he counted wrong

A No Jobs Bill And Occupy Wall St. Since We Don't Occupy Working

2011-10-22T20:57:00.003-04:00

Unlike most of the media I've taken my time and let things play out for awhile before taking on President Obama's no-jobs bill and the Socialize Wall St. protests. Before we get into that I'd just like to say I'm glad Gaddafi is dead but, like Egypt, maybe we should pay closer attention to whose going to be in charge now. Egypt is in many ways worse now than when Mubarak was in office and the peace with Israel he at least maintained is all but shattered. If Libya ends up following the same path then you can expect the media to do what it's done with Egypt, ignore the story. Think about it, have you heard much about Egypt since Mubarak's fall on the news? Maybe you should start wondering why. Enough about that now let's move on.

I'm going to focus on two things here. One is the bogus so called jobs bill Obama is trying to fear-monger us into passing. The other is the Occupy Wall St. protests that have broken out over the last few weeks. I'm also going to show you an example of how typically well-meaning but misinformed Liberals are falling for the misrepresentations of the protesters.

Let's start with the so called jobs bill. I'd like to start with the name and give you an example of how names can be deceiving. Just because it's called a jobs bill doesn't mean it'll do squat for jobs, just because it's a stimulus bill doesn't mean it'll stimulate anything, and just because it's a health care bill doesn't mean it'll fix problems within the health care system. The devil is always in the details and that's why the bills are so often made into difficult to understand, multi-thousand page messes sold to us under the pretext that if we don't pass it there will be all kinds of catastrophe.

What if I proposed a bill called the Care For The Homeless and End Homelessness Now Act. Sounds great doesn't it? I'd get to demonize anyone who criticized this bill as not having any compassion for the homeless and would make sure that it was some 2,000 page mess that nobody could understand. What if you found out that on page 1575, section 7, sub-section 3, line 6-Aa it said that the plan included shooting homeless people in the head and disposing of the bodies to get them off of the streets? Well, the bill would take care of the homeless wouldn't it? However, all of a sudden it doesn't look so good despite the feel good name I gave it. This is the king of scrutiny we need to start giving all of these so called jobs bills regardless of the feel good name associated with it.

President Obama is giving us the same old BS he gave us when he pushed for the stimulus bill. We'll have to fire teachers, there won't be any cops, we'll have no firefighters, more will fall into poverty, etc. Keep in mind these are the same people who called Bush a fear monger over terrorism related issues. Aren't they playing the same game with all of these catastrophic scenarios being presented regarding what will happen if we don't pass the bills they ask for? How is it any different? You may believe that Bush did this with the issue of terrorism and that's fine if it's your opinion, but doesn't Obama seem to use that tactic with everything? Whether it's health care, jobs, education, or any other aspect of our economy in general. Despite 3 years of absolute failure with regard to economics, (who saw that coming), all of a sudden you're expected to think that this magic Obama fix is just what we need.

Take Joe Bidens warning about rapes and murders increasing without the jobs bill, (talk about fear-mongering).

"Murder will continue to rise. Rape will continue to rise. All crime will continue to rise." - Joe Biden

Let's take this quote seriously for a moment because there is truth here but you have to know how to analyze it. It's true that in times of recession and depression crime increases. It's natural to understand that as people become more hopeless and desperate many turn to crime. You've probably heard the story of famous robbers Bonnie and Clyde who robbed banks during the depression and were eventually gunned down by police in May of 1934.

During the early years of the Great Depression after the crash of 1929 the banks were in trouble as you'd probably expect. If a bank was robbed in the early 1930's it pretty much meant the collapse of the bank. Protection from bank failure gave rise to the FDIC in the wake of such problems. The FDIC didn't really take effect until after the robberies of Bonnie and Clyde and because of that banks that got robbed were pretty much screwed at the time. As a result so too were the people whose money was invested in that bank. Perhaps the Wall Street protesters who aren't full blown Socialists and Communists might want to remember that in the wake of their calls to collapse the system.

