. This is one of the reasons that I follow politics. What they do can and does effect our lives. I just wish more people would realize this, and stop thinking that the government is the solution, and that they are part of the problem. I don't know about you, but I can manage my own life better than someone else can. Not only can I manage it better, but I don't want someone else running my life either.

Why is the Federal Reserve so special?

2009-12-21T10:04:00.010-05:00

Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

So Friday I watched the Glenn Beck Show and it was being hosted by Judge Anthony Napolitano. I like the judge, he has a very Libertarian view on most issues. Anyways, he had on an economist, an economics professor, and Stuart Varney from the Fox News Business Channel to talk about the Federal Reserve and the new permanent bailout bill that Congress passed this last week. So the topic turned to a conversation on if the Fed should be audited or not. Varney took the position that he didn't want politicians punitively auditing the Fed and the others took the stance that the Fed should be audited by Congress. I personally have a slightly different point of view on this subject.

First, it is completely within the power of the Congress to audit the Fed per the Constitution. The fact that the Fed has been resisting audit by Congress is a violation of the law of our land. Specifically since it is the Federal Reserve that is in charge of printing the money for the U.S. and per the Constitution, this is directly under the powers of the Congress. Varney's position is that a politician could punitively audit the Fed as a revenge tactic, I believe this doesn't take into account the Government Accountability Office that is already in place.

Currently, it is the Fed that is printing the money in the U.S. Bernanke argues that if the fed is audited by Congress, that it will harm the independent banking system. How is it that a bank can be independent and be in charge of printing our governments money, and not be responsible to that government? According to a Google search:

As of 4 November 2009 the federal reserve reported that the U.S. dollar monetary base is $1,999,897,000,000. This is an increase of 142% in 2 years.[25] The monetary base is only one component of money supply, however. M2, the broadest measure of money supply, has increased from approximately $7.41 trillion to $8.36 trillion from November 2007 to October 2009, the latest month-data available. This is a 2-year increase in U.S. M2 of approximately 12.9%.[26]

this is the same type of out of control spending and money printing that happened with the Weimar Republic, which led to the rise of the Nazi's in Germany. This is also the same track that we were on in the 1970s when we had stagflation and a lot of unemployment. The difference between the 70s and now, is that back then the Fed had only increased the total monetary pool by 13%. To pull back the money in circulation and stop inflation, the government had to raise interest rates to 18.63% in 1981 on a 30 year fixed mortgage. That's insane. What kind of interest rates are we going to see with 142% growth in the money pool that we see now?

Right now, that money is being stored in the vaults at the Federal Reserve, since the creditors and banks are not lending the money out. Why should the banks lend that money out when there is an economic downturn? The Fed is giving the banks interest to keep that money in the vault. Once the economy starts getting better, and the banks feel there is less risk in leaving that money in the Fed vault and more money to be made by lending it out in a more stable economy, that money is going to shock our economic system in a very big way. The excess cash stored at the Fed currently, will start going out into circulation and will gain "Velocity" and that is when inflation starts to set in. Again, 13% made what we today call horrid inflation, what is 142% increase going to bring us tomorrow?

Next, I keep hearing people saying that the U.S. needs to return to the Gold Standard. This isn't even possible considering the current economy, and is thus a non-issue.

My current thoughts is that the Federal Reserve needs to be held accountable by the Congress. We have the tools in place to do this already with the GAO. The Fed is to interwoven into the health of the American economy to be allowed to let it function without any oversight by the people of the U.S. The cry we keep hearing over and over is "They are to big to fail," well I say that the Fed is "to big to leave to its own devices."

The powers of Congress
The Fed resists audits
Government Accountability Office
Monetary supply increase in the last 2 years
The 70s and the present, strangely similar
Banks gain interest off TARP money in the bank
Velocity definition
The Gold Standard explained

I need a hero!!!

2009-12-17T19:09:00.008-05:00

Ok, so today the news was all about the death of Chris Henry. He was a football player for the Cincinnati Bengals. Not only that, but after some looking into his life, I find that he really wasn't the type of guy I would want my kids looking up to and idolizing. Since some time in 2005 he was in trouble with the law at least 8 times. That's pretty sad really in my opinion. They let a guy like this play football on national TV with millions of kids and people watching. How many kids looked at him and said they wanted to be like him?

Tiger Woods anyone?

They are not the only big name sports figures either. A season doesn't go by with at least one player from any sport being picked up for some charge or another. Everyone remembers Michael Vick I would hope. You remember this stand-up guy. He went for jail for running an illegal dog fighting ring.

Of course, sports figures aren't the only ones either. Take for instance the governor of my state, Mark Sanford. I liked the guy. I thought he was doing a good job. I loved his stance on not taking the stimulus money that was being forced on the states and paying down our state debt instead (even though the stupid spend-happy liberals pressured him not to do that eventually). The problem I have with this is: If he can't run his own house, how is he supposed to run mine?I said it from day one, he needs to step down. In affairs of the heart, almost everyone doesn't think straight and makes decisions that they normally wouldn't make. In my opinion, once he gets his life fixed, then he can run again. Till then, go get things straight Mr. Sanford.

How many actors and actresses do we see on a weekly basis that are having affairs on their spouses? Sleeping with some new boyfriend? Out getting hammered or stoned in public?

When was the last time we heard about Denzel Washington? Now this guy seems to be of hero material. He paid for a Fisher House at the BAMC in full on the spot out of his checkbook. Now that is something to look up to.

How about Rush Limbaugh? Like him or not, he is like the devil in the middle. His addiction to pain killers puts him in a category that I myself was in after my back surgery 4 years ago. I was addicted to pain killers also after being on them for 3 months solid. I beat it on my own though, and he was having bogus perscriptions written for him to continue his addiction. That was not admirable. The thing I think that should be looked up to about Rush though is what he did with the bogus letter that the Liberals in Congress sent him as a reprimand. He sold it on EBay for $2.1 million dollars, then matched the money, and gave the $4.2 million to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. That's classy in my book.

The point tonight is, why can't we get people who are in the spotlight to act like civil human beings instead of thugs, crooks, and just all around slimeballs? Why do we keep making them into news stories? I rarely see a good story about something good that someone did on the news channels. Any of them.

