Eyesights In Time

Tim Thomas Standing Up For Principle

2012-01-26T03:34:00.000-08:00

After winning the Stanley Cup, the Boston Bruins goalie, Tim Thomas, declined to participate in a team visit to the White House, a tradition that spans sports where the championship winners get to meet with the president. Thomas' reason for not attending was momentous, especially in the current political climate, because Thomas declined to visit the White House because he believes the federal government is out of control. In his released statement, he pointed at both political parties as the root cause, but his Tea Party activism has made his political opinions well known.

Now the main stream media, not to mention the Bruins themselves, are characterizing Thomas as "selfish" and as someone who isn't a team player. Bruins Coach Claude Julien stated "we don’t mix politics with hockey. In this dressing room here, our job is to win hockey games and win hockey games as a team. That’s what we are.’’ And yet, isn't the act of meeting with a sitting president a political act? And doesn't someone have the right to decline if they find the actions of the current sitting president despicable?

Considering the president's predilection at lecturing and thin-skinned defensiveness toward his administration's policies and goals (just ask Jan Brewer), I would probably turn down a meeting with the president too. How do you look a man in the face, smile, shake his hand, and have your picture taken with him, believing in your heart, that while he is not an evil man, his policies are destroying the country you love?

So my hat, my heart, and my applause goes to Bruins Goalie Tim Thomas. His dedication, not only to his sport but to his political beliefs, are not only a credit to conservatives every where, but an inspiration as well. So my advice to the Main Stream Media, not to mention the other @$$&#&%$ on his team who think calling Thomas names and deriding his staunch willingness to stand fast on his beliefs, is to stop demonizing a man who plays his sport well, and knows that he will not be used by a misguided political administration as a prop.

Go Tim Thomas

Do You See Goofy

2012-01-20T04:32:00.000-08:00

In light of the President's recent tourism speech at Walt Disney World (in which half of the Magic Kingdom was shut down, no doubt upsetting thousands of visitors who had PLANNED their trip to the park months in advance) we offer this telling graphic.

The Fourth Best President - EVER!

2011-12-23T06:21:00.000-08:00

Via HotAir.com

Update. Everyone Likes This!

Kim Jong Mentally Il is Dead

2011-12-18T20:24:00.000-08:00

When I read the news, I muttered "Good Riddance," but my sixteen year old daughter took the cake when she came in moments later, saw the headline, and said "awwwww...." with out a single shred of sympathy.

Hey, If We Can't Win, We'll Cheat

2011-12-12T15:32:00.000-08:00

Have you been keeping abreast of the rigamarole in Indiana? Evidently the Democratic Party couldn't find 500 people in one district willing to put Obama's name on the ballet. So what did they do? They FORGED signatures. How's that for politics? Now I have to wonder how many dead people voted for Obama during the presidential race too.

Bill O'Reilly - What a classy guy.

2011-12-12T06:39:00.000-08:00

In this video a videographer takes a film of Bill leaving a Newt Gingrich fundraiser, which certainly seems odd considering the pains Bill O'Reilly goes to on his show to not specifically endorse a particular candidate. Now realistically, Bill can support privately any candidate he chooses. Heck, MSNBC actually comes out and SAYS who they support. If Bill in his off time wants to party for Newt, well he's ALLOWED to.

But I get disappointed when Bill is not only rude to the videographer (which he should be used to by now, he IS a celebrity of sorts) but he HITS the guy with his umbrella! This just makes it look like his actions are even more sinister! Not to mention unworthy. Keep it up Bill. I already don't like the way you interview people, but I guess since I don't watch your show, it's really not going to affect your ratings.

Update: I recently was made aware of Bill O'Reilly's take on what happened. He says he was coming from a White House Media Party, and not a Newt Gingrich fund raiser, which immediately changes this WHOLE thing. While I'm still not terribly impressed with Bill's handling of the situation, I suppose I can be a little more forgiving based upon the fact that Bill, in many ways, is a hated "face" of American conservatism. Perhaps that umbrella in the face was necessary. Who knows?

Obama Money!

2011-12-12T06:34:00.001-08:00

Ray Stevens is hilarious!

Why Obama's Stimulus Package Failed

2011-12-12T04:57:00.000-08:00

In all honesty, while the concept behind Obama's Stimulus package was flawed in and of itself, the actual causes of its failure weren't the President's fault. This is a perfect example of how we have created a bureaucratic nightmare with unions, red tape, and ineffective government. It's a wonder anyone can build ANYTHING. Shovel ready my ass.

Some Basic Truths that President Obama Doesn't Know

2011-12-08T05:27:00.000-08:00

1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. -- John Adams

2. If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed. -- Mark Twain

3. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain

4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. -- Winston Churchill

5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. -- George Bernard Shaw

6. A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. -- G. Gordon Liddy

7. Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. -- James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)

8. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. -- Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University

9. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. -- P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian

10. Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. -- Frederic Bastiat, French economist(1801-1850)

11. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -- Ronald Reagan (1986)

12. I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. -- Will Rogers

13. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -- P.J. O'Rourke

14. In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. -- Voltaire (1764)

15. Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you! -- Pericles (430 B.C.)

16. No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. -- Mark Twain (1866)

17. Talk is cheap...except when Congress does it. -- Anonymous

18. The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. -- Ronald Reagan

19. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill

Hat Tip to WB! Thanks!

Firefighters Watch Home Burn to Ground... over $75 bucks.

2011-12-06T19:56:00.000-08:00

Well, it's happened again. Try this on for size: A city charges $75 a year, a one time annual fee for "fire protection". If you pay and your house catches on fire, the FD comes and puts out the fire. If you don't, they come out, make sure everyone is safe, and then watch you property burn to the ground and make sure it doesn't spread.

Why is this important? Because it's an analog of the current health care debate, and a pretty drastic commentary about the system.

Personally, I'm conflicted. I recognize that both health insurance (and in this case "fire insurance") are responsibilities that we are required to understand and accept. In my case, my city's sales taxes cover the cost of fire department response, while my health insurance comes through my employer. But what if I was responsible, outside of these forums, for these costs?

All I know is that the average American earns about 40k a year. After payroll taxes, social security, medicare, insurance premiums, and other sundries come out of the check, your take home pay is down to near 30k. You live check to check, no savings, worrying about your job, barely paying your mortgage, and watching the food prices at Wal-Mart go up and up. Then you get a bill for $75 from the city for "fire protection". $75 is literally HALF of your grocery budget for this check. Do you eat or take the risk that your house WON'T burn down this year? It's not a pretty decision to have to make and I think we all know what the outcome would be.

That's the whole point of collection taxes through sales - in order to disperse the cost of these public services so that it isn't a burden for a single family. In fact, even health care works like this. A bunch of people get insured, so that the few who actually end up using the medical services can have their expenses paid.

From a libertarian perspective, it's tough luck for the home owner. Should have ponied up the $75 bucks. Been responsible. But there's a point where fiscal responsibility and human decency have to meet, and for the Fire Department to stand there, WATCHING a home burn... that's not just wrong. It's cruel.

As usual, there isn't a pretty solution, though I'd be more inclined to pay a sales tax than fork over $75 bucks once a year. But how does this translate to health care? Should we allow the government to cover all of our health care requirements? And when costs start overwhelming the monies collected for it, what then? What happens when a ninety year old woman is denied the surgery needed to prolong her life, in favor of a thirty something year old getting the money that would have been spent because he's more productive? The moral issues immediately become a murky swamp that none of us really want to traverse.

Perhaps there should be a law requiring fire fighters to fight fires. After all, we already require doctors to help patients, regardless of their ability to pay...

The Decadent Left - OWS

2011-12-05T04:30:00.000-08:00

NY Times columnist Ross Douthat penned an interesting article on December 3rd entitled, "The Decadent Left," an in-depth analysis comparing the Occupy Wall Street movement with the Union Protests and the Keystone Anti-Pipeline protests. In his article, he mentions the fact that other liberal strategists wish that the OWS movement had defined goals on changing public policy, and had a more concrete and structural plan to accomplish them, like the Keystone and Union Protests. The Keystone protest arguably has delayed the construction of an oil pipeline from Canada down toward the gulf coast, while the Union Protests have (supposedly) caused Ohio's attempt to curb public sector union's collective bargaining to come to a screeching halt.

But the true gems of Douthat's article exemplify why conservatives have been right all along:

The Wisconsin protests didn’t defend American workers’ right to bargain for their fair share of company profits, as traditional union protests have. They defended government employees’ right to negotiate with elected officials over the division of taxpayer dollars — a recipe for profligacy that even liberal icons like Franklin Roosevelt and the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s George Meany once opposed.

Likewise, the Keystone protesters haven’t been defending “the interests of wage-earning Americans,” to borrow the historian Michael Kazin’s description of the historic purpose of the American left. They’ve been harnessing the power of the Democratic Party’s wealthy environmentalist donors to actively kill off American jobs.

Stopping the pipeline won’t drive down demand for fossil fuels, or prevent Canada’s oil from being extracted and shipped around the world. But for a small group of activists and donors, keeping the pipeline out of their national backyard is all that counts, even if American workers pay the price.

I suppose even a broken clock is right twice a day, but having a liberal recognize the problems caused by his own party's movements is just amazing. And he's RIGHT! The Keystone protests and the Union Collective Bargaining protests HURT America.

But while Douthat hits upon this grain of truth that both centrist and right wing Americans have known for a while, I can't help but smile when he expresses his hope and support of the OWS movement:

Whatever your politics, there’s arguably more to admire in the ragtag theatricality of Occupy Wall Street than in that sort of self-righteous defense of the status quo. Even if it has failed to embrace plausible solutions, O.W.S. at least picked a deserving target — what National Review’s Reihan Salam describes as the “moral rupture” created by Wall Street’s and Washington’s betrayal of the public trust.

Encouraging liberals and Democrats to support a movement characterized by violence, drug use, rape, and mental illness, with no defined goals, who frequently break the law, and call for a socialized society where freeloaders like the OWS protesters are GIVEN what they want, rather than earning it through hard work.

I love Democrats.

E.J. Dionne Jr - It's all those evil right wingers fault!

2011-11-29T01:12:00.000-08:00

Recently, E.J. Dionne Jr. of the Washington Post penned an article entitled "Divided Moderates Will Be Conquered" in which he objects to moderate calls for the formation of a third "centrist" party. The article itself begins by claiming Mr. Dionne is a centrist, but his true political leanings immediately become clear when he launches a rather poorly thought out attack on the Tea Party. It's either he's a leftist liberal or very very much misinformed. He similarly points, rather adroitly, at the Republican Party for their unwillingness to raise taxes on the rich, specifically by eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts. It all sounds so reasonable when Mr. Dionne suggests it.

Ah... I love reasonable people, but I think some of the author's finger pointing could be just as viable if directed at the President. Barack Obama ignored his OWN debt commission's findings and then proposed a budget that RAISED federal spending. Furthermore, raising taxes on the rich, even if we revoked the Bush Tax Cuts, wouldn't net us but a TINY portion of the funds needed to curb the federal deficit. According to the 2009 Tax Foundation report, a 10 percent surtax would generate at most about $73 billion, which amounts to a whole 2 percent of federal spending. So pardon me Mr. Dionne, but how does that solve our overspending problem? 2 percent? That's it? And THAT'S what Democrats are so hung up on? A lousy 2 percent? You mean to tell me that Democrats MUST have that 2 percent in order to be willing to start getting serious about cutting spending?

It seems to me that the Tea Party's vision of a financially responsible government is a laudable goal, one that should span party lines. Our disagreements come from HOW we want to cut government spending. Hell, even the President admits it needs to happen, even if he seems totally unwilling to actually do it. The truth of the matter is that the federal government has broadly overreached with it's entitlement programs, both overspending and mismanaging them. Not only that, but by imposing itself, becoming not just a last resort, but a first stop shopping mall of assistance programs, we encourage the loss of self-responsibility and personal liberty.

America is a center right nation, a people with a heart, but we are also a people with a conscience. We want to help people, we really do. But we also understand that there is a limit to what we can AFFORD to do.

Dionne says "It’s absurd to pretend that we can shrink the deficit over the long term without substantial tax increases." Poppycock. That's exactly what we need to do. Now dealing with the federal debt - well, had Dionne said that, I would probably have agreed with him. We probably WILL need a limited VAT just to deal with THAT disaster - a disaster that BOTH parties have created over decades of financial mismanagement.

I appreciated Dionne's concerns about a third party and surprisingly I agreed with him. We don't need a third party of politics. What we need is for the Tea Party to become a predominant voice in politics - promoting fiscal sanity. If Mr. Dionne ran his personal finances the way our government does, he'd be in jail. That's not good fiscal policy, is it?

So Mr. Dionne's, how about putting your finger away, stop demonizing a political movement that has no other aims but to promote fiscal responsibility in our government, and start recommending where YOU would like to see federal spending cuts. Come up with something sensible and realistic and maybe, just maybe, I'll think about raising taxes.

Running Things...

2011-11-14T07:13:00.000-08:00

This was written by a 21 yr old female who 'gets it'. It's her future she’s worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she’s being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion.

Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the common good.

Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

AND While you are on Government subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Government welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.

Wow... NOW THAT'S ENTITLEMENT REFORM!

Stop Buying Your Own Books with Taxpayer Money!

2011-11-02T04:23:00.000-07:00

Via Hot Air.com' Tina Korbe

According to various reports last week, the State Department spent $70,000 on copies of Barack Obama’s three lauded literary masterpieces (Dreams from My Father, The Audacity of Hope and Of Thee I Sing) to stock library shelves or to pass out as Christmas presents from U.S. embassies. The administration claims the book distribution helps to “broker talks on important foreign policy matters.” That especially makes sense as a defense of Of Thee I Sing, which just happens to be a children’s book (although, to be fair, royalties on that book go to charity).