Now back to Biden's comments. If you want to deter crime it's no surprise that having a capable police force is important. An even bigger deterrent though is stability within ones own life. If you have a job, can pay you're bills, and live at least a somewhat comfortable middle class-esque life then the chances of you turning to crime are fairly low.

This is important because it shows that jobs are a good deterrent to crime as is a healthy economy. This again must make you wonder why Obama has spent the last 3 years only pretending to care about jobs and he's proving that by trying to sell this new jobs bill exactly as he tried to sell the last one called stimulus.

The truth of the matter though is that President Obama has absolutely no interest in creating jobs and he never did. His supporters will of course call me crazy for insisting that and say I'm wrong so I'll have to go a bit more into detail than that. That leads us to the protesters involved in Occupy Wall St.

Obama hates capitalism, that much is pretty obvious. The problem is that when the economy is good it's hard to get people to rise up against it. This is why, despite the clear signs of looming recession from the day Obama took office he's made few, if any, historically right moves on turning this recession around. From bailouts, started by Bush, then massively continued by Obama, to focusing on health care, to emphasizing spending money rather than making money. Almost every move Obama has made has been designed to prolong the recession rather than reversing it. The question is why?

Occupy Wall St. is why. We hear the cries about how capitalism has failed but the truth is that America hasn't acted capitalist in quite some time. Capitalist countries don't bail out bad business. Capitalist countries don't focus on growing government employment rather than private sector employment. After all, the government doesn't have money, it only takes and spends money. Every government paycheck comes from money taken out of private sector paychecks.

Obama needed people to believe capitalism is a failure and that explains most of his economic actions since taking office despite the obvious proof that it's condemned more people to poverty and government dependence than ever before. The fact that more people rely on food stamps than ever before throughout the history of the program is a good example of this.

I'd like to show you something. It's a debate I had with a friend of mine who is a die-hard liberal and supports the protests. I've edited only bits and pieces for the sake of privacy etc. but this is very telling about how misguided some people have become.

"The cops have been attacking these people clubbing them and if you haven't noticed they have been peaceful from the very start what they are doing represents how a free society functions and its directly related to our constitution. When the government infringes upon individual rights it is the right of the people to alter and abolish it. The fact that right wing media like fox news is attacking this so much while supporting the tea party is so revealing of corporate dominance in our society and is a reminder why this has become so big because we're sick and tired of the nonsense.

This isn't collapsing America, America has been collapsing since ever since Reagan granted corporations with the rights of people literally taking the rights from people and giving them to business instead to ensure that the private sector is protected and the hell with everyone (including you) who makes it all possible. This is about what America has turned into in the last 30 years and America has been collapsing because government has been owned by people like Soros and Sachs so this isn't about collapsing America its about saving it you think its just some stupid radical stoner movement no these are people of all walks of life with genuine concern and its true patriotism these people care about the country, they care about the citizens and they want to put an end to the political gangsterism and these are things you care about too, Ive heard you mention all these things lobbyists, bonus' for executives and for the (*name edited out) while regular workers wages stagnate and yet your so brainwashed by business propaganda like from (*name edited) that you shoot yourself in the foot your against the general population and support a tiny fraction of the population of which you will most likely never be a part of.

Makes no sense Brandon, you gotta re read your history and from the point of view other than those who have unlimited wealth and power over you. These movements aren't about destroying all of wallstreet or doing away with capitalism completely its about enabling the decision making process to be of the people. Isn't that what a free society is supposed to be;of the people by the people and for the people, you know that's not what it currently is and if that's what you really think than that's just silly of you.

If you knew your history you would know whats happened to our politics in the last 30 years is exactly what Thomas Jefferson warned about and is in fact his worst nightmare that has come true. I'm absolutely thrilled that this is happening I hoped that it would happen within my lifetime and now its happening just within weeks and globally.. amazing. Its reminiscent of the movements in the 60 in which our culture was significantly civilized and improved thanks to activists. If you disagree with that then you admittedly taking sides with the racists who opposed civil rights, you take sides with the chauvinism that opposed feminism, the greed that opposed better working conditions for workers and so on.