No hero here...
So much for Golf stars too
None here either...

Denzel would be a good candidate...
Like him or not, you have to respect this one.

Simple math time again, it just doesn't add up!

2009-12-16T07:15:00.004-05:00

So I had an epiphany on the way into work this morning, rather than the daily blood pressure raising exercise it normally is. I was thinking about the whole health care thing. Initially, I figured a much easier, less costly way of doing it than any of our politicians have currently. My plan actually used the free market and capitalism to solve the problem. That's why none of our politicians would ever go for it.

Instead I looked at how much this thing is really going to cost us, and how many we were looking to cover. So according to recent polls, 80% of Americans like their current health care coverage. I have heard a lot of different rhetoric from both sides of the isle on how many uninsured people we should start covering.

The magic number seems to be somewhere around 36 million people. Now as of this year, my health care insurance had a huge price hike, due to the rising costs, that is caused by just the panic of the government meddling into health care. My out of paycheck expense went from roughly $2500 a year, to almost $6000 a year. Can anyone see why I am a tad bit mad when the government starts meddling into things that effect me yet?

Anyways, the true cost of the "deficit neutral" plan was last rumored to be approximately $1.2 trillion a year. This was before they broke it off into other bills to try to hide the costs, added 10 years worth of taxes to pay for 5 years worth of coverage,talked about truly scary taxes like the V.A.T. tax, etc. So let's do simple math with these numbers.

$1,200,000,000,000 divided by the 36,000,000 people we want to have covered is $33,333.33 per person that we would be spending to cover over and above what is currently being covered now. Ok, so let's say that my company is providing half the cost of my current health care insurance premium. That's $12,000 a year. Wait a minute, something doesn't seem right here. $12,000 is a much lower number than $33,333.33. Where is the additional cost coming from? That is what I want to know also.

How about if instead of spending $1,200,000,000,000, we instead go and buy those people health care insurance that don't have it, and we want to cover. This way we only spend only $432,000,000,000 instead? Wait, that is crazy talk! It makes sense, so no politician would ever do something as crazy as doing what makes sense right? Right?

Other than the fundamental issue of helping those that need help when they really need it, but also not breeding laziness by just giving away the keys to the kingdom, it is a crazy notion. I have a friend who keeps on asking the question about one of our other friends, if he should be denied health care. He doesn't have employer provided health care benefits.Why is America so backwards about health care compared to like Canada and England. The thing he is missing is that while this friend is single, a marathon runner who is in perfect health, and I really am concerned about him not having health insurance, that friend isn't doing anything to provide it for himself either. He works, and is single. He doesn't make fantastic money, but he makes decent money for someone who is single. I have to ask the question, does all his money go to bills, or is he using it for other things. If he says bills, what created those bills that it is eating up all his excess cash? Is there some way that he can get those bills down and stop creating further bills that eat up his excess cash? If he answered "other things," then why should it be my responsibility to pay for health care for him, when I pay for mine for my family? I am providing what I believe is most important, shouldn't he as well?

Is it some twisted facination?

2009-12-15T21:22:00.006-05:00

So lately I have been seeing a lot of stories about Sarah Palin and her new book. She sold a bunch of them, more than Al Gore sold his. She sold over 1 million, he sold 40,000. No big deal, other than more people like her, than like boring Al, the guy who invented the internet (even though it was really invented by professors to share research information back in the 80s, he invented it).

Anyways, the AP assigned 11 reporters to fact check her book. The Huffingwind Post, not to be outdone, did not fail to disappoint its liberal followers, and took the opportunity to spread some more anti-conservative yammering about things that they think she didn't get right in her book.

So you would think that Palin's book is small potatoes, and if the AP spent 11 of its 4,100 employed reporters, that doesn't seem like a lot. Till you look at Climategate. Yes, now that you would think would be big news. One of the largest issues in the world today. Climate Change is a huge debate, and the possibility that one side could be proven wrong by their own doing is big stuff, RIGHT?

Not according to the actions of the AP. They assigned 5 reporters to fact check that story. Wait a minute, why does Sarah Palin get over twice the attention? I want to know this myself. I like Sarah Palin, but I don't think she is going to be the candidate that should run against Obama in 2012. She is damaged goods still thanks to the hit job the media has done, and continues to do now.

I think her book is the first step in the right direction, because it gives her a chance to raise some money to pad her own financial stability. Her and her husband made about $150,00 per year combined when she was the Governor of Alaska. After the 9 lawyers the were sent by the DNC to dig up any dirt they could find on her were done making false allegations of ethics violations, 25 in all which she was cleared of all 25 charges, she had an outstanding debt of $500,000 just in lawyer fees. Those fees aren't paid by the taxpayers of Alaska either, those fees are her personal responsibility. This book allows her to not only pay that off, but pad her personally if she plans on running for office again.

I had heard of Sarah Palin before she was tapped by McCain for a running mate, and I liked her then. I had heard her speak back when Alaska was threatening to sue Congress if they passed a bill to put polar bears on the endangered species list. Palin isn't afraid to make use of the natural resources that are in Alaska, and was going to fight the congress who was planning on crippling their efforts to bring work and money to Alaska through harvesting those resources. She is a fiscal conservative, and also a social conservative, but I can live with that. I don't think that social issues are as important as financial. You can't have stability to do anything socially unless you are financially able to support whatever you are planning.

Anyways, any exposure is good exposure when it comes to media attention. Recently, Sarah has handled the media a lot better than she did previously. Lately, she has been making them look the fool rather than the other way around. If she can continue to do this, while expanding upon her political knowledge, keep her charismatic presence going, and raise enough money to be a serious candidate, then some time in the future, we will see her in the political arena once again. If she can accomplish that, it won't matter how much the far left cries, she will fire up middle America who thinks she is one of the greatest women of the 21st century.

AP is in love with Palin
HP keeping it real, real biased as usual
And the score is 11 to 5!

The bull#$%* is really getting deep now...

2009-12-14T08:04:00.013-05:00

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So I ran across a story on Friday, and saw that both Beck and O'Reilly addressed it also. The story is about the hit TV show "Law & Order." In a recent episode, the writer has a guy who is killing immigrants, blames: Beck, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly as instigating this with their "hate" speech, and says this is just the beginning. I see it in a tad different light than they do, since I am a bystander. It is a crock of stinking bullcrap is what it is.