Supposedly, the White House had no knowledge of the State Department decision to spend taxpayer dollars on purchases that personally benefit Obama. (As one writer put it, “You pay … Obama reaps the royalties.“) Sheesh, not a lot of communication goes on in the Obama administration, does it?

But Obama can’t claim to be ignorant now — unless he, like his AG Eric Holder, doesn’t read his own correspondence. Republican Rep. Dave Schweikert of Arizona yesterday sent a letter to the president to tell him to knock it off. Wrote Schweikert:

At a time of record deficits and a heightened need to cut government spending, it is clear that spending taxpayer money in this manner is inappropriate.
Furthermore, as with any book deal, there is no doubt some level of royalties paid to you for each copy purchased by the government. Receiving royalties from government purchases of your book is exactly the type of out-of-touch Washington behavior that the American people are weary of and will no longer tolerate.
We request that you instruct all agencies to no longer purchase copies of your books and remit a payment to the Treasury Department for any royalties received as a result of these sales.

Here are a few reasons not to be too worked up about this story: (1) $70,000 is chump change in the federal budget, (2) At best, Obama probably received something like $6,000 in royalties from taxpayer-funded purchases and (3) The more people read Dreams from my Father, the more they’re exposed to the roots of Obama’s rage.

Still, the reason to be worked up trumps them: As American Values president Gary Bauer put it, it’s a prime example of ethics blindness. In other words, it’s the principle of the matter. The administration has violated it — and Schweikert seeks to uphold it. Thank you, Rep. Schweikert.

Oh Boy... I'm Worried

2011-11-02T03:56:00.000-07:00

Keeping an eye on the Republican Presidential Melee has been an emotional rollercoaster. I try to follow a simple rule: vote for the most conservative candidate. The problem with that rule is that lately, the candidates have been displaying some rather disappointing weaknesses.

Mitt Romney, who I actually wanted to vote for in the last presidential primary, is a Rockerfeller Republican, a technocrat who has changed his personal positions on so many issues in order to appeal to his constituents, that I really can't support him. The only good news about Romney is that while he won't do much for conservative principles, he will in all likelihood turn the economy around and yield to pressure from Tea Party type Congress folks to cut, cut, cut. If we win back the Senate. Yikes.

Herman Cain - Mr. Cain was brought to my attention by my boss, a staunch WASP associate pastor, back when Cain was still polling in the single digits. To be honest, he is quite appealing. He knows business, he speaks his heart, even when his opinions clearly go contrary to the conservative base (like with his opinion on abortion), but then when the backlash comes, his campaign (and he himself) suddenly lie about what was said. "Oh he made a mistake. He MEANT to say..." isn't something you can say to a foreign leader. Recently Cain made it relatively clear that he didn't know China had nuclear weapons. Huh? Seriously? This man's knowledge of foreign policy is the absolute weakest of any candidate. Considering how much our "standing" with foreign nations has improved under Obama, how we deal with foreign nations is paramount to the next presidency.

Rick Perry - Mr. Perry is my governor and I basically have two problems with him. The first is his position on illegal immigration and allowing illegal immigrants to get in-state tuition. I disagree with him on this. The problem here is that in TEXAS, he has to pander to the Hispanic block in order to get elected. If he suddenly switches his position on a national level, he'll alienate that block here in Texas. Tough choice for the governor. Perry's other problem is that his handlers have shown some dramatic incompetence in preparing the the Governor for his debates. Here in Texas, he's come across as smooth and prepared. On a national level, he's now being forced to run as a "doer, not a talker." Give me a break. It's like the first time he's run into REAL resistance to his campaign he folds under the pressure. Not a good trait for a presidential candidate.

Newt Gingrich - of all the candidates, this man is the one I'd prefer to vote for. He's articulate, knowledgeable, goes after Obama or the press during debates, and has the ability to make Obama look like an unlettered oaf in any debates. But the truth is that Newt Gingrich has a lot of personal baggage that will be fresh for many Americans in a general election. How many wives has he had again? Newt needs to be part of the next administration - I agree. President? Probably not. I'd accept him as a VEEP though. Wouldn't a debate between him and "foot-in-his-mouth" Joe be hilarious?

Michelle Bachman - I originally liked a lot of the things Bachman was saying, but as the campaigns moved along, Ms. Bachman sank in my opinion due to her clashes with Tim Pawlenty and now Rick Perry. She's said some pretty stupid things (like the whole bit about Gardasil causing mental illness) and frankly she shares the same qualifiers that have made Barack Obama such a bad president. Being a congresscritter, senator, or community organizer does not prepare you to be President. Sorry Ms. Bachman. I appreciate you being on the side of conservatives, but it's time for you to get back in the battle lines and work for the cause there.

Rick Santorum - Who? I like Mr. Santorum. I really do. But the fact that he lost his OWN STATE'S senatorial election doesn't bode well for the man. He's also a bit too emotional. I think Mr. Santorum also has a place in the next administration. I'd like to see him there, especially in the State Department - perhaps as Deputy Secretary of State (under John Bolton as Secretary!) Santorum knows foreign policy really well, but his general appeal is so low that it just won't fly as a presidential candidate.

Ron Paul - Mr. Paul is a libertarian, and as such he's got some great ideas on domestic issues, and as such he's got some dangerous naivety on foreign policy that makes Herman Cain's total LACK of knowledge look much more appealing. Paul would have us adopt isolationist behavior which would encourage Iran and North Korea to do VERY bad things, instead of just generally light bad things. There are bad people in the world, Mr Paul, and if we don't do something about them occasionally, they'll get uppity and it's harder to deal with bad people with nuclear weapons than it is to deal with bad people with AK-47s. Trust me.

Let's face it, with a group like this, all we are really doing is trying to keep Obama out of the Oval Office and not much more. The real changes we need to our country won't come from the top contenders of THIS presidential farce. Oh no... it's going to come from us. We need to win back the Senate, strengthen our position in the House, and work to pressure whoever IS president to cut the size and scope of government to something realistic.

So who do I support? Not sure yet. All I know is that I'm not very happy with this election cycle's crop of candidates. We'll have to see where it goes from here.

Ah... health care.

2011-10-26T16:27:00.000-07:00

Well, it took the liberals long enough, though I must admit that this cartoon seems aimed at BOTH parties. Well, I can laugh along with the rest of them.

Sometimes Regulation Is Needed

2011-10-04T04:51:00.000-07:00

This morning while reading Hot Air.com, I came across Ed Morrisey's article "Remember the 'Durbin Fee' While Using Your Debit Cards". In the article, Morrisey correctly targets Dick Durbin (Democrat), who added a little provision into the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Bill that passed Congress before Republicans took over the House. Inside the bill was a Durbin installed power to federal regulators to cap debit card charges.

Why was this a good idea? Well retailers were complaining about the amount of money the credit card processors and banks were charging for debit card purchases (an average of 44 cents per transaction). Retailers were understandably frustrated with the situation, since debit card transactions are generally used for minor purchases, rather than major ones. The idea was if the transaction fees were lower, retailers would be able to drop prices on some of their products, thus passing on the savings to the consumer.

The banks and credit card processors, who had ALREADY been campaigning for consumers to use the CREDIT CARD functionality of our debit cards because THAT pays a higher transaction fee even BEFORE the Durbin inspired transaction caps, objected. I remember Chase trying to persuade me with gifts and "cash back rewards" to sign up for some plan that would have stuck it to my chosen retailers, who would have been forced to pay higher fees for my transactions. Faced with the loss of billions of dollars in revenue, the banks, who had a strangle hold on the retailers, have turned now on the consumers. If the retailers won't pay damn it, we'll take the money from consumers directly! We have to please our stock holders!

Ed Morrisey from Hot Air uses this situation as a prime example of what happens when government regulations interfere with the free market system and to be honest, Dick Durbin's "surprise" that banks have levied use charges on debit card transactions is damning evidence. And usually, I'd agree with Morrisey. But not this time.

Retailers have NO options within the free market to find better credit card processors. It's a limited cartel, almost a monopoly. If Wal-Mart doesn't like the fees one bank is charging, they don't really have the option of finding another competitor who wants their business. As a result, the free market system was already hampered.

I'm going to admit that I might be slightly biased against banks as it is. Their ridiculous fee systems have stung me a number of times and my "free" checking accounts have been anything but, since I've easily paid in "fees" that monthly $10 charge. If recent legislation hadn't corrected some of the worst offenses, there would be even more opportunities for banks to screw us over.

I don't object to any business making money. But when the common citizen can't FUNCTION without using a business, then the consumer requires protection. So do retailers when they have no options against a monopoly.

While Dick Durbin sits there in stunned shock that BofA and other banks are charging $5 a month for debit card purchase privileges, I'm expecting the free market to do something about it. See, I'm a BofA customer too. And very shortly, I won't be.

I'm also writing Chase, who as yet have not applied those fees to me and my OTHER account, but trust me... if it becomes necessary, I'll find a bank that thinks customer relations is more important than padding their pockets.

"Crippling America"

2011-09-26T04:03:00.000-07:00

Via - Associated Press: "President Barack Obama charged that the Republican vision of government would "fundamentally cripple America," as he tried out his newly combative message on the liberal West Coast."

This wonderful news greeted me this morning and I sat back, slightly flabbergasted, in my chair. How could President Obama, supposedly an intelligent man (he's president, right?) possibly STILL be calling attempts to cut the federal deficit (if not the whole budget and debt) fundamentally crippling America? I mean seriously, how many times does he have to get hit over the head with the whole "Hey! We don't have enough freaking money!"

I could possibly understand his position if his "Buffett Rule", or raising taxes on the rich would actually come CLOSE to closing the deficit gap. Heck, even halfway would be noteworthy. But according to the IRS, even were we to tax millionaires and up 100% of their income, (screw class warfare - take it all!) we STILL wouldn't even come close to meeting the federal deficit.

Another major issue with Obama's Buffett rule is that the President doesn't distinguish between "investment returns" and "income". Take your standard investor. Every year he makes, say $100,000 from his job, and every year he manages to purchase $10,000 in stock. Now of course, he pays taxes on that full $100,000 he made, prior to buying stock. The next year he makes a hundred thousand as well, but let's say he also sells his stock for a profit of $40,000. So his total income that year is $140,000! Obama is complaining that the 40k isn't being taxed at the same rate our standard investor's "income" is! Why isn't it? Because it's ALREADY been taxed once! And now we're still taxing it again!

You know what the President's rhetoric tells me? That the left is stupid. That they will believe the lies of their political leaders over reality. This isn't a president who wants to fix problems. This is a president who wants to sit in that chair for another four years, to see how much more he can screw up.

What President?

2011-09-09T06:14:00.000-07:00

Recently, a friend of mine tweeted "Hey! Obama's giving his prime time address on jobs!"

I replied, "Who's Obama?"

Never in the course of our country's history have we had such an ineffective president. Unless he's actually TRYING to destroy the country. Then I'd have to say he's doing a good job. But in reality, President Obama has been one of the most publicized non-entities in government, demonstrably incapable of leadership beyond the meaningless platitudes uttered to his left wing base, unable to even bring his OWN party together in order to further national goals. It's a travesty that the Democratic Party has elected such a lackluster president. There will be no second term.

9-11 Memorial

2011-09-08T20:06:00.001-07:00

TEA PARTY ZOMBIES MUST DIE

2011-09-07T16:11:00.000-07:00

I just don't know what to say here! I mean... something NEEDS to be said. But I'm not sure what. Part of me wants to burst into laughter. Is this some sort of catharsis for all those TEA Party and Fox News haters out there? They can work out their anger at the right by... shooting them? Ah... this must be what the president was talking about when he asked for a "calm and peaceful" conversation. I love it. But gosh... we KNOW how Jimmy Hoffa Jr. wants to "take those SOB's OUT!"

Electric Cars.... The Shocking Truth!

2011-09-02T04:49:00.000-07:00

Margaret Wente for Canada's Globe and Mail, gives us a great examination into the electric car and just how environmentally good these will be. Check it out here!

Blue's Clues Steve Burns

2011-09-02T04:10:00.000-07:00

I have two children who are both toddlers. I also have a teenager who, when she was five, was a fan of the Nickelodeon television show, Blue's Clues. Blue's Clues was an animated show staring Steve Burns, who won the hearts and minds of kids for so long that his stated reason for finally leaving the show was because he didn't want the kids to see he was losing his hair. He was energetic, funny, and appealed to everyone watching.

My oldest daughter loved him, and so when we discovered that Blue's Clues (all 141 of them) were available on Netflix, my wife and I decided to show them to our toddlers. They love Blue's Clues. Blue's Clues toys are still available on the shelf at Wal-Mart and trust me, I'm pretty sure we'll eventually be having a Blue's Clues birthday celebration at some point in the near future.

Steve Burns has not been terribly successful as an actor since Blue's Clues. Most of his roles have been minor and for television, or have been returns to Blue's Clues shorts and specials. But despite this I have great respect for the man. He stood up for seven years, donned funny clothing, acted silly, and sang a ridiculous song about how excited he was to get the mail. He was a child's show icon. That takes balls, not to mention talent.

Recently, Steve Burns was invited to The Moth, an acclaimed nonprofit organization dedicated to the art of storytelling and Burns gave a heartfelt recollection of one of his misadventures as Steve of Blue's Clues, and what it meant to him. Even if you never watched the show, this is worth the time. Trust me.

Is the President Unpresidential?

2011-09-02T03:40:00.000-07:00

I really didn't think I needed to get into this because frankly, it's fairly obvious. But Obamapologists are all over the media crying foul over the GOP's supposed "childishness" over "refusing" to allow Obama to speak on September the 7th at Congress? Let's take a look at a few facts.