By opposing this movement which is similar you are siding with the very same fascists that opposed the cultural revolution of the 60s and if so you certainly should never try and champion someone like Martin Luther King because that would be completely hypocritical this is Martin Luther Kings struggle his dream never came true but it could now. I would hope that people would want to tell their children someday that they were on the side of those who made America a more free society."

These are the kinds of debates I get into with Liberals all the time and I'd like to point out that this is a friend of mine whom I actually get along with very well. We just obviously see the world through very different ideological lenses. The truth is that there are many on the left who see things very similarly, but they are being used by those with much more nefarious purposes. The radicals are using people who think in this way to achieve an agenda far more dangerous to America than most realize. He went on to say that he meant Paulson, not Soros. He also added:

"Oh yeah I forgot .. a couple days ago a cop drove into a guy with a motorbike.. I just think its incredible that (name edited) and others are making these people out to be savages while the police are being unnecessarily brutal and theres no outrage about that."

I began my reply with this.

"Actually soros is more accurate, George Soros made over 7 billion dollars last year, why aren't they protesting him? Because he funds much of these movements. He's also using his hedge funds to try and collapse the system which will leave him rich and the rest of us poor. GE paid no taxes under Obama, why aren't they protesting GE?"

And ended with this: (*I left out only some of the beginning again because of names):

"Van Jones and others behind this movement openly talk about hating the cops and supported cop killers back in the 60's as they do now, remember the compassion for Tookie Williams? Of course not. What's happening is the protesters are antagonizing the cops, unlike the tea parties, and forcing a reaction from the cops. Then the edited video of only the cops actions are filmed and spread over the Internet in order to gain undeserved sympathy for the rowdy protesters. The Constitution grants the freedom to peaceful protests. Pay attention to the capital letters here.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1 - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You have the right to peacefully assemble, but you don't have the right to turn parks into sewers, (which is true of the wall st protests), you don't have the right to disrupt non-protesters right to live in peace, which is true of anyone who lives there. You don't have the right to antagonize police and block roads etc because the Constitution itself notes that protests must be peaceable. Protests like the Wall St. ones turn into riots because of those who don't understand that the right to protest also includes the need to maintain order and peace and that responsibility falls on the protester, when they fail in that responsibility then it is the responsibility of the cops to maintain order, don't forget that. The police are being set up by those in this protest who aren't peaceful and people like you are falling for it.

You say that America started collapsing when Reagan blah blah but this is again and as usual false. Corporate lobbying is where corporations really started controlling individual politicians and therefore began getting favor within the law and that's true of both sides. Do you know when Lobbying started? Probably not so I'll tell you, it was under Liberal hero FDR in the 30's and FDR started using certain aspects of the new deal government bureaus to benefit political allies. This was done using things like the WPA to benefit unions. The problem is that you don't learn things like that in school anymore because you're too busy learning falsehoods about big bad evil Reagan.

Your thoughts about corporate political gangsterism aren't unfounded but the problem rests in what you support not what I support. The problem is that you believe that all businesses are bad and that everyone on wall st is bad, or that nobody who created something and became rich deserves to keep their money. Logically that argument can't be true. There are workers on wall st, many in fact, that aren't corrupt. There are many businesses that aren't corrupt, you are condemning many who aren't guilty for the actions of a few, how is that liberal? What about due process, do liberals no longer believe in the right to a fair trial?

If you believe a business is bad or a Wall St. investor is guilty of something then why aren't there trials. Why haven't people like you who want the rich to "pay their fair share" called for an investigation into GE by Obama for paying nothing in taxes this year? There is video of actual antisemitic rhetoric against jews from the wall st protesters, where's the outrage from the left?

The tea parties were called racist by folks like you even thought there was absolutely no video evidence to back it up. (*name edited), like it or not, has actually showed racism in the wall st protests and yet you proudly support the movement. Let's say that there was a racist at the tea parties, why was it ok for the left to condemn the entire movement as a racist movement, like Janine Gerofolo did, because of the unproven actions of the few. Under that rational wouldn't I be justified in calling everyone in this protest a racist because of the actual racist video I've seen. If not, then Liberals are hypocrites, if yes then they are racist, you can decide.