First, last I knew, Beck supports legal immigrants into this country. He also is a big supporter of the Tea Parties that are happening across America where everyday working class people from all political views (yes, even Democrats, though the left and the media want you to believe it is just a bunch of angry, white, racist, crazy, bought and paid for AstroTurf protesters) are standing up and doing exactly what the founders of this country gave them the right to do. Protest what they feel is a government taking us in the wrong direction, peacefully (yelling is not violence, nor is it instigating violence if it has gone on this long and no one has gotten violent). Now I know that this is just sooooooo hateful of them to protest the president. I mean no one ever protested Bush or called him Hitler right? Right? See the below link please if you don't realize I am being sarcastic.

We all know that the left just hates it when people have their rights taken away from them. Well, apparently they aren't as up front as you would think they were about this subject. It is a really just a matter of civil rights only applying when it is their rights being impinged upon. Arianna Huffington made this pretty clear when she stated that Glenn Beck shouldn't have the right to free speech and likened his political commentary to yelling fire in a crowded theater. Really, then what was it you were doing during the last administration when you created Huffingwind Post in 2005? I suppose all those left slanting commentaries about how evil conservatives are is all love speech and has no bias at all. Sarcasm...sarcasm.

Wow, did anyone else notice that Arianna said this on Keith Olbermann's show? I remember that he also had Jennine Garofalo on not to long ago who said that the Tea Party people were all racists, and were only protesting because they hate having a black man as the President. Keith, where were you then also buddy? You claim to be a reporter, even though you are the polar opposite of O'Reilly. You are no reporter, you are a commentator. Other than political views, the only difference between Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, Olberman, Matthews, Maddow, King, Blitzer, Cooper, Brocough, Huffington, and most other "news reporters" is that the first three are up front about the fact that they are not reporters and are political commentators. There is a big difference. Fact check them all, otherwise you are just regurgitating their opinions as you own. Make your own decisions on the information you find. Don't take being spoonfed by a single "news" outlet and call it informed opinion.

I am going to close today with the words of Hillary Clinton, that so aptly applies to today's topic: "I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration."

Law & Disorder
Bush was never portrayed with a Hitler mustache like is being done to Obama!
Huffingwind Post Co-Founder wants to silence Glenn Beck
Keith, where are you buddy?

The death of civility.

2009-12-10T22:15:00.002-05:00

Today, I took a look around me just to see what type of people were around me. I saw men, women, black, white, hispanic, italian, etc, you get the idea. I realized that looking at these people that I am surrounded by at work every day, that I don't see any labels above their heads like Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, or whatever. I just see the people that I work with. So why is it that we are being pushed to hate the ideology of the other side?

Being a Libertarian, I don't agree with either of the two major parties. I am a Fiscal Conservative, but I am socially a little more Liberal. I disagree with just about everybody on some issue or another, but I don't hate them. I don't think they hate me either. Yet, there are people out there that either openly profess hatred for their political opposite, or else do so clandestinely.

Every night I load up WoW and play online with two of the biggest Liberals I have ever known, and yet I don't hate them. I strongly disagree with their political outlook, but I don't hate them. As a matter of fact, one of them is currently unemployed so I sent him a listing of all the jobs that my company has available in his area to help him out.

And yet every time I visit a political forum or news source that allows public comments, the venom and bile from the posters is unbelievable. The people are posting how they hate anyone that doesn't agree with them. Some wish death upon the politicians. Others ceaselessly hound on subjects that have been proven false, as if they were fact. Some just make things up, or attack the character of their subject with no facts to back up their arguments at all.

To me, this is the thing I find most repugnant lately when going to news sites. The venom and bile not only is coming from the media personnel like Chris Matthews, Keith Obermann, and Sean Hannity (the three worst in my opinion), but it is widespread on the internet as well. The anonymity of the internet is bringing out the worst of people and making them hate the other side, yet in real life we aren't like that as a people. Most normal people don't hate people they have never met. That makes me wonder if these commentators really believe in their hatred, or do they do it just for ratings and some sort of agenda instead?

Can we please call for a national ban on stupid...

2009-12-09T22:10:00.015-05:00

Today I read what had to be the stupidest thing I think I have read in a long time. I believe it is so stupid that I actually lost some IQ points reading it. I know I felt stupid just for having read it. I am positive that it has made me dumber in some way, either from being dumb enough to waste time actually reading it, or from wasting time on even complaining about it here. The jury is still out.

So what could this completely stupid thing be that I read?

“Calling in generals and admirals to discuss troop strength is like me taking my youngest to McDonald’s to ask if he likes french fries,” Conyers said.

Many on the left have argued that military leaders routinely respond to crises by calling for more troops."

This moment in stupid is brought to you by Representative John Conyers Jr. Yes ladies and gentlemen, we should not listen to the generals in our military when figuring out what our troops need on the ground in a war zone, because all they ask for is more troops and only politicians like John Conyers are qualified to know what is really needed. To quote the character Lamont Sanford of the great 70s comedy TV show "Sanford & Son," "ARE YOU CRAZY?"

This is the same lawmaker that a few months ago asked why should lawmakers read these 2000 page bills if they don't have 2 days and 2 lawyers to understand them. Let that sink in a minute, please watch the video on youtube linked at the bottom if you haven't seen it yet. Hey John, isn't that your job? Aren't you supposed to be representing the people of your district and actually be READING what can and will effect them? Aren't you supposed to be protecting the interests of the people of the U.S. and be making sound decisions on the legislation you pass that will impact their lives? OOPS! I guess that is to much to ask. Maybe you should retire and leave that up to someone that might actually do their job and earn their pay for a change. We can tell you aren't doing that anymore based on your own words.

I find myself asking the same question I have been asking over and over and over when talking about politicians...Why do we keep voting these people into office? This guy is a career politician, he assumed office in 1969 for Michigan's 1st district, which became the 14th district in 1993, and has been in Washington ever since. This means he was part of the super-majority democrat congress that gave us the fantastic presidency of Jimmy Carter. You remember that one don't you? Stagflation, high unemployment rates, hostages in Iran held for 444 days...Good times, good times. The 14th district is the northwest side of Detroit, which has an average household value of $7,500. That isn't a typo, it really is $7,500 and not $75,000.