1. The Republican Presidential Debate at the Reagan Library has been scheduled for MONTHS. Months mind you.
2. In the world of politics, trying to upstage your opponent party's political activities is considered uncouth and weak. Is your position so tenuous that you have to resort to trying to STEAL voter viewing time away from the opposing party?
3. President Obama actually went on vacation, AFTER announcing "Hey, I've got a Jobs plan coming, by the way..." He can't seriously expect us to just come running up to the White House with our tongues out, all excited because finally he has a plan. Right? I mean... how MANY times has Obama FOCUSED on jobs during his term?

A Conversation on Delusions.

2011-08-31T14:34:00.000-07:00

I recently got a message from "Whiteliberal1" who objected to my castigation of Congressman Andre Carson.

When you have congressman Rand Paul, who was voted in by the "Tea Party" crowd, screaming that the "civil rights act is unconstitutional," then what would you call it?
Didn't the "civil rights act" have something to do with the laws regarding Jim Crow?

Everyone in America is NOT falling for that bullshit, "too many taxes" mumbo-jumbo these tea party people are preaching. Again, if it was that, then where in the hell were they when dubya spent away? - Whiteliberal1

Dear Confused Whiteliberal,

Well first of all, the Tea Party goes much farther beyond Rand Paul's Libertarian viewpoints and that's sort of like claiming because Al Sharpton is an anti-semitic, all Democrats must hate Jews. It may be correlative, but it's false logic. Besides, Paul's position on the Civil Rights Act is an anti-government one, claiming that the act gave too much power to the federal government that (according to him) transgressed on private property rights.

You state that not everyone in America is falling for the Taxed Enough Already mantra espoused by the Tea Party. Out of curiosity, have you checked out your local Tea Party to ask THEM what their platform is? I'm not a Tea Partier, mostly because I'm a conservative and I find the Tea Party to be too populist for my taste. That said, I support the goals stated by my local Tea Party. They want fiscal responsibility in government, a balanced budget amendment to prevent over spending, fewer taxes on corporations and individuals, and for the government to serve as a referee in business, rather than as a rule maker. What's to object too? Democratic Party leaders are so worried about losing power they're constantly telling their constituents to read between the lines... and then they tell you what is between the lines, which according to Andre Carson says the Tea Party wants Jim Crow laws and to hang people. Sigh...

On to your last point about Dubya. You are absolutely right. Dubya spent WAY too much. It's one of the reasons that his approval numbers were so low. You hated him because... well for whatever reason. I disliked him because he could have balanced the budget... he was so close. He could have cared. Why do you think the Democrats one the midterm election in 06? It's because conservatives like me were already gearing up to take the Republicans to task for their spending. We sent them to Washington to be fiscal hawks and they became... 1960 Democrats. Government can't SPEND it's way out of a recession. You've got to create a business environment that spurs economic growth. It's that simple. Sure... we could raise taxes on the rich, which would shunt more money away from private enterprise, but would that really solve our economic problems?

The thing that REALLY boggles my mind, is that during the Bush Administration, fiscal irresponsibility was a major point for the Democrats. Conservatives turned on their "own" party, the GOP and forced their hand to become fiscally responsible. Why is now that liberals are opposed to fiscal responsibility? Barack Obama himself said that raising the national debt an additional 4 trillion was tantamount to being unpatriotic! What's changed for you?

In essence, I don't understand why liberals and conservatives are fighting over being fiscally responsible. The President's own debt commission outlined the fact that we would need to reconstruct Medicaid and Medicare, not to mention Social Security. We've agreed to defense spending cuts. The TEA Party's objectives are in line with BOTH Liberal and Conservative viewpoints. The argument should be HOW we are going to reform these programs and getting spending under control.

Instead, liberals are sitting there saying "Tea Partiers are the enemy."

Can you explain that to me?

Wisconsin Unions Show Their True Colors - and Attitude

2011-08-31T04:50:00.000-07:00

Via HotAir.com's Ed Morrissey:

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker visited Messmer Preparatory Catholic School yesterday, while the school repaired the first vandalism that had occurred at the facility in eleven years of operation. While Walker read Dr. Seuss to the grade-school children inside, unions protested the visit and the school outside. Want to guess which group was more well-behaved? Actually, you don’t have to guess. The MacIver Institute shot video of the protest and the visit and then interviewed Messmer’s President, Brother Bob Smith. We see childishness, petulance, and bullying — and then we see Messmer’s students (via Wisconsin Reporter)

Read the full article.

Andre' Carson - Racist Hate Baiter

2011-08-31T03:55:00.000-07:00

In the following clip you are going to hear and see Indiana Congressman Andre' Carson speak to constituents about the TEA Party. His assertions are patently ridiculous, but the video demonstrates one of the great evils going on right now in American politics. Tea Party members, conservatives (who may or may not be Tea Party members) and even middle of the road Republicans have been accused of racial hatred for as long as it has been convenient to African American Democrats. But after seeing and hearing this video, it becomes readily apparent that Andre' Carson and his ilk are doing exactly what they accuse the TEA Party of: stoking the fires of racial hatred. What do you expect the people to do when their elected leader comes down and tells them that a certain group wants to bring back the Jim Crow laws and start HANGING people? That's not motivation to get out the vote! That's motivation to start a fucking war!

Andre' Carson is a racist, pure and simple. His party can not win elections on the validity of ideas, on ideology, or even economic success. So what does Mr. Carson sink to? Racial hatred. Well done, Mr. Carson. You have exemplified why Washington is broke. Morons like you are running it.

Andrew Klavan's Rules For Wannabe Pundits!

2011-08-26T05:41:00.001-07:00

Those Who Live In Glass Houses...

2011-08-18T18:40:00.001-07:00

The video below is from Corning, who want to provide a vision of the future in which there are no rocks. Ever.

Dave Meslin: The Antidote to Apathy

2011-08-18T14:15:00.000-07:00

Hat Tip to Jay Weems...

Whether you are a conservative or liberal, it is vitally important for you to watch the following video. Don't worry, it's NOT about politics, but about the way our society functions. Via TED.com (a phenomenal website on it's own!)David Meslin of Canada gives a brief presentation covering how our society actively encourages apathy, making it harder for us to engage in issues that we believe in. As Meslin puts it, we're all waiting for the chosen one to come and save us, rather than choosing ourselves to take a stand and promote change ourselves. The video is short, just 7 minutes, but please watch it. You might come away understanding just how important each of us really are.

A Big Black Cloud

2011-08-17T04:19:00.000-07:00

To be honest, I'm just steeling myself for 15 more months of this. Seriously, how are we supposed to have an open debate about ISSUES like fiscal solvency when the only response the liberal news media can come up with is "RACISM!"

During a recent speech Rick Perry said that it was time to get out from under the big black cloud hanging over us. This was a reference to the DEBT, not Barack Obama. Damn... get a grip you people! If a Black person wants to play in the political ring, they have to understand that we're going to press them on issues!

Ed Shultz is such an ass. NBC selectively edited their broadcast so that Shultz could accuse Perry of racism. You know, there is a REASON MSNBC doesn't go after GOP candidates on their platform issues.

Are The Poor Getting Poorer?

2011-08-16T19:07:00.001-07:00

Now Wind Power is Killing Eagles Too

2011-08-16T18:41:00.000-07:00

After the recent news articles outlining how devastating Wind Turbines have been to the local bat populations, we discover that the Green Movement has once against stumbled into the land of unintended consequences. California supports roughly 2,500 golden eagles. The state's largest wind farms kill, on average, more than 80 eagles per year. One of two things will happen now: Environmentalists will sue to stop the production of windfarms to save the eagles and bats, or the environmentalists will just insist that we stop using electricity all together.

Hydrogen Barakside

2011-08-16T10:25:00.001-07:00

It's Bush's Fault - Still

2011-08-16T10:22:00.000-07:00

Linda Burnett, 23, a resident of San Diego, was visiting her in-laws and while there went to a nearby supermarket to pick up some groceries. Later, her husband noticed her sitting in her car in the driveway with the windows rolled up and with her eyes closed, with both hands behind the back of her head. He became concerned and walked over to the car. He noticed that Linda's eyes were now open and she looked very strange. He asked her if she was okay, and Linda replied that she had been shot in the back of the head and had been holding her brains in for over an hour.

The husband called the paramedics, who broke into the car because the doors were locked and Linda refused to remove her hands from her head.

When they finally got in, they found that Linda had a wad of bread dough on the back of her head. A Pillsbury biscuit canister had exploded from the heat, making a loud noise that sounded like a gunshot, and the wad of dough hit her in the back of her head. When she reached back to find out what it was, she felt the dough and thought it was her brains. She initially passed out, but quickly recovered.

Linda is blonde, a Democrat and an Obama supporter, but that could all be a coincidence.

The government later examined the defective biscuit canister and the explosion was determined to be Bush's fault.

Tea Party Downgrade: Voting For Boehner's Plan

2011-08-16T03:24:00.000-07:00

During the Debt Debate, there were quite a few positions amongst our elected representatives. The Tea Party was the most vocal, opposing any tax raises based upon their concepts of fiscal responsibility. It was analogous to giving your local street beggar a twenty, knowing full well that he's just going to buy a pack of smokes and some beer. Do you REALLY want to enable that?

Congressman Allen West was recently confronted at his recent town hall meeting about his vote in support of Speaker of the House John Boehner's debt plan, which has been derided as a joke. Newt Gingrich even went so far as to call it "stupid". But Congressman West makes several good points in his explanation, that we can't loose sight of the overall goal, and that we shouldn't deride "good enough" because we were aiming for "perfect"

West is absolutely right. He points out that everything Obama wanted out of the deal, he didn't get. Was it everything the Tea Party wanted? Absolutely not. Did it stop Obama cold? Absolutely yes. So where does this leave the Tea Party? One victory ahead in forcing our government to be fiscally responsible, and with quite a few more battles to come. In essence, it means that the Tea Party and Conservatives' most difficult battle is coming up: The Presidential Election of 2012. Brace yourself folks, this one is going to be tough.

Flash Mob Robs Store

2011-08-15T19:40:00.000-07:00

I suppose it was only a matter of time. Several years ago I was a manager at a local amusement park. Every July 4th and at least one day in October before Halloween, the word would go out through the nearby Black community and our facility would play host to a massive number of African American teens. As usual, we ran everyone through metal detectors (both black and white) prior to allowing them to enter the park, but with that in mind, the staff would literally watch in bewilderment as youths from competing Black gangs would select a location within the park to start a fight, which would then result in a mass movement of Black teenagers toward said fight. It got to the point where we would hire fifteen or twenty extra off-duty police officers. I personally watched police break up one fight, only to have an unruly crowd object, resulting in a broad sweep of pepper spray into the crowd. I remember escorting a fourteen year old black girl to our first aid station afterward.

Recent events have demonstrated a new source of amusement and criminal activity for Black Youths. First we had the problems in Philidelphia:

In Wisconsin, at the State Fair, Black youths targeted white and Hispanic fair goers as a Black Security Officer stood idly by. The attack was orchestrated using social media outlets and clearly was motivated by racial anger.

And now, in Montgomery County, Maryland, another Black flash mob descended on a convenience store, looting it and stealing hundreds of dollars worth of products while an overwhelmed clerk looked on helplessly. Worse, the police arrived before the mob departed... and did NOTHING. Granted, what is a single officer to do when faced with three to four dozen shoplifters? As a former police officer, I think standing at the door and pepper spraying each one as they come out would probably be okay. But the officer in question didn't even TRY. Then the officer didn't investigate or even take the security footage into evidence? WTF? We're not even going to care?

There are two issues involved here. The first is lawlessness. Similar to the London Riots, these flash mobs are nothing more than organized crime and should be treated as such. Were this ANY specialized group: whites, asians, people who play Gin, whatever, the police response should be the same. However, because these flash mobs are being promulgated by African Americans, several of whom are on record saying that the violent attacks were racially motivated, brings a whole different issue to light: Is this the next stage of Black America?

I suppose we should ask Al Sharpton.

Perry For President

2011-08-15T19:05:00.001-07:00

Allen West on Debbie

2011-08-15T05:35:00.000-07:00

During the original flare-up between Colonel and Congressman Allen West and Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, I really didn't have much to say. That's because Congressman West said it. To be honest, while not the normal behavior we see from our elected officials, it was rather refreshing. It was about time that a Democrat got called out for underhanded tricks and outright lies. That it took a military man with honor... well... we can save our criticism for spineless Republicans later.

But one thing about Allen West that I really like, is the fact that he sticks to his guns. When he runs for President, I'll be voting for him.

Excuse Me?

2011-08-15T05:26:00.000-07:00

Usually anything muttered by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tx)should be treated with a roll of the eyes and/or a hearty laugh. I remember when she got all mad at the weather service for not using "African American" names for hurricanes. Yeah. I know... like we all want to hear about how Hurricane Yowanda destroyed New Orleans. As if black folk don't have ENOUGH problems.

Of course it's also why no one paid her any attention when she claimed that Republican opposition to increasing the debt ceiling was actually: (Wait For it!) YES. RACIST. The GOP opposed increasing the debt ceiling because Barack Obama is black.

Yeah.

Of course there is another Congresscritter whose verbal ramblings are even worse than Sheila Jackson Lee's: and that's the woman in the video below.

Why Al Sharpton?

2011-08-15T04:48:00.000-07:00

Recently it came to light that MSNBC is giving Al Sharpton his OWN show! Now normally I'd complain about journalistic integrity and how a political activist like Sharpton has no business having his own show. But the truth is that MSNBC has no journalistic integrity as it is... and... it's just possible that Sharpton will NOT be reporting the news, but have a show similar to Fox News' Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reiley, who give their "take" on the day's news.

So I can see the need for MSNBC to have a new firebrand to rouse the rabble. But the question remains: Why Al Sharpton?