You think that collapsing capitalism will return power to the people. How can you honestly believe that? You are promoting giving all of the power to left wing politicians. Do you honestly think that giving all of the power you say corporations have to a handful of politicians will be better. You say that I support those who have all of this power over me but again this isn't true. Corporations don't control me but why is it that I'm calling for letting bad businesses fail and it's the left that was supporting bailing them out. No Liberal, including you, have been able to answer that. I say let bad businesses fail and good businesses will pick up the slack, you support bailing them out and keeping them closely tied to political favors through those who bailed them out. I'm not on the side of corporate corruption, you are.

You're also right about it being reminiscent of the 60's because it's many of the same radicals behind the movement that were calling for communism in the 60's like Francis Fox Piven, Van Jones, and Cornel West. They are perverting the message of Martin Luther King and it's sad that you're falling for that. I set the message straight about Martin Luther King but apparently you need a refresher. Martin Luther King wanted people to be given an equal chance, not equal possessions. Taking from someone who has actually honestly earned everything they have, like Bill Gates, and giving it to people who've done nothing but think they expect it isn't a message of equal opportunity, it's a message of oppression. Half of the country pay no income tax and the rich pay most of it. That's a fact ignored by those on your side laughably calling for equality.

At the same time it's the left wing socialist policies of Obama that have pushed millions more into poverty, as always happens with socialism if you'd actually study accurate history. Twist facts all you want if it makes you feel better but the facts are undebatable. Under Ronald Reagan millions came out of poverty and under Obama millions have fallen into it.

Have you heard about Florida's drug testing? The left was against this as well. Florida passed a law that says if you want to get welfare etc. you have to pass drug tests. I hope you think this makes sense as I do. Why should we pay for druggies to live for free thus giving them more money for drugs? HALF OF THE PEOPLE REFUSED TO SHOW UP FOR THE DRUG TESTS AND WELFARE THEREFORE WAS REDUCED BY HALF. This further proves something Conservatives have been saying forever to be true.

Liberals always claim to support civil rights, who opposed the rights of women to vote? Liberal Woodrow Wilson, Republican Theodore Roosevelt supported them. Who opposed the civil rights act of 1957 that would have given rights to blacks before the movement of Martin Luther King? Liberal LBJ who filibustered it in the Senate even though that history is ignored and he's instead given a pass because of the civil rights act of 1964.

Who supported the Nazi movement in the 20's? College campuses and other liberal groups including socialist and racist groups like unions and the KKK, (also started by Democrats by the way).

Who supported the oppressive Ayatollah Khomeni in the Iranian revolution of 1979 leading the the oppressive regime currently in power there? Socialist and Communist groups, which is why the regime currently supports this wall st protest because they also want to collapse America. The Nazi's in Egypt support occupy Wall St. The communist Chinese support occupy wall st, Vladimir Putin of Russia supports occupy wall st, the Iranian regime supports occupy wall st. That's all the evidence I need not to. Be a useful pawn with your refusal to face the facts if you insist but you're right that one day we will have to explain to our children where we stood and why. I'll know where I stood and why. I'll be proud of my answer and show them where I stood. Are you really sure you'll be able to say the same?

Fun as always."

For the record, my figure about half in Florida failed to show up is incorrect, however, it was 1,600 out of about 8,600, which is still a very good reason to support the drug testing for welfare.

As for other facts, Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1912 and again in 1916, women didn't receive the right to vote until 1920.

As far as the Civil Rights Act of 1957, you may not even know such a thing existed but you should read this. Especially this part:

The Democratic Senate leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, which was at the time made up of anti-civil rights and pro-civil rights members. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee led by Senator James Eastland, an anti-civil rights senator from Mississippi. Eastland changed and altered the bill almost beyond recognition after the very public outburst by Senator Richard Russell from Georgia who claimed that it was an example of the Federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from the civil rights advocates for passing the bill while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for "killing the bill.