Single party control of the state for decades...check. Lifetime politicians that are either corrupt or as stupid as Conyers keep getting put back in office...check. Unions run wild on the businesses of the area...check. Both the government and those businesses cave in to the unions outrageous demands, which ends up destroying the largest industry in the area...check. How is that working out for you Detroit?

When will Americans realize that they have had enough and finally start voting in the people that are not corrupt, are not out just for special interest groups that are fattening their re-election campaign funds? When will the media stop with the censorship by omission and report an unbiased version of the news that is effecting America instead of the dog and pony show we get while the corrupt rob us of our country?

Today I talked to a friend at work who thinks mainly the same way that I do. We talked about having just that type of politician here in SC, Lindsey Grahamnesty. I am tired of this guy, and have decided that with his stand to vote for Cap & Trade, I will be voting against him when he is up for re-election. I really don't care at this point if his opponent is the biggest progressive liberal in America. He or she won't be any worse than 6 more years of this guy. I am willing to sacrifice 6 years on someone that I completely disagree with, than put up with 6 more years of a guy that not only calls his constituents racist, but totally goes against everything he professes to be.

Conyers makes me lose IQ
Conyers not doing his job (YouTube Video)
Detroit property for sale...CHEAP!
Grahamnesty strikes again

The debate is over? Where is the maturity?

2009-12-08T23:02:00.009-05:00

Why is it that the debate is always over? The debate is over on climate change...not really, we found that out last week. So now it is changed from being about scientists doing the wrong thing, and trying to cover it up, to about being about the hackers that hacked their server. While I do agree that the hackers should be gone after and prosecuted, that doesn't excuse the gross misconduct by the scientists. For some reason, the UN and the powers that be don't want to see it that way though. They have put so much bluster into inflating the agenda of these scientists, that they can't seem to let it go and are persisting on saying that the science is still solid. Really? Have you read those emails? Did you skip the part where they made the data fit their theories?

Next we have the wonderful Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. What a piece of work this guy is. That cat has the uncanny knack for sticking his foot in his mouth every so often and making gaffs almost as big as our VP Joe Bidden. You remember this guy, the guy that said "The surge has failed, the war is over, and we have lost the war" talking about the surge in Iraq, a few days after it had started. Really Harry? Have you revisited that theory since then?

Well, this time, he has said that the opponents of health care reform are comparable to the opponents that were against the abolishment of slavery. Hey Harry, were you drinking when you said that? Seriously, since when are we not allowed to disagree with each other about politics? Ok, maybe you made a bad choice of making an analogy, so come out and say you made a stupid comment. No harm no foul, instead of sticking to your guns. Use a little common sense for a change and stop being a snob. That's what you look like when you do stupid stuff like this. Can someone please tell me how this guy keeps getting re-elected into office? I now think of this guy as being on the same douche-baggery level as Lindsey Graham and John Murtha.

Also today, we see that dumb-asses are universal. So a guy goes to Mall of America in MN and tried to disrupt Sarah Palin signing books, by throwing tomatoes at her from the second floor of the mall to the first floor where she was doing her signing. Instead of hitting her, the dumb-ass hit a police officer in the face. Welcome to jail sucker, do not pass go or collect $200. So why is it that tea-party goers are always reported as violent or hate filled, but this guy isn't and is reported as "unidentified" "who allegedly threw tomatoes?" If he was a tea-party goer throwing tomatoes at a left wing book writer, we would have a massive media blitz about how racist he was, how he was an extremist who hates liberals, and we would know what color this guy's underwear was at the time.

Where is the balance of media coverage? Oh, I know, they were instead covering the White House Gate crashers...again...for the second week in a row. The dog and pony show continues on as usual, while the pickpockets roam through the crowd robbing them blind. Thank you lame-stream media for not doing your job. I can only hope that someday soon you will wake up and start asking the questions you should have been asking from the start. Maybe on that day, the newspapers will stop loosing subscribers because no one wants to read their drivel about the great Satan that is America. Maybe on that day, Fox News won't be drawing in more viewers than all the other cable news outlets combined. Maybe on that day, Bill O'Reilly won't be tied with 60 minutes at 9th place overall in the Nealson ratings for the top 10 prime time TV spots across all genres. Someday, they might actually go back to being the 4th branch of government...the people's watchdogs instead of Obama's lapdogs.

No apologies, and it isn't the Nirvana song.
Go directly to jail, do not pass go, or collect $200.00

Rewarding the lazy...

2009-12-06T08:40:00.004-05:00

Lifetime welfare recipients, the bane of our country. The welfare system, although overhauled during the Clinton administration by him and the last Conservative Congress, is what I want to look at today. For 6 years in the early to late 90s, I was a Schwan's delivery driver. For 6 years I went door-to-door selling food, and for 6 years I went inside the homes of all different sorts of folks.

The rich and well off, were hardly the arrogant and greedy people that they are often made out to be. Quite the contrary, they were often the nicest, most hardworking people I would meet. They were the most educated often, and were the people I had the least amount of trouble with. When I told them I would be around at a certain time, they would be there, or would make arrangements if they weren't.

The middle class working people were often unorganized, but easiest to track down. Just catch them after work, and I was usually able to deal with them then.

The poor were the poor. Most were hard workers, with little education, but I was still able to catch them. When they weren't working, they were at home, because they don't have the extra money to be out running around. I know the lifestyle well, because I lived it for a number of years myself.

The ones that I came to actually dislike were the welfare rats as I called them at the time. These aren't the poor, these are the lazy. Not only are they uneducated, but they are often unemployed. That alone is not enough to qualify them as a welfare rat, for I myself have been on welfare in the past, but the true welfare rat seeks to stay on welfare all their life and never work. They are lazy, the true welfare rat breeds the next generation of welfare rat as well. In my travels I would often see entire families: grandparents, parents, siblings, the next generation, and more all on welfare with no ambition of ever getting off the public dole.