This is another GREAT video from Lee Doren.

Government: We Need More Money!

2011-08-10T14:23:00.001-07:00

Via Powerline.

Van Jones and Move On Use Kids To Promote Socialism

2011-08-10T11:13:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while you come across one of these "feel good" videos. There are some cute, bright sounding kids, appealing to our sense of patriotism and pride. They start you off with a couple of rather general and common sense "points" toward building a better future. And when they've got you slightly agreeing with them, you get hammered with progressive invective and lies. Let's take a closer look at the "Contract For The American Dream".

As the kids tell it, there are ten points to the Contract:

Point 1: Invest in America's Infrastructure. According to www.rebuildthedream.org, the website mentioned in the video, this means Rebuild our crumbling bridges, dams, levees, ports, water and sewer lines, railways, roads, and public transit. We must invest in high-speed Internet and a modern, energy-saving electric grid. These investments will create good jobs and rebuild America. To help finance these projects, we need national and state infrastructure banks.

Well all that sounds good actually. Except for the last part. We need national and state infrastructure banks? What exactly does that mean? Well infrastructure bank is actually a dressed up way of saying "borrow US$60 billion of federal funding to invest in infrastructure over 10 years, while leveraging "up to $500 billion" of private investment.[2] It would invest in high-speed trains to provide an alternative to air travel, energy efficiency, and clean energy, among other kinds of public infrastructure."

MoveOn.org (the promoter of this site and video) start off with an issue that most Americans agree on: working on our national infrastructure. Republicans are on board with this as well, they just want to fund it differently. Without borrowing the money.

2. Create 21st Century Energy Jobs: Again, you never want to start with your social socialist experimentation concepts right at the beginning of the video. So we've got another concept that most moderate Americans can support. Of course in this economy, most of us would say ANY kind of job creation would be a good idea. The problem with MoveOn.org's actual position is that they want to ELIMINATE jobs that AREN'T green as well. Well, gosh... so do Conservatives... but we want it to be a function of the free market, not government regulation. When someone comes up with a way to power our cars that's cheaper, cleaner, and more efficient than burning gasoline, the market will take care of getting rid of the "un-green" jobs. Remember when ethanol was pushed as the new "green" savior? Now years later, thanks to government regulation, pollution costs due to production, refinement, and distribution of Ethanol, not to mention the pollution side effects make Ethanol a WORSE additive. We've raised food prices around the world... and for what? Well done.

3. Invest In Public Education. This is still a soft subject, with most Americans feeling that our education system has let us down. But where progressives think throwing more money at the problem will fix it, conservatives recognize the truth: Our education system is socialism at it's absolute worst. Teachers Unions prevent private and public schools from competing, from removing low quality teachers from the classrooms, and instead our progressive friends focus on making sure that public schools have the latest computers. I don't need a computer to teach math, or writing, or science. I need better quality teachers and the concept of personal responsibility. But wait for it... we'll get to THAT concept a little later.

4. Medicare For All! Yes folks, medical care is a right. Which means that we will soon be forcing people to go to medical school, while paying them minimum wage, keeping doctors in perpetual slavery because the government has decided that you have a RIGHT to medical care. Well, sorry. You don't. You have to be personally responsible for your health, for your ability to pay for medical costs. Sure... right now medical expenses are tremendous. We've proposed solutions: like not paying for illegal immigrants medical needs. Or opening up competition between insurance companies so Americans can get the best price, or even separating health insurance from your employer as a benefit. But who fights us on this? Guess.

5. Make Work Pay - right to a fair living wage, right to organize, and equal opportunity for all. The right to a fair living wage? Well gosh. Who gets to decide what is a "fair" living wage? When I was a kid I worked for seven bucks an hour mowing lawns. Was it good work? No. I hated it. Did it pay my bills? Sure. I just needed enough money to buy gas, pay for car insurance, and fund my dating habits. But as I got older, and my education level went up, and my bills increased, SO DID MY WAGE! There is a reason that people get paid low wages. It's because that's where the "starters" go. Then they are SUPPOSED TO MOVE UP! Most people do. But MoveOn.org doesn't want that. They want people who are too stupid or lazy to move up the chain of command at McDonalds to have enough money to buy a television set, an Xbox, and get their Starbucks coffees each morning. See this for what it is folks: The Man Keeping You Down.

Organizing into unions was once important when employers were literally creating work environments that were lethal to their employees, or dramatically abused them in terms of wage, hours, and operation. Government regulation has pretty much ended that kind of abuse, but there are still unions. Why? Because union organizers are used to trying to get as many benefits for their members as they can, regardless of how it damages the business. Had GM been allowed to go under like conservatives wanted, the United Auto Workers Union would have been forced to renegotiate under the terms of the new entity created. One of the first things to go? Huge pensions and paid inactivity. Why are US built cars two thousand dollars more than Japanese cars before a single part is put together? Because US auto workers have to get their piece of pie.

As far as equal opportunity goes, I think we're already there. In today's market, employers want high quality employees and it doesn't matter if they're black or white or red or yellow. Do the job well, and we want you!

6. Secure Social Security - remove cap on social security tax. Democrats have long proposed this as a way to increase revenues for social security. In other words, employers and employees each pay a flat percentage of the first $97,500 of each employee's salary, but no tax on the income above that. By increasing the cap, they basically put more money into social security. It's a tax though. Granted, most people in America don't even make $97,500, but for those that do... watch out. The conservative position on this is simple: increase the retirement age a little for those under 55 and let's think about privatizing social security. I already have a 401 k and had I been allowed to INVEST and have personal responsibility over my OWN retirement fund from day 1, I'd be worth well over a million or two dollars by now. Even if I had invested in US Treasury bonds... and considering our credit rating today, that's saying something!

7. Return to Fairer Tax Rates - The really awesome line here is the one kid saying "if the rich don't pay their taxes, we'll have to!" Note to kid: except for Tim Geithner, the rich DO pay their taxes. In fact, the rich pay most of the taxes. MoveOn.org wants to "end Bush Tax Cuts For the Rich and add NEW tax brackets for people who make 1 million and up!" Here's a better idea. You want fair taxes? Let's try the Fair Tax, that way EVERYONE pays. A few cents for the poor, and those millions that MoveOn.org want. That way the full HALF of America that didn't pay any taxes actually starts contributing. Take THAT MoveOn.org!

8. Tax Wall Street - Trading FEE? Are you kidding me? We already tax the crap out of RETURNS. Are you people TRYING to stifle economic growth? Here's my idea. CUT TAXES on investments, especially if you make less than 250,000 in income each year. Stop punishing low earners with taxing their INVESTMENTS.

9. End Wars and Invest at home. Yes, well we all want to end wars. Unfortunately there are people out there who want to kill us. And by us, I mean all Americans. I'd like to end the wars too, but to do that, we'd have to make sure that the people who want to kill us are all dead first. That's expensive. But better to pay that expense than be dead.

10. Restore Protect and Renew Democracy - This last point is the icing on the cake, and demonstrates where the Progressives have truly lost it. "We have to close the door between Washington and high priced lobbyists", one child says seriously. Well, sure... I don't like it when liberal lobbyists push politicians toward something I don't like either. But as long as elections have to be financed (whether by corporations or Americans as the next child comments) there will be organized groups of people who want Federal regulation and law to work in their interests. I don't see an easy out on this one, but I for one would LOVE to require ALL money donated to a political candidate, whether hard or soft, be reported so we can see who is being bought. Oh... and it would be nice if the President who promised "no lobbyist in my White House" would actually stop hiring them.

Then comes the obligatory MoveOn.org "we have to protect voting rights and give immigrants a clear path to citizenship." What? Immigrants? IMMIGRANTS ARE ALREADY GIVEN A CLEAR PATH TO CITIZENSHIP. Oh WAIT! Did you mean ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? I think you did. Um... no. They DON'T need to be given a clear path to citizenship. We need to stop the importation of South and Central American poverty. We need to seal the bloody border. We need to stop letting the Democratic Party fail to secure this country because they think (and are probably right) that Hispanics will keep voting them into power if they continue to set up this country for a social services bankruptcy of the kind never before seen.

And there you have it. Ten Points For The American Dream, presented by brainwashed kids. It's a sad sad day.

An Empty Podium

2011-08-10T08:13:00.001-07:00

I'm not exactly a Pawlenty supporter, but this is still a great message. I can't call it a political ad... political ads are supposed to lie.

Ridiculous! Mexico is Filing BRIEFS on OUR Illegal Immigration Problem?

2011-08-05T03:47:00.000-07:00

In Alabama, Governor Robert Bently has faced increasing criticism over their new immigration bill, an Arizona like set of laws that help the state deal with the massive and burgeoning illegal immigration problem the US Federal Government is failing to address. (Unless it's Jews of course.) The primary issue is Alabama's precedent of making being in the state an UNDOCUMENTED immigrant a crime. As a result, Mexico along with fifteen other countries, mostly South American, have filed "briefs" with the Alabama's court system.

What the hell is this? Of COURSE Mexico will object! Their primary export product is poor uneducated cheap labor! Why on earth would they want a tightening of US Law and immigration policy? Seriously, Mexican illegal immigrants (or migrant workers) send home thousands of US Dollars, in effect doubling the US subsidies already going to that poorly run country. Mexico in return gets rid of mouths to feed, the poorest of their poor, and then has the gall to use our own court system to defeat legislation that would inhibit their ability to continue supporting criminal actions against their northern neighbor?

Why on earth are we allowing this travesty (both of them actually) of allowing illegal immigrants into our country and then giving their former nations the ability to use our own laws against us to continue supporting said illegal activity. It's insane!

Tea Party - Recently Identified by the Government as TERRORISTS

2011-08-04T04:30:00.000-07:00

Yep, that's right. Terrorists. Get ready Tea Partiers... they're about to launch a War On Terror. What wasn't good for actual Muslim Jihadists who want and DO kill Americans, is now good enough for those individuals on the far right wing whose illogical and ideological mantra of "less government, fiscal responsibility, decreased regulation, and fewer taxes" are now being targeted by the Democratic Party.

Politico reported that during a meeting Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) had something interesting to say:

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.”

So there you have it folks, the Tea Partiers are TERRORISTS. But before you say "wait a moment. This is just TWO Democrats who are riled up, displeased with their political position," you might want to see who ELSE is saying the Tea Party is out for blood. The New York Times’ Joe Nocera is one of four Times columnists that compares Tea Party activists to terrorists, Guy Benson points out:

No fewer than four “esteemed” Times columnists have drawn the conservatives/terrorism connection within the last two weeks: Nicholas Kristof, Thomas Friedman,Maureen Dowd, and today’s addition from Joe Nocera (who?), whose piece is subtly entitled, “The Tea Party’s War On America:”

“You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them. These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. Their intransigent demands for deep spending cuts, coupled with their almost gleeful willingness to destroy one of America’s most invaluable assets, its full faith and credit, were incredibly irresponsible. But they didn’t care. Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that’s what it took.

“For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests. But rest assured: They’ll have them on again soon enough. After all, they’ve gotten so much encouragement.”

Spending Is Nuts

2011-08-03T12:25:00.001-07:00

There's No Arguing With Conservatives, NO Seriously, Scientific Studies Prove It!

2011-07-26T04:55:00.000-07:00

Dan Sweeny from City Link Magazine wrote an article back in 2008 that used a Yale Study referred to in a Washington Post article that stated:

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.

A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.

Sweeny's article was recently brought to my attention and to be honest, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. From a realistic standpoint, most people are unwilling to allow facts to sway them when they have an emotional tie to an issue, and it takes a great deal of patience and research in order to do it right. One might say that whether you are conservative or liberal, only a RECEPTIVE mind will be willing to take facts into account.

That said I love the implication Sweeny makes that it is CONSERVATIVES who are usually misguided, and that Liberals make coherent, logical, and fact based arguments. Like the one below!

Oh, and there are PLENTY more like these. I once had a conversation with a liberal who explained to me, quite passionately, that if he wrecked his car while driving home during one of the worst snow storms of the year, that it was the GOVERNMENT'S fault because they didn't take better care of the roads. Yes. I know. LMAO.

Public Sector Unions Bankrupting America

2011-07-26T04:28:00.000-07:00

Eighty years ago, Private Sector Unions were required to keep unscrupulous businesses from walking over workers. The ability to collectively bargain, threaten strikes, and organize was one of the predominate forces behind improving worker safety, increased benefits, and a realization of an economy where Henry Ford's concept of "make the best possible product for the least amount of money, while paying your employees the highest possible wages" (so they can afford to BUY your product) is the foundation of American capitalism.

Today however it is not Private Unions, but public ones that hold the power. As political operations that funnel funds into the campaigns of whatever politician promises the union the best terms, Unions shape our political landscape, concerned not for the solvency of government, or for the general health of the economy, and not even the taxpayer, but for their own pocketbooks.

LiveLeak.com - Obamacare Fables: The Greatest Hits Video

2011-07-21T07:50:00.000-07:00

LiveLeak.com - Obamacare Fables: The Greatest Hits Video

Harry Potter and Jon Cozart

2011-07-21T07:38:00.000-07:00

I know that I've been pretty focused on politics lately but I bumped into this amazing video from Jon Cozart, a kid from Texas who not only has some serious talent in singing but he's a talented pianist and plays the ukelele. (A uekelelist? Anyway, with all the recent Harry Potter mania (I'm going to go see it tonight personally) I thought I might give you a little bit of a catchup from Jon. When you're done with this video though, I seriously suggest you listen to the song he wrote for his principal's birthday. He's amazingly funny and I expect to see him on television some day soon!

MSNBC Far Left and Far Stupid

2011-07-21T07:15:00.000-07:00

I swear, does MSNBC even TRY to do journalism? Like real investigative reporting or do their anchors merely spout off the most recent Democratic Party talking points? This is a classic example of idiocy in action.