Funny what you can learn when you study accurate history, huh?

Pro Nazi rallies in the U.S. in the 30's?!! Yes. Remember, Hitler himself called the Nazi Party the "National Socialist" they were socialists, not conservatives, take that historians.

As for some of the others:

Here's some good old fashioned Nazi support for Occupy Wall St. Check it out.

"It has been pointed out to me that many protesters are non-white and/or “communists.” Well my answer to that is: “WHO CARES?!” They are against the same evil, corrupted, degenerate capitalist elitists that WE are against! Instead of screaming, “6 million more!” The pro-white movementites should be JOINING this Occupy movement and supporting it!"

What about China? Here.

"When Occupy Wall Street first happened, the Chinese government perceived this movement as a big victory for communism over capitalism," said Wen Yunchao, a prominent Chinese blogger based in Hong Kong

Russia also likes the Occupy Wall St movement because it helps make Communism appear to be a more mainstream ideology. Good job protestors.

Then we, of course, have Iran. The Ayatollah Khomeni supports Occupy Wall St. because it symbolizes bringing down the U.S. even if many mainstream Liberals deny that to be true.

I suppose I've said enough. Feel free to look up the racist comments from the protests on youtube if you want and remember what was said about the tea party movement. At least Nancy Pelosi isn't crying anymore. Of course she cried claiming there was violence when there wasn't any. Now there actually is violence and she's cool with it.

Believe me if you want but I've said enough. Line up with the sheeple and ignore the truth if it makes you feel better. I've done my part to show the truth, it's up to you to accept it. Watch out though, word on the street is that I'm a dangerous right winger. If the weapon you fear is the truth then I'm glad to be criticized by those who don't even realize how dangerous what they are trying to accomplish truly is. Thanks for sticking around until the end, see you next time.

Another Debate

2011-10-21T16:30:00.000-04:00

Mitt Romney and Rick Perry suck and Republicans would be fools to listen to the media and nominate either one of these sucky candidates. Now that you're paying attention let's get into the first issue on the agenda today, the last debate for the Republicans on October 18 in Nevada.

Of course as usual a good chunk of the debate focused on attacking Herman Cain's "9-9-9" tax plan. The reasons for this is obvious, it's simple and whether or not you support the plan one thing that's obvious is that most people understand it because of it's simplicity. Understanding the plan is one of the biggest reasons why it's so supported. After all, do you really understand Romney's 59 point plan or the tens of thousands of pages that currently make up our existing tax code?

Also, as usual Mitt Romney took a good deal of heat regarding his support of Romneycare in Massachusetts. Romney pointed out a statistic that I think most people are misunderstanding the significance of. Romney stated, "3 to 1 in Mass like the plan". Now, why is that significant? First of all I don't believe that's accurate but if it is then we can't forget that Mass is also nearly 3 to 1 Democrat to Republican. Congratulations Mitt, Democrats in Massachusetts love the big government plan you enacted here. The 3 to 1 statistic you champion should be a red flag to Republicans that you shouldn't be the nominee for the party. We'll see if Republicans realize that in the end, the recent rise of Herman Cain gives a glimmer of hope that Republicans are paying attention to who seems like the better candidate as opposed to who looks the most presidential.

Gingrich also nailed Romney with some facts about his big government plan here in Mass but Romney then hit back with Newt and the Heritage foundation's previous support of mandates during the Hillarycare debate back in the 90's. While it's no surprise at this point that Newt and Herman Cain are the dream ticket for me personally that criticism deserves to be looked at. However, one thing I find fascinating about criticism of Newt Gingrich is that it all stems from things that happened over 10 years ago.