I witnessed first hand, these people ordering steaks, shrimp, and other foods that I couldn't afford to feed my family while working 15 hours a day, 5 days a week. While I was busting my ass, they would be out visiting other people, sleeping late, or doing any number of other activity. I would be trying to catch them on food stamp day every month.

This is what formed many of my ideas on the welfare system. Welfare was originally set up to be a helping hand. Now I am all for someone that uses the welfare system when they lose their job and need to feed their family while they either seek employment or re-education to rejoin the workforce as a productive member of society. That is what the welfare system should be used for. Unfortunately, as is almost always the case, politicians screwed it up. They never put any type of process in place that would work to get people off the system once they are on it. There are many ideas out there on how to do this, I can't say which is best. I can say though that the system we have now is not what it should be. We need to stop rewarding the lazy, and start practicing some tough love with them instead.

Pushing an agenda on others...

2009-12-03T20:55:00.002-05:00

Groups that want to push an agenda down the throats of people that do not agree with them is something that I don't like. I don't force my ideas on anyone, they are my ideas and beliefs. If you don't agree, that's fine. I will disagree with you, and let you know how and why I disagree with you, but I will never try to push anything on anyone that they don't want. Unfortunately, not everyone believes the same as I do.

Case in point, religious organizations. They always want to go around preaching in the gay communities telling gay people how sinful it is to be gay, and that they should go straight. My brother-in-law is a gay man. I have no problem with him, and think he is a great guy. I don't care that he is gay when I am around him, it doesn't cross my mind. Gay people don't want to be preached at and forced to change their lives to conform with religious groups. And they have every right to live the way they want.

What some seem to forget is that the door swings both ways on this subject. Religious organizations do not believe that a gay lifestyle is ok. They do not condone that way of life at all. They do not like it when gay people try to force their agenda on them. Like with marriage, which is an institution of religion.

Now personally, I think that gay people should have the rights of any married couple if they have a civil union performed by a legal state representative, like the old justices of the peace. Again though, it will be all the rights. Like divorce and everything else that goes along with it.

I had chosen this subject on purpose. It is a subject that I have wanted to talk about for awhile now. I believe it shows that when I make a decision like this one, I try to look at both sides of the issue and make what I think is the best decision. For me, social issues are more open minded than financial issues. Financial stuff is not something to mess with emotionally. Social issues should be handled as fairly as possible.

Customer Service? YOU'RE OUT!

2009-12-02T19:55:00.006-05:00

So today, I went to my math class at Charleston Southern University and I find myself really mad at the university once again. Not because of the math class or the professor, but because of the complete lack of making my life less frustrating that the campus seems to take with me and my time for the money that they make off of me.

Strike one:

So what am I so mad about? Well, see I am a commuter to the campus. Obviously I do not live on campus, so I drive there. First off, their offices are only open M-F from 8-5. I work M-F from 7-4. With traffic, I can either breeze through to school from work in 15 minutes during the day when I go to the classes that I have to schedule for my lunch breaks since they are only offered during the day. If it is after I get out of work, it takes 30-45 minutes or more because of the traffic at that time of day.

So where am I going with this? CSU has these stupid $10 stickers that they make their commuter students purchase each semester. Just another way to gouge more money out of students is what I see it as. The campus then employs what I like to call "Parking Lot Nazis" who go around and look for vehicles without those stickers to put tickets on. So for a $10 sticker, you would think that a $5-$10 fine would be associated with not having one right? Wrong, it is $20 if you pay it within a 2 week time frame, then it doubles to $40. So what torked me off, is today I came out of class, and saw the 4th one in 2 weeks on my windshield. 4 in 2 weeks. I barely have time to get to their offices before they close on any given day, let alone get to a payday to buy the sticker in 2 weeks (like most people, I have these things called bills and kids that take priority over some stupid sticker from a school).
granted, I should have gone and gotten a sticker and that is my bad, but where do you draw a line and say enough is enough?

Combine this with the fact that the commuter parking usually means you are walking clear across campus to get to your classes, I wonder if this campus has ever heard of this nifty new concept called customer service? Can anyone please name for me a normal business anywhere where their employees get up front parking and the customers have to hoof it to the building?

Strike two:

So the story doesn't end there. For a long time now, I have been contemplating switching from CSU to an online university so I won't have to spend so much time traveling to and from class, and can instead just do my work and enjoy my time afterward. Also, I remembered that one of my professors was supposed to be teaching a Multimedia course in the spring semester and I had forgotten all about it when registering for my classes last month. I figured I would get to work and drop Managerial Accounting and take the Multimedia Design class. So I got back to work and pulled up my online profile. I went into the course catalog and found the class I was looking for, but there was no add option. I looked and there were open seats, so I went to the add/drop section of my account and see in red letters "Hold on account by Business Office." What the...?

So I called Student Accounts and they tell me I owe $155.00. When I asked why, they said I owed a lab fee of $35 from the previous spring semester (I have my own laptop and never use any PC on campus, why do I have to pay for the use of the computers when I never use them?) and that my company hadn't paid $120 of the tuition from a class I took in the summer semester. So I call the tuition assistance number for my company and they said they paid what they were billed. Call back to the campus and have them call the tuition assistance number. Campus calls me back and tells me that the $120 error is taken care of (the only shining beacon of hope in this story). I still have to pay for the $35 lab fee on payday though. Can someone please name for me a successful business that has nickel and dime fees that you have to pay, after you have already paid your bill?

Strike three:

Every semester I receive annoying calls and mailings telling me I have not filed my FAFSA papers with CSU, and every semester I call them and ask them multiple times to take me off the FAFSA list because my company pays for my tuition. I do not need student loans, leave me alone. For 4 years, every semester it is the same frustrating experience over and over and over and over.....

On site at work, we have a local office for Strayer University. So I went down the hall to talk to their representative about what it would take to transfer to Strayer with as little loss of credits as possible. She tells me that since CSU is an acredited campus, just like Strayer is, that there would be no loss of any credits, and that they would try to match the classes up as best as possible. When I first started at CSU, I lost almost half of the credits from my first degree from Penn State.

I asked her if there were any stupid hidden fees after the fact like lab fess and she told me that it is a flat $1431.00 for every class, and that all classes are worth 4.5 credit hours. I work in the building, so no outrageous parking fees to gouge me in the wallet and make my blood pressure go through the roof.