Come on, are you kidding me? "Do you have a degree in economics?"

A Lie of Ommission Is Still A Lie

2011-07-21T06:07:00.000-07:00

In this amazing video we have Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) explaining how it is those "dead beat debtor Republicans, who don't want to pay the debt they racked up" who are causing the problems. He states there is no debate concerning the debt limit and dares the press to find one Democrat who is willing to allow the Government default on it's debts.

He also makes an example of Republican Presidential contender Michelle Bachman and her opposition to raising the debt limit under ANY circumstances. And yet, the truth is that Senator Harkin is making these statements without the "context" to explain WHY things are this way.

Let's address the current mainstream Republican position first. Most Republicans in the House and Senate support raising the debt limit. It's NOT a good thing for America to default on her debts. We all know this. The Republicans however are facing a constituency that is angry about irresponsible spending in Washington, from BOTH parties.

That constituency, made up of moderates, Republicans, and of course Tea Partiers, hold a basic belief that Government should be fiscally responsible. How "right fringe" of them! Throw in some conservatism that seeks for smaller government as well, and you're looking at a simple position for Republican political leaders: Increase debt ceiling? Yes. But how do we keep our constituents (Harkin's Right Wing Fringe) happy? That's easy: ask for spending cuts in the President's Budget to at least MATCH the raise in the debt limit. The Democratic Party has made it clear they don't want ANY spending cuts. They want to take MORE money from the people (not just the rich because the rich don't come CLOSE to having enough money to cover Obama's deficits), in a down economy, so they can buy more votes... oh sorry... didn't mean to be partisan there... ahem... TO PROVIDE MORE ENTITLEMENTS FOR POOR PEOPLE TO BUY THEIR VOTES.

Yeah. That works well.

On the far right fringe we have Michelle Bachman, who opposes ANY raise to the Debt Limit. But she doesn't oppose it BECAUSE she wants the Federal Government to default on it's debt. She is of the opinion that keeping the debt limit frozen will FORCE the executive branch to prioritize spending, thus placing the task of cutting entitlements and spending on the Obama Administration. Think of it as a balanced budget amendment without the amendment. Now we know Barack Obama doesn't WANT to prioritize spending, because as he stated, "social security" will be one of the first things to go (all while pointing at those horrible Republicans.

In essence, Harkin's rant is another stage show for the gullible, trying to scare the American people into letting the Democrats raise taxes (which has NEVER worked in balancing the budget) all while using the "Debt Limit" as a political shield.

All I see is that the New And Improved Republican Party is trying to get a handle on the mess that they, in large part, created. I see committed political leaders, trying to cut back their insane spending, hauling our country back from the brink of fiscal calamity. And from the Democrats, I see more of the same: tax and spend, tax and spend, entitlements, entitlements, more taxes and more spending. Don't believe me? Check out the President's last budget proposal. Did it INCREASE spending or decrease it? Why did Barack Obama take the TARP one time budget funding from Bush's last year in office and ROLL it into his FIRST YEARS BUDGET? Is this a man who is concerned about our national debt? Is this a man concerned about us "defaulting" on loans when he is willing to actually THREATEN seniors by withholding their social security checks?

Sure, I'm open to closing a few tax loop holes. Like tax breaks for union dues... and heck..... sure... close the corporate jet tax break too. I'm fine with that. But no matter, Washington needs to CUT SPENDING!

The Truth About Islam's Muslim Student Organization

2011-07-21T05:47:00.000-07:00

Once again we are presented with direct evidence that Islam is not just a "religion of peace" but a religion that intends to dominate the world through violence. The hell with political correctness, those of us who admire and support Western Civilization, freedom, and equal rights for all MUST recognize that Islam is not just a religion, but a theo-political government system that is as brutal and tyrannical as communism and dictatorships.

I have no problem with Muslims practicing their religion, until that practice includes classes like "how to make bomb vests" and "how to shoot infidels." We need to wake up to this threat while it still is contained and before it spreads, protected by the very freedoms that we respect, but that which they don't. Stop Islam NOW.

It's NOT An Occupied Territory!

2011-07-20T21:08:00.001-07:00

Obama Lies

2011-07-15T07:41:00.000-07:00

I found an absolutely incredible site entitled "Obama Lies" that has a complete list of fibs told by the president, as documentation proving the facts. Some of the President's "lies" could be mistakes, misinformation, and the like, but there are also some whoppers that make it clear that President Obama will literally say anything to get himself elected (or re-elected as the case may be), regardless of the truth. He knows that his statements will be on the front page, while the contradictory "truth" will be on page 3.

Measuring Progress

2011-07-15T07:32:00.001-07:00

What Does It Say About Barack Obama When He Threatens Seniors?

2011-07-15T07:30:00.001-07:00

Liberalism In Twenty Seconds is one of those video blogs that I have been listening too for a while. Here, some rather good questions are raised... and answered.

Waiting For Gaffes

2011-07-15T07:29:00.000-07:00

Klavan makes a good point here. The mainstream media don't seem to be very involved in reporting the ISSUES of the presidential debate, but rather on the gaffes one or two of the candidates are making. Great reporting. I'm so glad they're out there letting us know when Republican Female Candidates say something dumb. We just need Walter Kronkite's famous sign off: And that's the way it is.

We Don't Need A Balanced Budget Amendment! We Just Need Responsible Leaders.

2011-07-14T07:34:00.000-07:00

According to the White House, America doesn't need a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution because that's going to far. What we need is responsible leadership.

To be frank, I'm skeptical. Seriously, we're supposed to swallow that tripe? When has Washington EVER been fiscally responsible? Even during the Clinton Administration when they actually balanced the budget, the first thing Congress went and did was spend the extra! And not on reducing the national debt. Oh no... it was spent on more entitlements and pork projects!

I'm sorry Mr. Obamam, but the time of telling us it's all about will power is long past. You need the fiscal equivalent of lap band surgery.

Obama Administration Hard At Work Protecting Us From JEWS

2011-07-14T07:20:00.001-07:00

Wow. Look! The United States Government is finally getting serious about illegal immigrants...

from Israel.

I absolutely love this video. I think it's fantastic that the Obama Administration is working hard to protect us from those illegal immigrant Jews who think they can come here and take AMERICAN jobs, and use AMERICAN social services, and then wave their religion around and claim they're DISCRIMINATED against when we try to export them or tell them they can't speak Hebrew and have to learn ENGLISH! GO TEAM OBAMA!~ :D

(If you can't sense the sarcasm here, you need help!)

True Heroes Throw The Grenades BACK!

2011-07-13T09:09:00.000-07:00

Via Brian Barrett at Gizmodo.com — Sgt. 1st Class Leroy Arthur Petry is one of only two living recipients of the Medal of Honor since the Vietnam War. And how he earned it is a story that you need to hear.

Petry had holed up with his platoon in a building in Afghanistan when he and his team took on heavy insurgent gunfire. As he attempted to clear the courtyard of the building, along with Ranger Pvt. 1st Class Lucas Robinson, he encountered two hostiles peppering the area with AK-47s. Petry was hit in both thighs, Robinson in the ribcage. And though both men found modest cover in a nearby chicken coop, they continued to draw fire even when Sgt. Daniel Higgins moved to join them and inspect their wounds.

And then? Then the grenades came.

The first landed 10 meters away, exploding with enough force to knock them off balance and injure Higgins and Robinson. The next one was truer to its target, dropping just feet from the trio. In seconds, they'd all be dead. And that's when Petry, with two wounded legs, sprang into action:

"I had time to visually see the hand grenade. And I figure it's got about a four-and-half second fuse, depending on how long it has been in the elements and the weather and everything and how long the pin has been pulled. I figure if you have time to see it you have time to kick it, throw it, just get it out there."

That's when Petry picked up the grenade and threw it away from him and his buddies. As it turns out, he did have the time to save all three of their lives - but not time to save his hand.

The grenade exploded as he threw it - destroying his throwing arm.

Petry didn't realize that the grenade had gone off until he looked down at his arm, and found air and smoke where his hand used to be.

That alone would have been enough. More than, really. Except Petry was fitted with a prosthetic hand, and after a short convalescence and rehabilitation actually reenlisted with the Rangers, heading back to Afghanistan for eight more years of service to his country.

So that's how you win a Medal of Honor: being the bravest, baddest SOB in the whole entire world. [Army via The High Definite]

The President Holds Vets, Disabled, and Seniors Political Hostage

2011-07-13T02:26:00.000-07:00

As was demonstrated with this graph yesterday, there is plenty of money in the government's coffers to make sure checks go out at the beginning of August. What the president is doing now is playing political chicken with the Republicans, wondering if they will risk allowing the government to default on it's debts. To up the ante, the President has been shaking up the debt negotiations with on again off again entitlement reform offers, a three trillion dollar tax hike, and a definitive unwillingness to address the real problem: government spending. Worse, the president is using his microphone to scare the bejesus out of uninformed people: Your social security check might not get printed because I'm not sure we'll have the money. That's bullshit, but unfortunately it's working. All ready polls are showing an increasing number of Americans thinking that raising taxes will by necessity be part of the solution.

Democrats love pointing to the historical tax rates are at all time lows. Really?

Year	$10,001	$20,001	$60,001	$100,001	$250,001
1930	6%	10%	21%	25%	25%
1932	10%	16%	36%	56%	58%
1934	11%	19%	37%	56%	58%
1936	11%	19%	39%	62%	68%
1938	11%	19%	39%	62%	68%
1940	14%	28%	51%	62%	68%
1942	38%	55%	75%	85%	88%
1944	41%	59%	81%	92%	94%
1946	38%	56%	78%	89%	91%
1948	38%	56%	78%	89%	91%
1950	38%	56%	78%	89%	91%
1952	42%	62%	80%	90%	92%
1954	38%	56%	78%	89%	91%
1956	26%	38%	62%	75%	89%
1958	26%	38%	62%	75%	89%
1960	26%	38%	62%	75%	89%
1962	26%	38%	62%	75%	89%
1964	23%	34%	56%	66%	76%
1966 - 1976	22%	32%	53%	62%	70%
1980	18%	24%	54%	59%	70%

That sure doesn't look like all time lows to me, and this is just INCOME tax. You should see where we rank on Corporate Tax rates!

The entire "crisis" has been created by the Obama Administration in an attempt to stave off doing what needs to be done: cut spending. Why is that a problem for Barack Obama? Easy. The Democrat Party gets votes by promising entitlements to the poor. The promote class warfare and a socialistic view point (those evil billionaires!). Cut spending, and you hamstring their ability to buy votes.

Tell you what Mr. President. You know... you're right. We DO need to raise taxes. I'll agree to eliminating the CORPORATE JET TAX BREAK if you'll agree to eliminate the tax break on UNION DUES.

No Seriously.... I Won't Be Able to Pay Social Security!

2011-07-12T17:21:00.000-07:00

Via HotAir.com Allahpundit

See James Pethokoukis’s new graph for a response to this. There should be plenty of revenue in August to cover entitlement checks and interest on the debt if Treasury has the legal authority to prioritize payments, which isn’t as clear as one would hope. Either way, the more voter angst O can create about default — and given the movement among independents, he’s doing a fine job — the more pressure there is on the GOP to make a deal and the more protected he’ll be politically if we hit X Day on August 2 without an agreement. Which, of course, is the point of McConnell’s gimmick today: If his bill were to pass, responsibility for keeping Social Security flowing coming would shift suddenly from those darned millionaire-hugging Republicans to the debt-loving Obama administration. You are willing to unilaterally order another $2 trillion in debt right before the election in order to keep grandma’s checks coming, aren’t you, champ?

If you’re looking for the case for and against the McConnell gambit, here’s Grover Norquist giving a thumbs up and Philip Klein giving a thumbs down. Norquist’s argument is straightforward: This debt-ceiling showdown has always been about politics for Obama, so let him choke on the politics of it. Force him to finally finally finally put his spending plan in writing after he and his party have ducked the issue for months. In fact, according to Roll Call, McConnell’s only question at yesterday’s debt-ceiling meeting was to ask how much the Biden plan would save in discretionary spending next year. The answer: Two measly billion. It’s time for Democrats to get serious, says Norquist, and this will force them. Au contraire, says Klein, there are lots of ways Obama can gin up phony savings to check the “deficit hawk” box for his campaign. Besides, he argues, the McConnell plan actually weakens the GOP’s ability to reach a real deal because O will read it as a sign of panic in the caucus and will press harder for concessions. I’m not so sure about that, though: To me it looks like a sign that McConnell and others in the caucus have more or less given up on making a deal, which strengthens the GOP’s hand insofar as Obama will either need to make new concessions to get them back to the table or start thinking about a Plan B like McConnell’s plan to avert a default.

I do think Klein was spot on with this post from April, though, about how the GOP promised the base too much in terms of what it could realistically achieve while sharing power with Democrats. For all the sturm and drang about the debt-ceiling deals under consideration, to my knowledge none of them — even the “grand bargain” — would actually reduce the debt over the next 10 years. Even the best-case scenario is merely a slower rate of growth. That’s not a serious solution, or even a half-solution, to such a cataclysmic problem, and yet it’s the very best we can do with the current occupants in Congress and the White House. We’ll have to shuffle the deck next year and hope for better; all McConnell’s doing is acknowledging the bleakness of the situation and trying to maximize the odds of a more favorable hand. Exit question: Given that McConnell’s bill would force Dems to own the debt hike, why would Reid allow it to pass the Senate without changes? And if it did, would Obama sign it or veto it?

Raising Taxes?

2011-07-12T10:47:00.001-07:00

No, no, no... I meant AFTER I was reelected!