All of Newt's actions in the last 10 years and throughout most of his lengthy career are positive and his knowledge and debate skill stands second to none. Sarah Palin after the debate also stated that she'd like to see Newt get the nomination because of how embarrassing for Obama a debate would be. It's also worth mentioning that Newt has challenged Obama to the "Lincoln-Douglas standard" of seven, 3 hour debates with no moderator. Obama would be a fool to accept that challenge as Newt would destroy Obama with history and facts but unfortunately he may not have to because Newt faces such an uphill climb in the run for the nomination. One positive thing though is Herman Cain's rise. Herman Cain said in a previous debate as a hypothetical that Newt would be his pick for vice so if Herman Cain manages to secure the nomination against the mainstream media's wishes then the ticket I support could also become a reality and we can say bye bye Biden and Obama. I'd just like to repeat that Perry and Romney suck.

Speaking of Perry let's focus on him for a second. His presidential prospects are all but over because of his immigration stances. To be fair most presidents suck when it comes to securing the border because they are so afraid of backlash within the Latino vote. In fact, I used to have a Bush/Cheney '04 sticker on my bumper until a speech where Bush pretty much stated that he'd do nothing about the border and immigration. Newsmax magazine reported a few years back that Bush's "virtual fence" of sensors etc. was all but a complete failure and that's what Perry seems to be pushing for more of. The problem is getting more dangerous as the various gangs and even terrorist organizations now realize that planes aren't our weakness, our political correctness and failures on our own border are.

On immigration Rick Perry claimed that a fence was impossible because it would take, "10 - 15 years and 30 billion dollars". Of all people it was then Michelle Bachmann who pointed out that benefits, incarceration, etc. for illegals currently cost much more than that. That was one aspect of why Perry called for more technology but as I said before so far that hasn't worked.

Here's another point about immigration and while it hits Perry more than most other candidates the point you are about to read you've probably never seen before. Think of this since the politicians from both sides won't get you to.

We've been told for years that we need illegals here to do the jobs Americans won't do, right? If that's the case then why do we push so hard for educating illegals and giving them breaks on getting into college, as Perry has done in Texas with in-state tuition? Wouldn't giving illegals a college education then qualify them for the jobs Americans would do? Think about that one and good luck ever getting a politician who supports illegal immigration, (or is soft on it), to answer that question.

There was a question asked about "anchor babies" and the 14th amendment of the Constitutions:

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14 - section 1:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Herman Cain and Rick Perry deflected the answers to this question and began talking about jobs instead. Here's the answer that should be given and that I would give, politicians are too afraid to say this.

The 14th amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868. At that time, there was no food stamps, no medicaid, no welfare, no in-state tuition. Anchor babies are a problem in this country. The 14th amendment was never intended to draw illegals to get pregnant and run across the border to have a baby, (not to mention that all hospital care related to that birth will be paid for by taxpayers), just so that baby can be a U.S. citizen and you can then stay and collect benefits. This should stop and we wouldn't have to repeal the entire 14th amendment just propose a simple new amendment to change only the first sentence of the 14th amendment to this:

"All persons born to United States citizens or naturalized citizens in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Of course, this will never be done or even proposed but it'd be interesting to see the amount of support it would gain. That said my thoughts of the candidates haven't changed due to this recent debate.

Romney and Perry still suck and can't be trusted to maintain a Conservative message and policies.

Santorum is pretty good on social issues but unelectable and likely not good enough in debates to really take Obama to the cleaners. Also his refusal to take a serious look at cuts we could do within the military that would eliminate waste and not harm national security doesn't match reality.

Ron Paul's foreign policy views, while much of it does face reality, his support of cutting aid to Israel and other true allies and isolationist foreign policy make him typically unelectable within the Republican Party.

John Huntsman jr. and Gary Johnson....wait, who? Yeah, exactly, forget about them.

Michelle Bachmann is a fantastic congresswoman and is very likable among Conservatives but I'm sorry she lacks the experience and knowledge to be president, (It's nothing personal but it's the truth).

Herman Cain is great and the only reason that I'd rather see him as vice president instead of president is because of his lack of foreign policy experience. That could be learned throughout a term or two as VP thus making him ready for the top slot after serving as VP.