YOU'RE OUT!

That is customer service. Less stress and hassle for the customer. Living by the philosophy that the customer is not always right, but you have to be fair to them and do your best to meet their needs. I vote on businesses with my dollar. I will finish out this semester, and then I am leaving CSU for a better customer service package.

The other shoe drops...

2009-12-01T21:55:00.000-05:00

So I finally found the answer to why the new health care bill is “Deficit Neutral” as my president is saying. Instead of raising taxes, they are taking away your freedom of choice. Now wait a minute here, isn’t the Democrat party supposed to be all about protecting your civil rights? Last time I looked, that is what they espoused. So what pray tell am I yammering about today you ask?

Well, the health care bill has a few catches to it. To cut the cost down, what they have done is make it mandatory for you to purchase your own health care insurance. If you do not purchase your own, then you have to pay a tax of 2.5% of your income per year. If you choose to not pay the tax, or purchase your own health care insurance, then you will be levied with either a fine and/or jail time. Depending on the level of your non-compliance, this could be a misdemeanor or felony offense. The misdemeanor offense nets you $25,000 fine and up to 1 year in jail. The felony offense will net you $250,000 in fines and up to 5 years in jail.

Also in this we see where the CBO estimates that the lowest cost family non-group health care plan will cost $15,000 by the year 2016. Now remember, non-group health care insurance is for those that aren’t eligible for public insurance, and COBRA is often too expensive for. How many of your friends that can’t afford health care do you know of that can afford to pay $15,000? My health care insurance provided by my company costs me about $5,000 a year, and I have pretty good coverage right now. I make decent money, but I can’t afford $15,000. Who really wins here?

Like I said, there are much better ways of fixing the current problems, and I really believe that this isn’t it. I am not alone in this either. Many others think the same way considering that approval ratings for this bill are running at about 36% last I saw. Think about that, according to polls 64% of the country either doesn’t know if they are for it or if they are against it. Isn’t that reason alone right there to take pause and think about this more?

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583

Happy Holiday?

2009-11-30T20:07:00.002-05:00

So I didn't go out into all the madness that is Black Friday till later in the afternoon, but I did eat a lot of pie. No Sugar added Blueberry pie to be exact. Good tasting and doesn't throw my blood sugar through the roof, something good for a diabetic like me. What can I say, I am fat, and I know it. Type II Diabetes sucks, and that is why I started going to the torture chamber called the gym at work 5 days a week this year.

Anyways, not much happened in the world of politics to catch my eye, not that I was watching this weekend anyways, so I instead spent the 4 day weekend relaxing on my Dad's couch, eating, playing Dragon's Age, and watching: the season 6 finale of Hell's Kitchen and most of season 2 of Kitchen Nightmare's. I am a big fan of Gordon Ramsay. The guy is phenomenal cook and businessman. My wife as I mentioned is taking a business course from Strayer University, and I keep pointing out various business concepts he talks about in his shows, and she tells me usually that that is exactly what they are talking about in class discussions.

Just one thing that I did hear about today that kind of bothered me. So my president is still going ahead with the notion that Global Climate Change isn't junk science. For the love of God, doesn't he think he should maybe, just maybe take a second look at what is happening before miring our country in the travesty that will be Cap & Trade? In a time when our financial structure is fragile and unemployment is at high numbers, is it really prudent to be causing prices to go up as he said "necessarily skyrocket under his plan for a Cap & Trade bill?"

Hopenhagen?

2009-11-24T21:28:00.006-05:00

Ok, today I saw a commercial on TV promoting the global warming conference in Copenhagen as Hopenhagen. Really? I think this is hilarious coming on the back of the breaking story in the New York Times yesterday. Yes, I know, the New York times of all places. There isn't a Republican/Conservative scandal tied to this anywhere. I am surprised it even hit their radar screens.

Anyways, a few weekends ago, I was talking to a girl that is going for her doctorate in something to do with climate change and the science behind it, or something like that. Her boyfriend was in to the computer lab for help with Visual Basic, which is what I was there for. To help the VB students. Anyways, we got to talking about the climate change and she was telling me how the rise in CO2 and the temperature raises lag by about 200 years. She said that it can be directly tied to the start of the industrial revolution. I have read some things on this, most notably the fact that most of the numbers of the rabid climate change people are inflated because they remove the number 1 greenhouse gas from the equation, water vapor. If water vapor is removed from the equation, then human greenhouse gas emissions make the contribution in the atmosphere about 5.53% of the total greenhouse gas emissions per year. When you add water vapor back into the equations, since it makes up about 95% of the Earth's greenhouse gases, it brings man's contribution down to a staggering .28%. Yes, there is a period in front there.

Water vapor is 99.99% naturally made, no big shocker there since 75% of the Earth's surface is covered with the stuff. When I asked this girl, who is much smarter than I am about this stuff, she said that it was our responsibility to look ahead for the future generations and anything we do now, will help in the future. Now I am all for making my kid's world a better place than what it is for me today, but at what cost will this come? Right now there is the Cap and Trade bill that is being looked at. In President Obama's own words, he said that for a Cap and Trade bill under his vision, energy costs would necessarily skyrocket. Necessarily skyrocket? How so? I have seen estimates that gas prices would increase by 53%, electric costs would increase by 98%, and the GDP (this is yours and my spending power and what we make for those that don't know what this is) would decrease by as much as 12% over the next 10 years. This information comes straight from that evil, conservative, hate monger group the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).

So back to the conversation with the girl. When we were talking I asked her if this was a completely settled science, and if it was, how is it that more and more scientists are coming forward saying that they don't think that the issue is what some are making it to be. She told me that we have to wake the world up and take drastic measures now, even if means scaring people into doing it. So of course I disagree with her, because we shouldn't be scaring people into anything. If something bad is going to happen and can be proven will happen 100 years from now, then lets work to do something about it. My problem is, why should we rush to scare people into something that isn't even proven? Now with the NYT news article, we find out that the climatologists have actively sought to deceive people into believing their theories. They have committed the big no-no in the Scientific Process, making your data fit your theory. Anyone who has been to a high school science class knows you make the theory fit the data, not the other way around.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for cleaner, more efficient sources of energy. I am all for keeping this ball of dirt we ride through the universe on, a clean place to live. I am all for leaving this world better than when I first joined it. I am not about scaring people with junk science and then destroying economies with taxes designed to put laws on the books based on that junk science. That's insane.