RINO's Need Not Apply

2011-07-12T10:46:00.001-07:00

A Haunted President

2011-07-11T06:22:00.001-07:00

Tim Geithner is.... Right?

2011-07-11T03:51:00.000-07:00

For once, I absolutely agree with our Tax-Cheat Treasury Secretary. Yes, things are going to be bad for a lot longer. And absolutely, it's been made worse by missing opportunities to make the country's economy stronger: like cutting federal spending, reducing the national debt, and creating a stable business environments.

If the Obama wants to increase Federal Revenue, I suggest that he start by making sure all of his political employees pay the federal taxes.

Raising The Debt, Cutting Spending, And Taxes

2011-07-11T03:45:00.000-07:00

With a 14 trillion dollar national debt and a yearly budget deficit that makes a bounced grocery check from some middle income American Family look like chump change, Barack Obama and even the GOP are playing politics with our fiscal security. Obama and the Democratic Party are trying desperately to force a tax increase through as part of any deal in which our national debt limit is raised by Congress, all the while screaming what a "calamity" it will be if we DON'T raise the national debt limit. In the latest round of WH Debt Talks, the President actually back peddled from earlier agreements and added a TRILLION dollar TAX INCREASE!

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey does a great analysis of The One's operation debt plan (called "getting re-elected")

The Sugar Daddy Has Hypoglycemia? - Ed Morrissey

2011-07-11T03:34:00.000-07:00

Margaret Thatcher distilled all the problems of central planning into this one quote*: “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.” Last night, Sarah Palin gave us a new version of the argument, saying that the sugar-daddy government — and President — has run out of sugar, and we need to cut off the supply of sucrose.

To read more of this fantastic article at HotAir.com

Navy to Cut Jobs Amid Recession-Driven Sailor Surplus

2011-07-09T17:57:00.000-07:00

Via Fox News' Justin Fishel

With more sailors staying in the military amid a slumping economic recovery, the U.S. Navy is taking the unprecedented step of firing low-ranking petty officers to help rein in spending.

The Navy plans to let go of 3,000 young sailors after economic uncertainty put the service in the unusual position of having a manpower surplus.

The move comes as a new government report shows that the unemployment rate ticked up to 9.2 percent -- marking 29 straight months that number has been over 8 percent and a record streak since the Great Depression.

In August, the Navy will convene a board to review the cases of 16,000 sailors and eliminate 3,000 positions, about 1 percent of the force. Navy officials say the jobs cuts will be based on experience and individual performance records.

It's a complete reversal for the military, which just four years ago at the height of the fighting in Iraq, had a hard time meeting its recruiting goals. At the time there was talk of the Army being spread so thin it would not have enough fighters to conduct its wars. Now with the White House aiming to cut spending and pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the need for more men has diminished.

Rep. Mike Coffman, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee and served in the Marine Corps, says it's not a good situation for those young sailors.

"There's no retirement for them and... there's no severance for them," Coffman said. "So essentially they're with so many other Americans on unemployment."

Coffman told Fox News it's not unusual for the military's retention rates to go up during bad economic times, but he called this particular case "unprecedented."

"It's never gone up to this level where so many people, the vast majority of people want to stay in the United States Navy."

The Air Force retention rates are also up to a 6-year high, causing it to convene a similar reduction-in -force board. The Air Force will review the records of more than 9,000 officers, mostly majors, and roughly 400 are expected to be let go.

Fox News military analyst and retired Maj. Gen. Bob Scales, says it all boils down to pressure on Washington to save money and simple arithmetic.

"The quickest way to reduce the budget for the military is to cut people," Scales said. "They can be pulled out of the ranks immediately and the savings are immediate. Whereas when you try to cut programs often times for new weapons systems it takes years, if not decades, to get all that money back."

The retention rate for sailors with one to six years of service rose 10 percent from 2005 to 2010. And the Navy is overstaffed in 31 different job categories: jet engine mechanics, avionics technicians, electricians.

"What we're seeing in the Navy is just the tip of iceberg for all the services," Scales said. "The Air Force and the Navy have gone down in strength over the last few years and as the troops return from Afghanistan and Iraq and as pressure mounts on the defense budget, we're going to see similar consequences for the ground services."

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced in January that as the wars come to a close in 2015 the Pentagon has plans to cut active-duty soldiers by 27,000 and reduce the Marine Corps by roughly 15,000.

In October, the Army will begin cutting its ranks by 22,000 -- and that means even more job seekers in a market with fewer and fewer good jobs.

The scary part of this story is what is not reported - and behind the scenes, and that is the accusation that the Pentagon, via orders from the White House, is ALSO targeting sailors who are nearing retirement in order to slash their benefits. Take one hypothetical case : we have one "aircraft mechanic" with six or seven years left to serve before retirement, with high quality performance and over fifteen years of experience working on jet engines. He can face "separation" or he can be "converted" to another unrelated field, providing he meets certain standards. This is tantamount to me taking an experienced electrician with years of built up knowledge, and telling him he'll lose all of his retirement and benefits unless he becomes a plumber. What the hell are they thinking? I want Washington to cut spending, but this is NOT the way to do it. And they know it too, or otherwise they'd be patting themselves on the back, pointing at the US Military and saying "see? See? We can cut too!"

Well Thank Goodness Obama's Stimulus Bill DID Do Something!

2011-07-09T17:35:00.000-07:00

For an additional amount for ‘‘State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance’’, $40,000,000, for competitive grants to provide assistance and equipment to local law enforcement along the Southern border and in High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas to combat criminal narcotics activity stemming from the Southern border, of which $10,000,000 shall be transferred to ‘‘Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Salaries and Expenses’’ for the ATF Project Gunrunner.

That's from page 16 of 407 of Obama's Stimulus Package. So now we know that if nothing else, Obama's Stimulus managed to fund... arming the Mexican Drug Cartels. Guess that project was "shovel ready".

White House Pay Freezes

2011-07-08T08:24:00.001-07:00

Well guys, we have two options. Either Obama isn't really in charge or he's a liar. Your choice. Well... I suppose he MIGHT be mistaken. Or maybe that long list of people with titles like "Deputy Director" don't qualify as "the top staff". Maybe that's it. So Mr. President, how many people are "top staff?" Four? Five?

Why Bother Passing a Budget?

2011-07-08T08:03:00.001-07:00

Whether you agree with Paul Ryan's budget plan or not, there is one incredibly important fact one should consider: Why hasn't the Democratic Party run Senate passed a budget in so long? Or even proposed one? I think Paul Ryan hit upon the answer rather succinctly: Why admit to raising taxes in order to fund entitlement programs?

More Guns, Guns, Guns!

2011-07-08T07:53:00.000-07:00

Considering all of the propaganda coming from not only Palestine but from Western news media outlets in favor of terrorists, I thought we all needed a little bit of a laugh.

Always Be Careful About Who You Give A Gun.

2011-07-08T07:42:00.001-07:00

I am going to state that I think this was faked... but gosh darn it... it was funny!

You're Entitled To Your Opinion. You Aren't Entitled To Your Own Facts

2011-07-07T06:00:00.000-07:00

Well gosh, after a short statement like this, it's hard not to be a little wide-eyed at the President's "facts", but a little research shows that the President isn't far off on his statement. Not that I'm about to go all "Let's Raise Taxes!" but if you take certain facts out of context, and twist them a little, giving them some spin, the President is right. There is no correlative connection between lowering taxes and creating jobs.

But there are a couple of other issues at stake when we try to examine the differences in opinion from the Conservative and Liberal camps. Liberals make a good argument when they state that the Bush Tax cuts for example, weren't exactly a high job growth period for America. "During the 2001 to 2007 business cycle, America's economy enjoyed 52 straight months of job growth. But it was sluggish—in fact, the slowest rate of jobs growth on record since World War II, and just one-fifth the pace of the 1990s." (Annie Lowrey - Slate.com June 2011)

But there are some other factors that we have to consider, especially when we take a look at what exactly what is going on. "To understand the real problem and its solutions, it is important to start with the basics. For a job to be created, there has to be a demand for a good or a service. When business people see the demand for their products increasing, they hire more workers to produce and sell the products. They will hire workers as long as the cost of hiring the additional worker is less than the net revenue cost of the worker" (Richard Rahn - cato.com - 2004)

Rahn goes on to state that

The tax cuts worked by reducing the existing disincentives for working, saving and investing. (The tax cuts were financed by increasing the deficit. The same amount of money as was taken from the economy by government borrowing was returned as a result of rate reduction -- but the tax cuts did improve incentives to work, save and invest.)

One reason for the slow employment growth has been the rapid growth in government spending. Some people think government spending creates jobs (the old Keynesian myth) but, in fact, government spending reduces more jobs in the private sector than it can create in the government sector.

The reason is private sector jobs tend to be more productive than government jobs, and there is a considerable cost (i.e., dead weight loss) when government extracts monies from the private sector by taxing or borrowing to pay for the government jobs. Therefore, countries with large government sectors, like France and Germany, tend to have much higher unemployment rates than countries with smaller government sectors.

Slowing the growth in government spending would speed job growth. Another major reason for the slow growth in jobs is that tax cuts are now temporary and set to expire in stages over the next few years. The president has asked Congress to make the tax cuts permanent, which is the responsible thing to do.

So yeah, sure. The President is right. Raising taxes doesn't mean that job growth will stagnate (more). It means that the government will spend and borrow more, inflation and economic uncertainty will create an uncertain business environment, people won't buy more goods and services because costs go up, and companies won't hire new employees. It's a vicious cycle.

All right, maybe raising SOME taxes might be a good idea. Do corporate jet owners STILL need their tax break so long after 9/11 (when it was created by President Bush to encourage the airline industry and then when it was renewed by the Obama Stimulus Package?) Maybe not. There are a ton of those types of tax breaks that were intended to be temporary to encourage certain things and have been lengthened into long term "tax breaks". In essence, I hate taxes and would love to get rid of them, but I understand we do need SOME revenue.

The real issue here is one that all this talk of tax cuts and tax increases is still dancing around: Federal Spending. As long as the federal government continues rampant and irresponsible spending, growing the public sector and taking away jobs from the private sector, it won't matter if we raise or cut taxes.

We'll all be broke.

Obama's Own Words

2011-07-01T08:13:00.000-07:00

This is a new advertisement via the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

I think the President is Absent Without The Leave of the American People. Well done.

A New Paradigm Of Government

2011-07-01T06:55:00.000-07:00

I just completed the HotAir.com poll for whom I prefer for the position of POTUS and I thought I'd go a step further.

It's rather a difficult field for a conservative at this moment. We need a real leader who can take on the establishment and yet win a general election. We need someone fiscally conservative, who can address the looming financial crisis we are facing. I want someone who believes in the free-market system, promoting and rewarding personal responsibility, and reworking the system so that it pays better to get a job and actually work than it does to sit on your ass and collect well fare payments. We need a candidate who understands that the Democratic Party has been hijacked by socialists and marxists, knowing that mainstream America would never accept their philosophies. We need a candidate who knows how to make tough choices.

If my world was perfect, it would be 2016 and Chris Christie would be running for POTUS. But while Christie is a lot of the things I mentioned above, he's not the staunch conservative that Congresswoman Michelle Bachman is, or former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Allen West, both freshman Republicans need additional "seasoning" on the capitol scene in order to be ready to assume the reigns.

Which leaves us with our current crop of Republican contenders, some of who haven't even announced running. Throw Sarah Palin or Rick Perry into the mix and things get much more complicated! Leading the pack is of course Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor and somewhat conservative. In a choice between him and John McCain, I would have chosen Mitt any day of the week. But right now the field is wide open.

Right behind Romney comes Michelle Bachman, whose politics I love but I question whether the Tea Party favorite can win in a general election. Herman Cain has his own appeal, wanting to simplify government and, in the words of Jon Stewart "Restore Sanity" to our governments fiscal and regulatory values. Stewart may think it funny, but in reality, Cain's no nonsense fight and drive for simplistic government is something most conservatives have wanted for a long time. In a choice between "bills must be able to fit on a piece of paper the size of a serial box" and "we have to pass it in order to know what's in it," I'll take the first one thank you.

So in "choosing" do we go with general electability or with our conservative values? Right now, I'll go with values and who is running TODAY.

President of the United States: Michelle Bachman
Vice President of the United States: Rick Perry
Secretary of State: John Bolton
Secretary of Defense: Allen West

Let Christie and Rubio continue to "percolate", because we're going to be facing a renewed Democratic Socialist Party as soon as they regroup, brainwash a few more people, and promise to give the masses all the money of the rich people.

Andrew Klavan's Misstep on Why Blacks Vote Democrat

2011-07-01T04:13:00.000-07:00

Normally, I'm a great fan of Andrew Klavan's "Klavan on the Culture", a PajamaTV webisode that brings some cultural and political clarity into our lives. It also helps that Klavan is generally funny. His "One State Solution" Video had me roaring.

But every once in a while "Klavan on the Culture" makes a misstep. Klavan's episode "Why Do Black People Vote Democrat" is one of those times. First of all, we have to ask ourselves what audience Klavan is targeting. Generally, "Klavan on the Culture" is viewed by conservatives with matching opinions, or far left wing radicals who like to make nasty comments on youTube while waiting for their next government handout. While it's impossible to actually say with confidence, I'm pretty sure that the number of Black people who watch "Klavan on the Culture" is pretty low.

So who is Andrew Klavan targeting in his "Why Do Black People Vote Democrat" episode? Well, I'm not terribly sure. Is he trying to explain WHY Black Americans vote Democrat, or is he pointing out the irony of an entire demographic group voting for a party that is historically (and currently) responsible for promoting the destruction of the Black family unit, the promoting of welfare throughout the community, and economic policies that favor handouts over private sector creation of jobs.