Newt Gingrich is clearly my pick for President. His knowledge of history and foreign policy issues are the only reason I'd prefer him to Cain at the top of the ticket. Republicans should wake up and make Gingrich/Cain the ticket. This would not only make the defeat of Obama and Biden, (you know a debate between Cain and Biden would be fun to watch but Cain would have to put some emphasis on researching foreign policy issues more), all but certain but the debate between Gingrich and Obama would show just how ignorant Obama truly is about damn near everything.

I was going to add my thoughts about the Obama non-jobs spending bill and the occupy Wall St. socialist protests but because of length and switching issues I've instead to turn those into another blog post that will be up shortly. No later than tomorrow.

The Hope To Change...Ourselves

2011-09-26T16:58:00.001-04:00

So over the last few weeks I've been watching the stories of the day and sometimes it's difficult to come up with where I want to begin. I feel I'd be wasting your time if I just took the headlines of the day and threw them up here regularly with a touch of commentary and called it a blog. I try to make it a little more interesting since if you bother to read blogs such as this you probably already know most of the headlines of the day to some degree.

I will cover some of the important issues of the day throughout this blog but that's really not what this is about today. It seems we can't get away from the same old games when it comes to politics. One the one hand it's pretty much expected that most politicians are going to let us down but on the other hand we always head into election day thinking, (hoping is probably a better word to use), that the candidates will deliver on the promises they make.

The problem is seems for each of us is that rather than accept that a candidate we've believed in before is incapable of delivering on empty promises we want to play the blame game. It's easier to play the blame game than it is to admit being wrong. For several years we saw this with President Bush and it's our current situation with many who want to still believe in Obama.

Let's take some of the issues facing black Americans today, (I don't use hyphenated terms when discussing Americans like African-American, it's not to offend it's to point out that we're Americans end of story, you're an American who is black just as I'm an American who is white, I'm not a Caucasian-American, if any of that offends you....tough, because you're unreasonable). On the one hand it's easy to understand the faith black Americans have in President Obama, can you blame them?

I'm not going to go in depth on the history here because I've covered that before and if you want to take the time to read my previous thoughts on this feel free to, (warning: it's not a quick read so grab some coffee). I will say this though, what if the tables were turned on race? What if every previous president in American history was black and the civil rights movements or MLK jr., (who would be white in this hypothetical), were because of segregation and oppression against whites. Wouldn't most whites, (who would be a minority in this scenario), give a pass to many failures of our first white president out of pride?

Looking at the situation under those circumstances I can understand why so many minorities are willing to give a pass and make excuses for President Obama's failings. Take a look at this and let me highlight a few things. The first thing I'd like to point out is the fact that this article is from September 15, 2008 when President Bush was still in office. Keep that in mind as you read it.

"Young Black adults and recent college graduates (25 to 29-year-olds) are finding it difficult to find work. Their unemployment has risen from 5.1 percent in August 2007 to 6.9 percent last month"

"Perhaps for reasons of race or systemic economic justice, Democratic and Republican presidents have made the real unemployment statistics almost impossible to find in the media"

So in other words "perhaps" both Republican and Democratic presidents are somewhat racist and the media is helping them. Give credit for the willingness to hit both sides here but remember that President Obama has made things worse and the media is still helping hide the real statistics yet he's largely given a pass. We'll get more into that later but let's keep analyzing this story for now.

"People are rightfully suspicious of what the media now tries to pass off as “official” jobless statistic."

Do you understand now? Nothing has changed here this quote is 100% accurate in the current context. In 2008 under Bush it was fine, yet now the very same truth is treated like propaganda against Obama, funny isn't it?

"What makes the object — or the true jobless rate — so important is that it affects the social fabric of the African-American community.

A high unemployment rate can determine the quality of family life and education, crime, housing, how long people lives, how sick they are and many other vital factors."

I highlighted certain words here for a reason. If high unemployment is bad for all of these things, (and I agree that it is), then why was health care and bailouts the #1 priority of President Obama? It seems that had his priority been real job creation, (which he doesn't understand), then it would help with many of the problems within the black community.