I am going to start and post some of the links of the sources of where I find my information from, so you can read what I read and make your own conclusions. Below are the links of the day:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

To Big To Fail

2009-11-23T09:26:00.004-05:00

So I am home sick today watching Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares Season 1. I downloaded it over the weekend since I am a big fan of Hell's Kitchen. I got to episode 3, and it was about how he turned a failing Italian restaurant into a successful steakhouse. So at one point he is talking to the owner and told him something that our government has seemed to have forgotten. He told the owner that his fear of failure was what was holding him back. Gordon told the owner that when he opened his first restaurant he had failed, and it had been a part of what had made him a success. This brings us to what I am thinking about today.

So under Bush, we had the first stimulus bill, and almost 85% of Americans did not want it, yet Congress and Bush passed it anyways. Obama and McCain both voted yes for that piece of work. Per Forbes magazine, the second stimulus bill had a whopping approval rating of 27%, and yet congress and Obama passed it. I have said before that I am not a mathematician, but I can do simple math. 100 - 85 = 15% of the people said they approved of the first, and 100 - 27 = 73% said that they did not want the second stimulus package. Yet somehow those politicians in Washington, whom last I knew were supposed to be working for us to represent our needs and not the needs of Wall Street and special interests, failed to realize that most people did not want either bill. It had nothing to do with the Donkey vs. the Elephant, Americans looked at the amount of money involved and said "HELL NO!"

Why do we keep electing these bozos into office if they never listen to us? I got an email from my representative, Henry Brown, a month or so ago. He was asking me for my support as he was going to vote against a third stimulus bill that the Democrats were talking about passing, and how he had been vigilant of the country's economic future health by voting against the TARP bill passed by the Dems and Obama...blah blah blah. Is that right big boy? Well if you were worried about the country's future economic history, then why did you vote yes to Bush's porkulous spending bill, and then vote no against Obama's porkulous spending bill? I can answer that, because you are a partisan hack, and don't really care about what is best for the country as a whole, just what is good for the country that comes out of the Republican side. You sir will not be getting my vote in the next elections. You and Lindsey Graham are both on my list of cutting the cord off.

Why is a business to big to fail? Let's look at how well that is working out shall we? I recently heard somewhere that GM is having issues again, and may need another shot in the arm from the TARP fund. Really? Let's look at another car company, Ford. They had this crazy notion that cutting costs, and making their business more streamlined would make them profitable again. I mean that is just entirely insane to think something as hair-brained as that would work. Well, their crazy plan appears to have worked, since they posted a $1 billion increase in revenue for the third quarter. How crazy is that?

Failure leads to success. If you don't fail, then you don't learn what doesn't work. If you don't learn what doesn't work, you never learn what does work. Why are we so afraid of letting the dead weight fail?

Equal Opportunity...not Equal Results.

2009-11-20T22:16:00.006-05:00

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So where in there does it say anything about equal results? That statement there is from the Declaration of Independence. So today my wife had a paper to write for school. The topic she had to discuss was about racism and how American society can get rid of racism. When she asked me what I thought, I immediately said "have government enforce the laws we already have, and get the hell out of the way." Strangely, this is the answer to most of the problems we have in this country today in my opinion.

So what do I mean? Ok, well first, I think that we need to enforce the laws we already have. One of the things she mentioned, that is pointed out in her sociology book, is how the minority is blamed for whatever economic woes are happening at the time. They will do the jobs for lower wages than the majority of Americans. Currently, that is illegal aliens. We need to enforce the laws we already have on the books, and maybe add a few for this. If I go out and commit a crime, I receive either a fine or I go to jail. Why is it that we continue to turn a blind eye to people breaking the law? Now some of you are probably sputtering out right now "THAT'S RACIST!" Nope, not at all. I am anti-criminal, not anti-immigrant. People can come to this country legally all they want. If someone wants to come to America and be a productive tax-paying member of our country, I am all for it. I don't think we should be catering to someone who sneaks in and works under the table though. That is just wrong. What is even worse is the businesses in this country that take advantage of those people. That in my opinion is close to slavery. Paying ridiculously low wages, working these people long hours in unsafe conditions. I think we need to follow Australia's lead and levy business crippling fines on the offending businesses for every single infraction.

Next comes the practice of hyphenated names. This is a personal pet peeve of mine. African-American, Mexican-American, Asian-American, blah blah blah. You are an American just like me. If you were born in Africa and moved here to become a legal citizen, then it would be ok to call yourself an African-American. Putting whatever moniker in front of the American sets you apart and creates divisiveness. We need to start thinking of ourselves as Americans, not as individual races if we want to defeat racism in this country. I personally do not care what color a person's skin is, or where their ancestors came from. I base my opinions on what type of person they are. Are they nice to me and others? Do they deal with me with the same respect that I am showing them?

Another thing is Affirmative Action. That needs to go, along with any special interest entitlements based upon minority status. That stuff is fuel to the fire for the skin heads (no, I am not a skin head, I shave my head because my hair was already falling out and I want to do it on my terms, not my hair's terms). In days gone by, it may have been needed, but just like the unions it is doing more harm than good now. People should be hired on their competence and skills, not on whether or not they are a minority.

Basically, we need to stop coddling minorities, and start truly treating them as equals. Making laws that give minorities things that the majority doesn't have access too makes the majorities resentful of the minorities.

In my opinion, the best thing we can do to defeat racism is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

$849 Billion?

2009-11-19T23:02:00.003-05:00

So today I see there is a story on CNN that the Senate bill will come up for a vote on Saturday and will cost a total of $849 Billion over the course of 10 years. I find this hard to believe for a few different reasons.

First, it is the CBO that is reporting the numbers. I mentioned the CBO yesterday, and I bring them up again today. Why you ask? Because this group is notorious for underestimating the cost of government programs. Think I am wrong, check out this quote directly off of The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/23/us/senate-panel-head-says-us-overstates-cost-of-care-for-aged.html):

''Projections of new health programs are always too low,'' the budget office said. When Medicare was created in 1965, it said, ''projections dramatically understated costs.''