While Klavan's general message is correct - the Democrat Party was highly in support of racist policy and segregation, the PRESENTATION Klavan uses is at issue. His subjective descriptions to demonize certain Democrats, like Woodrow Wilson leaves those watching without a context clueless. His attempts at humor in this episode (like Lincoln inventing the 5 dollar bill or living in the Lincoln Memorial) make it harder for those unfamiliar with history to believe his OTHER statements. How does he expect Black viewers to believe him when his comments, which are intended to be funny, make him look either stupid or ignorant.

Klavan also makes a plug for Anne Coulter's new book "Demonic" in his video, which REALLY is misplaced. Seriously, we're going to link Blacks Voting for Democrats with a book entitled "Demonic"? Really?

At the end of the episode, Klavan claims to know WHY Blacks are voting for Democrats. He quotes statistics about how Blacks are fleeing from Democrat run cities where the economic landscape has been destroyed by socialist Democratic policies. He then claims that Blacks vote for Democrats in some sort of conspiracy to hurt the rest of America and then begs them to stop.

It's not quite racist, but it's close. If nothing else it's demeaning to Blacks.

Klavan has made serious videos before and they've worked well. But in this case, the topic of Why Black People Vote Democrat should have been left to some other conservative who speaks from the heart and can make a better case.

Col. Allen West Should Be Commended

2011-06-30T13:53:00.000-07:00

Tax Breaks For Corporate Jets - Those Evil Republicans!

2011-06-29T18:24:00.000-07:00

With startling clarity President Obama once again raises the specter of class warfare in a pathetic, but probably somewhat successful, attempt to convince ignorant Americans and his own clueless cheerleading corps that the evil GOP continues to provide tax breaks for corporate jets and big oil companies while ruthlessly wanting to strike at the programs that help YOUR children.

Obama forgot to mention that the tax break for corporate jets, created by George W. Bush after 9/11... was CONTINUED and SUPPORTED in HIS stimulus package.

Not only that, but the President seems to forget that the economy is in a downward spiral. The national debt is a massive chain around our productivity and that his policies have had a heavy hand in increasing that problem. Sure, he inherited a major economic mess, and we can debate about the policies that a Democratically controlled congress pushed on Freddie and Fannie, as well as Republican errors in de-regulation to an extent that allowed banks to do what they did. But be that as it may, the President's Keynesian economic concepts don't function all that well in turning around a stagnating economy. Businesses are hunkered down, waiting with baited breath and stream-lined processes, wondering if the business climate will improve as the election comes.

But what is really sad is that I see the President using ignorance of the system to prop up his failed policies. Everyone hates the rich people right? Just recently I had an argument with a friend about how businesses were showing growth and profit according to such and such research, yet the poor worker wasn't seeing a dime. Of course, the researchers didn't bother to take into account business streamlining efforts either. If I make 100,000 a year in my business, but my expenses are 75,000 I turn a 25,000 profit. But if in this economy I only pull in 85,000, but thanks to laying off a few people, maybe automating a few things, or moving to fewer locations and doing more business over the internet, my expenses are only 50,000, then while I made more profit, it doesn't mean my business is booming and I can pass that down to the workers. It means that I have to keep that extra back as collateral for my hard times, or reinvest it into my own business so that I continue streamlined operations and make sure the people still working for me keep their jobs and I remain a viable business.

My friend, who obviously feels that I don't deserve that extra 10,000 and that it should be passed down to my staff, doesn't understand how a free market system works. And Obama takes advantage of these individuals who more readily identify with a populace who is more and more approaching the same entitlement mentality as the citizens of Greece.

So when the President makes his outlandish statements about those evil Republicans... or more rightly... us evil conservatives, remember what game he is trying to play. It's not about solving problems. It's about staying in the Oval Office. Like so many other politicians, his only goal is to make things better for himself.

For More Reading:

New Obama deficit talking point: The GOP loves corporate jets or something via Hot Air by AllahPundit.

*Update: The original tax break for corporate jets was created by George W. Bush after 9/11 to help stimulate the air line industry. The Obama Stimulus Package EXTENDED, not CREATED, the corporate jet tax break. The above story was corrected to show that.

Foreign Aid: From the White House? Or The Capitol Building?

2011-05-11T16:59:00.000-07:00

The latest news to strike the foreign aid debate, especially in view of Pakistan's billion dollar tribute and their harboring of not only terrorist Bin Laden, but Taliban leadership, is Republican California Representative Rohrabacher's attempt to legislate denial of funds to continue supporting Pakistan. Before we step onto the "Republican" bandwagon to "defund" foreign aid to Pakistan, maybe we should think a moment about HOW and WHY we use "foreign aid".

Our executive branch, specifically the President, stands as the representative of America's interests across the globe. We elect him to make decisions for our country, to affect stability and protect our interests. We have given the President many tools to help make this happen. Our military is no doubt one of the best tools. We use them to fight terrorism and enemies of our nation, and to help render aid in times of natural disaster. Our armed forces are one of the most impressive means our country has of enforcing our will on petty tyrants and rogue nations.

But another tool we have given our President is money. Money can move mountains and US foreign aid dollars has done everything from building clean water systems to schools, to providing incentives to turn away from despotism and embrace democracy, to educating a populace.

All to often, we find ourselves being manipulated by rogue nations who understand that small moves on their part can influence our national opinion, resulting in our own Congress yanking the rug out from under the president. Such an example would be our presence in Lebanon during Ronald Reagan's term. We attempted militarily to support Lebanon against Syrian aggression, and then bailed as the Syrians were able to influence public opinion and undermine the President's position.

Realistically, I do find it insane that the United States spends so much on foreign aid, especially to nations such as China (to whom we owe billions of dollars) when our own national debt and yearly deficits are so large they are hardly solvable. And yet, with the American populace's growing perception of some of the inequities in the foreign aid payouts given by our President, we have pushed our CONGRESS, who technically has NO PART in handling foreign relations for our government, to act. With Presidents (and I include both Republican and Democratic ones in this statement) seeming to overreach or act irresponsibly with the foreign aid funds, our Congress is now moving to deny those funds on a case by case basis.

What really needs to happen here is for the President to make some hard choices. We need a comprehensive, simple, easy to understand policy on who gets our foreign aid, making sure that those who are truly our friends benefit, and that we are not merely paying tribute to a hostile smaller nation mouthing worthless platitudes, in order to keep the money flowing. The President needs to step up to the plate, or he might find himself and his State Department marginalized as Congress cuts the purse strings and rewrites our foreign policy from the Capitol Building.

A Galvanized Democratic Base? So what...

2011-02-26T11:09:00.000-08:00

At the DNC Winter Meeting in Washington, one "senior Democratic official told Fox [News}, 'Regardless of how Wisconsin plays out, what's clear from the display today is that Scott Walker (Wisconsin Governor) has handed us a gift. He took a deflated, fractured party coming out of 2010 and as evidenced by what we saw in this room, given us a unified, energized and motivated base.'"

Well, so what? Democrats had a unified, energized, and motivated base during the 2008 elections as well and Barack Obama barely scraped through. Obama won by only a measly 9.5 million or so votes, and that was with almost a 100% turn out of Black Voters and with a good number of conservatives staying home. Anti-Bush sentiment was still running high and independents leaned, as they usually do, to giving the "other" guy a chance.

Oh and what a chance it's been. Since Barack Obama took office the unemployment rate has stayed higher than 9%, the longest period of unemployment that high since the Great Depression. The Federal Deficit, which sucked thanks to G.W. Bush's spending, TARP, and the Iraq War, has now skyrocketed to it's highest point ever thanks to President Obama's fiscal policies. The national debt is now larger than the GDP and we're facing a health care crisis with rising costs and a shortage of medical professionals as Obamacare forces all sorts of expensive and in my opinion illegal, requirements on middle class America.

The unions, which once were necessary to keep CORPORATE America from abusing workers with unsafe conditions, draconian work schedules, and ridiculously small wages have now become political machines. Workers frequently have no choice but to join the union, their dues used for the political machinations and to line the pockets of their union bosses. Worse, the unions have demonstrated an inability to look forward, forcing government and industry to use archaic methods instead of adapting to new technology. Unions in general, in their efforts to secure every benefit, both political and economic, from government and industry, have forgotten that they are a PARTNER, and that by issuing terms and demands that are beyond the capacity of government and industry to meet they damage those entities and risk their livelihoods.

Scott Walker of Wisconsin has bravely stepped forward and asked the voters of his state who runs the government? Unions or the voters? The bill, which asks for union members to pay their fair share toward their benefits, also ends the ability of the unions to collectively bargain, thus ensuring that Union bosses can't donate campaign funds to Democrats in order to push laws that only benefit their members.

The numbers are staggering. Wisconsin's Budget debt is $137 Million. It is projected to grow to $3.6 billion by 2013. Wisconsin public employees contribute less than 1% to their pensions. Taxpayers pay the rest. A Wisconsin Public School Teachers total yearly compensation is almost $78,000 - for a 180 day school year. Wisconsin public employees contribute 6% to their health care premiums. Governor Walker's proposal has them paying 12%, still less than HALF the national average. See what the Unions have done?

Entitlements are ruining this country and the blame can be laid on our politicians who have spent the last seventy years, starting with FDR, in undermining the American spirit, creating a culture of degenerates who believe that the government (meaning the rich people who pay the taxes) owes THEM. These people are not responsible for their own health care, they are not responsible for their own financial security, or retirement. They believe they are OWED these things and are now working to maintain their capability at forcing THE PEOPLE to bow to their demands, fork over more money, and let them ride high.

A galvanized base, all chanting "gimme, gimme, gimme"? Yeah? Well, so what? The rest of America is galvanizing too.

Debit-Card Transaction Rule

2011-02-12T07:42:00.000-08:00

Recently I was browsing along another conservative website when I stumbled across and advertisement advising me of this horrible rule being considered by the Federal Reserve and Congress. In essence, during the 2010 Legislative Session, Congress added an amendment that allows the Federal Reserve to set the price per transaction for all debit card purchases. Current estimates show the Federal Reserve setting transaction fees at between 7 and 12 cents per transaction.

Currently, the electronic payment transaction agencies (like Visa and Mastercard) are charging around 1.44% of the COST of every transaction. So if you buy a gallon of milk, the transaction agency and the bank only get about four cents. But if you buy $300 worth of groceries, then they get 3 dollars. See the disparity? This money is then divided between the transaction agencies and the card issuing banks and institutions. This "fee" is charged to America's Retailers, who then are forced to raise prices in order to provide the convenience of electronic payment to their shoppers, yet still remain in business.

The advertisement I saw led me to "Don't Make Us Pay.com", a rather nebulous website that decries the evil retailers of America, accusing them of "not paying their fair share" of the costs of electronic purchase, and stating the implementation of the new rule will return (or actually save) 15 billion dollars to the retailers who will KEEP this money.

Of course, free market principles will eventually return those funds to the consumer. Someone will have the wiggle room to lower prices, thus creating competition. Lower prices means more sales. More sales means more business. More business means new employees, which means jobs.

The website, despite seemingly "pro-consumer" seems more "pro-transaction agency" and "pro-bank", and I can't help wondering who is funding their website. I checked to see who has the domain name registered and it is "Namebyproxy" a private company that registers domain names for client who don't want people to know they're associated with the website.

So in conclusion, I can't help feeling that a great big fuzzy blanket is being pulled over our eyes. I'm guessing an industry that has been very comfortable charging excessive amounts, milking consumers of 15 billion dollars a year, is now crying foul that the government is going to put a stop to it. Normally I don't jive with government regulation, but in this case, when the electronic monetary transfer system is in the control of only two major transaction agencies, I don't mind. The government makes for a decent referee. And in this case, we NEED this rule.

New Terrorist Threat Levels

2011-01-12T13:58:00.000-08:00

Via Kontraband.com

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross."

The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out.

Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose."

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels .

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia , meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is canceled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.

The Difference Between States

2011-01-03T03:01:00.000-08:00

From "Truth About Guns"

CALIFORNIA
The Governor of California is jogging with his dog along a nature trail.
A coyote jumps out bites the Governor and attacks his dog.
1. The Governor starts to intervene, but reflects upon the movie "Bambi", then realizes he should stop, the coyote is only doing what's natural.
2. He calls Animal Control. Animal Control captures the coyote and bills the state $200 for testing it for diseases and $500 for relocating it.
3. He calls a veterinarian. The vet collects the dead dog and bills the state $200 for testing it for disease.
4. The Governor goes to hospital and spends $3,500 getting checked for disease from the coyote and for getting his bite wound bandaged..
5. The running trail is shut down for 6 months, while Fish & Game conducts their $100,000 survey to make sure the area is free of dangerous animals.
6. Next, the Governor spends $50,000 in state funds, implementing a "Coyote Awareness" program for residents of the area.
7. The State Legislature spends $2 million to study how to better treat rabies and how to permanently eradicate the disease, throughout the world.
8. The Governor's security agent is fired for not somehow stopping the attack and for letting the Governor attempt to intervene.
9. Additional cost to State of California : $75,000 to hire and train a new security agent with additional special training re: The Nature of Coyotes.
10. PETA protests the coyote's relocation and files suit against the state.

ARIZONA
The Governor of Arizona is jogging, with her dog along a nature trail.
A coyote jumps out and attacks her dog.
1. The Governor shoots the coyote with her state-issued pistol and keeps jogging.
The Governor has spent $0.50 on a .45 ACP hollow-point cartridge.
2. Arizona buzzards eat the dead coyote.
And that, my friends, is why California is broke.

Lee Doren's How The World Works : Illogically

2010-11-18T04:04:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc58p044KGA

I’m a fan of Lee Doren’s “How the World Works”, a video blog that provides one man’s conservative opinion on recent news. Mr. Doren also makes fantastic rebuttal videos, taking apart factually inaccurate liberal propaganda and doing so with irrefutable logic, referenced facts, and a sort of “educational” mind set. Mr. Doren does fine work.