In their own words, they understated the costs. So next I decided to go and see what else this organization had to say. And I found this little nugget on where it is that they pull their numbers from:

"In late January of each year, CBO reports on the economic and budget outlook, including estimates of spending and revenue levels for the next 10 years under current law. This so-called budget baseline serves as a neutral benchmark against which Members of Congress can measure the budgetary effect of proposed legislation. The baseline is constructed according to rules set forth in law, which generally instruct CBO to assume that current spending and revenue laws continue without change. Thus, the baseline is not a prediction of future budget outcomes. Rather, it reflects CBO's best judgment about how the economy and other factors will affect federal revenues and spending under existing laws. Each summer, CBO updates its baseline projections, incorporating a new economic forecast and the effects of laws that have been enacted to date in that session of Congress."

I like the highlighted part the best. If you think that Medicare is the only place that they understated costs? Google it, it isn't. They have a horrid track record.

Ok, enough quotes. I don't like doing them. Besides, this is my thoughts. I keep looking at Healthcare and wonder why we are rushing towards this thinking that the government is the one that will run it better than what we currently have? I mean really, can you honestly say that the Post Office does a bang up job? I know I am not drooling at the chance to buy into public housing and move my family to the North Charleston projects, are you?

I find that I keep asking people "Do you burn down your house, bulldoze the rubble, and then ask your neighbors to kick in and help you pay for the rebuild when you need new windows? Then why are we doing just that with our healthcare system?"

Health Care, will it break us?

2009-11-18T19:42:00.007-05:00

Today I heard something new on some knowledge that I already had. I knew that up until about 2002 that the U.S. had racked up a staggering $5.98 trillion in deficit. What I kind of knew, but really hadn't put 2 and 2 together, was that our deficit is now sitting at just over $12 trillion!!!! $12 trillion!!! And that is just the money that is already spent. The unfunded liability, the money that is promised for things like Medicare and Social Security but is not yet spent, puts us at over $100 trillion in debt!!! And we want to spend even more? Are our politicians insane?

It was bad enough that Bush and the Republican congress spent our tax dollars like drunken sailors, and mortgaged us to China for staggering amounts of future tax revenue, but now the Democrats who vehemently vilified Bush for his spending are jumping off the deep end and spending even more than their buddy Bush! Isn't it great?

So let me examine what I know about so far. First, let's put to death the propaganda of the right about the cutting of $500 million from the Medicare budget. Ok, so after doing a quick Google search looking for the total budget of Medicare, I found that it costs the taxpayers of America about $500 billion a year to cover 75 million people. WOW! Isn't that amazing? That is the same number that they are saying that will be cut from the Medicare budget when a national healthcare plan that will cover everyone is passed. Imagine that! Let that one sink in for a minute.

Ok, so now let's revisit that statistic I found. About $500 billion to cover 75 million people. According to the http://www.census.gov there is about 300 million people in America. Now I am no big wig economist or fancy mathematician, but I can do simple math. The CBO, Congressional Budget Office (a politically neutral organization), has said that the Democrat bill will cost the country about $1.1 trillion a year. 75 goes into 300 4 times, but 500 billion times 4 doesn't come anywhere close to $1.1 trillion. It is closer to $2 trillion per year....for the next 10 years. This is the bill that congress wants to pass and make us pay for it. At the very least, we are adding $11 trillion to the country's charge card.

So in the first 226 years of our country's lifespan we racked up $6 trillion in debt. Bush and the boys in 7 years doubled that and were eviscerated for doing this, and rightly so. Now, the Democrats want to double even that number in just 1 single bill with more to come!!! Again I ask, have our politicians gone insane? Where is the majority of the media who should be screaming from the rooftops about this stuff?

I found all of my information, other than the simple math stuff which is all me, by doing simple Google searches. I found the information on my own from various sources including the National Debt Clock, the Census Bureau, CBS News, CNN News, and a few other sources. I have learned to never rely on one source of information, or even one political side in a debate. Question all media, they are engaged in censorship by omission. Remember what Thomas Jefferson said: "Information is the currency of democracy."

Starting out...

2009-11-17T23:30:00.003-05:00

So up until 3 years ago, I believed that the Republican party was the party that most matched my beliefs. They have proven me wrong way before this, but this was when I finally started to get the hint. I am a fiscal conservative. I want to know "who is going to pay for this crap they pass?" This is always the first thing I ask when looking at any policy a politician passes. I have asked this question since I started voting when I turned 18 and grew interested in politics. I watch what is going on around me in the world for a few different reasons.

First, I am not stupid. I am smart enough to realize that things going on in D.C. can and do effect me and my way of life. If I let myself fall into the oblivion of apathy that most Americans take when it comes to politics, then I cannot complain when those things come and bite me. If you do nothing to stop it, then you have no one to blame but yourself when it happens.

Second, through watching the political arena, I have expanded my mind into the financial arena as well. This has allowed me to realize with a quick glance when someone from an insurance company is snowballing me about how my health-care insurance is improving, when the rates are going up, the deductibles are getting higher, and my out-of-pocket expense is going up also. I learned that others effect my spending, like a shoplifter causes prices in stores to go up, so to do the people who milk the short term disability system cause me to have to pay more from my pocket to pay for them to stay at home, while I am out busting my ass to make ends meet.

Third, I realized fairly early on that nothing in this life is free. No one has handed me anything in life, nor do I want them to either. I don't want to live off of a government entitlement, I want to make my own destiny. I try to instill these beliefs in my kids, so that they will not grow up to be a burden on society, but instead become productive members. I want to give them the confidence, knowledge, and drive to strive to achieve more than I have and will in life. To do this, they will need to do it on their own, and not by being dependent upon some politician to hand it to them.

I will put more of my thoughts to words in time. For now, I need to get to bed, so I can get up at 5:00 am and go to work. With work and school, I might have time to put some more of my thoughts into words when I get home tomorrow night at 10:30 pm.

Testing my new blog

2009-11-17T22:36:00.000-05:00

Testing out how this will look. I have wanted to put my thoughts and beliefs down for a long time, and I am finally taking that step.