In one of his latest videos, posted on November 11th, 2011, Mr. Doren does his usual run through of the day’s news, along with his opinion on it. The last item he mentions is an article printed in the New York Times, written by Joseph Channing, Copy Editor at the Metro Desk of that newspaper. The article, entitled “Where Marxists Pontificate and Play” was published on November 4th, 2011 and is still available online.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/nyregion/07joint.html?_r=1

In his video, Mr. Doren posits his opinion that Marxists are worse that Nazis. It’s an interesting conclusion, especially considering that calling someone a Nazi in today’s age of “political correctness”, even if you are only tagging a small group of people, is quite out of vogue. Truth be told, I AGREE with Mr. Doren. Marxists ARE worse the Nazis. However, the paths that both Mr. Doren and I have taken to that conclusion are radically different. And I mean radical in the original sense of the word: seekers of truth.

It’s too bad that universities today rarely require their students to take courses in logic. Logic is a system of reason that allows us to explore any branch of knowledge in a coherent and explainable fashion. It allows us to define terms and support our opinions with a foundation that can not be shaken. But I can’t help feeling somewhat like a math teacher, whose student has come to the front of the classroom, presented the correct answer, but with a completely wrong proof.

Mr. Doren presents an argument, containing both premise and conclusion. Mr. Doren’s premise is that Marxists have killed more people than Nazis. His conclusion is that this fact makes Marxists “worse” that Nazis. Mr. Doren appears to be guilty of inductive fallacy. Let’s examine this bit by bit.

Stalin and Mao Zedung were Marxists. (True Premise)
Stalin and Mao Zedung killed more people than Hitler (True Premise)
Thus all Marxists are “worse” than Hitler.

The problem with this logic train is that there are many Marxists who have not killed more people than Hitler.

As Dr. Michael C. Labossiere once said:

“Premise 1: Having just arrived in Ohio, I saw a white squirrel.
Conclusion: All Ohio Squirrels are white. (While there are many, many squirrels in Ohio, the white ones are very rare).”

As you can see, Mr. Doren arrives at a conclusion that is not logically supported by the evidence.

And this isn’t where the logic problems stop. There is also the difficulty in comparing two dissimilar groups. Nazis were a Fascist political organization that rose to power in post-World War I Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, and were responsible for starting World War II, the attempted genocide of the Jewish people, and millions of foreign POW deaths. Marxists are a group of people who span cultures, governments, and nations who embrace a rather naive ideology. Nazis and Marxists are very different. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. Had Mr. Doren compared Fascism to Marxism he would have been at least comparing ideologies. Or had he said that Marxists are “worse” than Fascists, we would have avoided some of the logic faults in his argument. Or Mr. Doren could have said that Marxism enables the worst sort of people to become diabolical villainous tyrants. But instead, we have a statistical comparison between Nazis and Marxists and the number of people they have killed. Worse, in this particular case there are more examples of Marxist leaders than Nazi ones. Thus, the number of opportunities for Nazi leaders to commit atrocities like Marxist leaders is limited.

Imagine if I were to tell you that 95% of pedestrian/vehicular accidents occur at crosswalks, and then state that you are more likely to die at a crosswalk. This is patently absurd, and demonstrates that while statistics are helpful, interpreting them correctly is essential. The reason that 95% of pedestrian/vehicular accidents occur at crosswalks is because that’s where most people cross the road. Thus my conclusion: “that you are more likely to die at a crosswalk than jaywalking” is incorrect. The premise though, is true. The conclusion is false. This is what we call a deductive fallacy, and it is the same kind Mr. Doren is committing concerning his conclusion that Marxists are “worse” than Nazis.

In essence, “correlation does not imply causation.” Had Mr. Doren stated that “Marxism creates an atmosphere allowing evil and immoral people to seize power and then inflict their warped political, economic, and social views upon their citizens”, his logic train would have been irrefutable and causative. As it is, not all Marxists kill people, and not everyone who has been responsible for killing large numbers of people are Marxists.

My response to Mr. Doren’s video is not about his conclusion, but how he arrived there. Like I said before, I agree with him, but evidently for different reasons. I received a number of comments from some of Mr. Doren’s other viewers who lambasted me as if I were some sort of communist. Indeed, Mr. Doren’s own initial response to my polite objection to his deductive process was “WRONG.” I respect Mr. Doren a great deal and will continue to watch his videos because so many of his views reflect my own, however John Locke once said that “logic is the anatomy of thought”. So I urge all conservatives out there to be careful in how we construct our arguments because there are bastions of Marxists out there… waiting to kill us all.

John Cornyn Says Meet the Hand

2010-09-23T14:23:00.000-07:00

Right after I found out that the National Republican Senatorial Committee, run by Texas Senator John Cornyn was interfering in the primary election in Alaska between Joe Miller and and Lisa Murkowski, I wrote my esteemed senator and demanded an explanation. I object, quite passionately, with Cornyn's committee influencing internal primaries in order to support incumbents, especially when a wave of anti-Washington sentiment is in there air. Conservatives are not just angry with liberals and Democrats, we're angry with Republicans as well, because they promised us one thing and did the other. No longer will conservatives sit quietly on the side lines and allow the Washington insiders too control the agenda of the party. We've thrown the coffee out. Have some tea.

That said, I waited (over two weeks) for a response. Today, I finally received one via e-mail.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for contacting me about my role as Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign (NRSC). I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.

While Senate ethics guidelines preclude me from using taxpayer-funded resources to comment on NRSC activities I welcome the input of citizens who take seriously their civic responsibilities, and you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind should relevant legislation be considered by the Senate. I appreciate having the opportunity to work with you on behalf of the people of Texas. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

JOHN CORNYN

? Tax-payer resources? This isn't a reply, it's palm in the face and a snicker. My response was just a tiny bit more passionate.

Dear Senator Cornyn,

Thank you for your recent response concerning my letter about the NRSC and your interference with Republican primaries. While I am gratified you responded at all, your ethics excuse does nothing to reassure me that you are aware of WHY I objected to the NRSC's interference. You claim that you aren't allowed to use tax payer dollars to write me about it. Fine. Explain to me how EMAIL costs taxpayer dollars? Or if that is too difficult for one of your staffers too contemplate, try using some of your campaign funds, because if you DON'T write me and explain yourself and tell me you will stop interfering in primary elections, you won't have my vote next time you run for anything, despite the fact I've been pleased with your performance in Washington. I wait in breathless anticipation of hearing from you.

So we'll see what happens next, won't we?

We're In the Process of Moving!

2010-09-21T11:16:00.000-07:00

Well folks, after a stunning three months back Eyesights In Time is moving. Yep. We're shutting this sucker down and setting up elsewhere? Why you might ask? Well, it sure isn't because of Islamic terrorism. I'd like to say its because the White House sort of told us too, but that isn't quite true either. The real reason? The name. There's a bit of a conflict of interest and as far as it goes, we need to set up elsewhere.

So where do you go for your does of slightly right of center political insanity? That's simple. You need to go to

A Cup Of Spikey Joe!

You get the same brilliant political wit and wisdom that so many of you long for... and want to argue about. So come on over, pour yourself a cup, and get to know Spikey Joe!

On A Roll: Democrats

2010-09-16T07:32:00.000-07:00

Oh...my sides are hurting from all the laughter. I should quit while I'm ahead, right?

I've known some smart Democrats in my time, but lately none of them have been in public office. Have you ever seen a crop of Democrats who so totally don't understand concepts like economics, foreign policy, taxation, inflation, health care, social security, and immigration reform? Yeah. Me neither. So much for hope and change. Hopefully on November 2nd we get some "change that matters."

New Democrat Logo

2010-09-16T07:29:00.000-07:00

I know. I shouldn't have. No, really. I shouldn't have. But hey, if it wasn't me, it would have been someone else.

From Hope and Change to Change That Matters

2010-09-16T07:05:00.000-07:00

I'm trying really hard not to laugh. Lacking the patriotic symbolism of Obama's campaign logo, the new "Democrat" look has got to be the biggest disappointment since... well... since Obama took office. This is the best they could come up with? So much for "hope and change". Maybe come November 2nd we'll get some "change that matters"!

Paulding Light: Another Hypothesis

2010-09-15T21:32:00.000-07:00

Recently I watched an episode of Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files on SyFy. In the episode, half the team went to Paulding, Michigan to investigate the elusive Paulding Light, a "ghost light" of indeterminate origins that have had many people completely baffled. According to legend, a brakeman for a nearby railroad line was signaling an oncoming train to stop when he was crushed. Today, the Paudling Light is his lantern, swaying each night. According to local legend, the light has appeared since the turn of the century.

There are a lot of interesting facts concerning the case. First of all, the light appears almost every night, despite the season, which eliminates a lot of environmental factors. It can't be the northern lights, or car lights reflecting off of wet pavement, or water vapor. Additionally, the light is only visible along one particular angle of observation. Attempts to approach the light render it invisible, despite the light still being observed back along the original angle. When the Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files team went to Paulding, Michigan to investigate, a thermal image of the light showed no heat source and additional investigation ruled out radioactivity, as well as the oxidation of phosphine and methane gases, which causes a glowing light. There were no burn marks in the vicinity of where the light was observed, and subsequent tests of refracting or reflecting vehicle lights from nearby US Highway 45 were negative.

An examination of the area reveals a couple of interesting facts. First of all, the Paulding Light valley is located at 46 21 08 N 89 10 43.5 W and runs north and south between a bend in US 45. This odd bend explains why some have theorized that vehicle lights are reflecting (or pointing directly) into the valley. In fact, several people have done some rather convincing tests demonstrating that a car's headlights are in view for approximately 90 seconds southbound on US 45, which due to atmospheric conditions and additional vehicles, cause the lights to appear, dim, and brighten. There are also a variety of colors perceived. There is a great website which details the phenomenon quite well. I guess it helps to have a decent telescope with you when you view this. Why didn't Fact or Faked have a telescope? Especially one with a camera on it?

That said, the Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files crew couldn't replicate the car headlight test. Indeed, it seems that foliage growth over fifty plus years would no doubt prevent clear viewing of US 45 from the vantage point, however I still accept that this is the most likely explanation, short of going to Paulding and viewing it myself.

There is no proof however, that the light has been appearing since the turn of the century. There are no periodicals, newspapers, or magazines that mention the light until near the sixties.

While I still lean toward the car light theory, another idea presents itself. If I ever get up to Paulding I might investigate this, or if someone else wants to run with this, I'd love to hear their thoughts. Those electric lines running along the valley and up to the next hill coincide with the viewing angle that the Paulding Light appears. They are visible on every single photo and video taken of the phenomenon. Additionally, when you take into account the fact that the light isn't visible from any other vantage point (and if you decide you don't like the car theory) then there might be a more high tech possibility.

Electric lines leak. Especially high voltage electric lines. It is conceivable, that if a person was able to stand far enough away, yet visually in line with a powerful electromagnetic field, he might be able to perceive photon acceleration. While not actually a combustion event, electromagentic fields can propel single particles along great distances causing superluminous ionization fronts. Such acceleration could cause a visible flash of light, even for extended periods, but only in line with the original magnetic field. Thus, the Paulding Light would only be visible from the vantage point of the opposite hilltop. This type of geographical oddity would be quite rare, since being able to see into an electromagnetic field tunnel without being affected by it or breaking it is not a common occurrence. Photon acceleration would also explain the various color differential in the lights, the pulsing, the dimming, and why there is no thermal recognition of the light.

Like I said, I'm still in favor of car lights coming down the hill, though I can see how that could be difficult to believe. The terrain and foliage make it a little hard to believe.

When were these electric lines installed? What level of voltage runs through them? Are there high levels of electromagnetic energy leaking from them? All really good questions in our quest to explain the Paulding Light.

The Forgotten Man

2010-09-14T10:07:00.000-07:00

What has President Obama done? Visit: http://www.mcnaughtonart.com

Against the background of a darkening sky, all of the past Presidents of the United States gather before the White House, as if to commemorate some great event. In the left hand corner of the painting sits a man. That man, with his head bowed appears distraught and hopeless as he contemplates his future. Some of the past Presidents try to console him while looking in the direction of the modern Presidents as if to say, "What have you done?" Many of these modern Presidents, seemingly oblivious to anything other than themselves, appear to be congratulating each other on their great accomplishments. In front of the man, paper trash is blowing in the wind. Crumpled dollar bills, legislative documents, and, like a whisper—the U.S. Constitution beneath the foot of Barack Obama.

You Are About To Enter A Different Dimension

2010-09-14T09:58:00.001-07:00

The Obama Zone from RightChange on Vimeo.

Ten Men Go Into A Bar

2010-09-14T07:32:00.000-07:00

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost
of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

So think twice before you sit down to have a beer with President Obama. You might be the one paying for it.

H/T to WB

Tea Party Across America

2010-09-13T19:45:00.001-07:00

The Truth About Deficits

2010-09-13T15:10:00.000-07:00

From: freerepublic.com

There are a number of my liberal friends (yes, I have liberal friends... sigh) who are under the beleaguered impression that every time we've had a Republican President, the federal deficit has gone up (with the obvious exclusion of President Obama). To be honest, they are quite right, however the two facts are not causative, but correlative. Congress sets the budget and the President implements it. And today, unless you seriously jack up spending (like President Obama) over sixty percent is entitlements and not subject to budget cuts anyway. The graph above represents a fiscal reading combined with which party controlled congress at the time. The results are clear: Democrat controlled congress means a higher federal deficit. And gosh, if we roll President Barry into the mix, things look REALLY bad.

Hey Barry: Mexico Isn't One Of Our 57 States!

2010-09-13T12:33:00.001-07:00