"These social ills require special programs ranging from Food Stamps, AID to Dependent Children, unemployment compensation, housing support, energy assistance and Medicaid"

Record number of Americans now on food stamps, housing crisis, 3 years of unemployment. The vast expansion of these programs are directly tied to the lack of jobs. We need to reform these programs to eliminate fraud while at the same time follow smart economic policies that will have the effect of reducing the dependence on these programs. When both of these things happen it's good for everybody but if you say you want to reform these very programs your labeled as lacking compassion, or worse. I contest that it's not compassionate to put ideology ahead of logic thus condemning people to depend on these programs as a way of life, especially within the minority community.

"In the 1950s, the federal, state and local governments paid $23.5 billion for these program. By 1990, the cost for these programs hit $1 trillion — no small sum by any measure."

Look at that from this perspective. Between 1950 and 1990 we faced wars, recessions, political corruption, economic booms and busts, just like now and look how large the cost of these programs have grown. On our current course, how much do you think it will cost by 2030? Reforming these programs aren't just a matter of smart policy, they are a matter of our very survival as a nation.

"Some economists argue that the national Black jobless rate or employment-population ratio (the proportion of the working age population with a job) for African Americans is 42 percent of all those of working age. The translation: Almost half of all African Americans who can work aren’t working."

Remember, this is 2008, we aren't even talking about our current situation, which is worse.

"The social consequences of such a high unemployment rate are astounding. Policymakers and social science contend that they have resulted in overcrowded jails, failing schools, deteriorating housing and a broken health care system."

President Obama talks about all of these problems as most politicians do, yet he continues to follow failed policies in terms of job creation and reducing unemployment even though high unemployment is directly tied to many of these problems in the first place.

"since 1960 both Democratic and Republican presidents have rigged the numbers and the media has played along"

So much for change huh?

"He says even the Clinton administration, which was widely praised for its policies toward African Americans, helped push the real statistical realities of Blacks under the carpet.

According to him, the Clinton administration redefined the workforce as people seeking work for less than a year, so that those who were out of the job market for more than a year were not counted in the unemployment statistic.

The Clinton administration also thinned the household economic sampling from 60,000 to 50,000 by dropping mostly inner city households, resulting in a count that reduced Black unemployment and poverty levels."

So, simply put, Clinton lied, what a shock, but at least he didn't have sexual relations with that woman Ms. Lewinsky, right? Never mind, let's get back on track and look at today.

Let's analyze a more current story to see just how much of a hero President Obama has truly been for the poor and minorities since enacting his progressive platform of deception. Read this from August 17, 2011. Just 9 days ago.

"The poverty rate is 14.3%, the highest since the mid-1990s. A record 45.8 million people receive food stamps"

Think about that statistic for a second. How is this possible after nearly 3 years of President Obama, 2 of which the Democrats also controlled the entire congress? If you know about the past then this really wouldn't come as a surprise. This always happens when the government strays from the Constitution and becomes entrenched in issues it shouldn't be involved with. Big-government socialist policies always lead to massive increases in poverty and government dependence and that never works out well for those most vulnerable, the poor and minorities.

"There’s no major Washington lobby for the poor"

That right there is key. President Obama is currently out on the west coast going to expensive dinner fundraisers and trying to rally voters. All politicians and presidents especially do this so I'm not criticizing him for it. The point is that while there's no lobby for the poor, the poor also aren't where the major campaign cash comes from, hence no lobbyists.

"Earlier this year, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, released a study questioning the plight of the nearly 44 million Americans whom the Census Bureau categorizes as impoverished, but also own appliances such as air conditioners and TVs."

Not to mention homes, (even though many have fallen into foreclosure due to the housing market crash), cars (where the cost of gas hurts), and cell phones (which amazingly also has a government subsidy program now. That's great now people can become dependant on the government for their phones also).

Speaking of the cost of gas. Do you remember in 2004 when President Bush was being hammered for gas reaching over $2.00/gallon? While it's true that during Bush term 2 gas peaked at over $4.00/gallon, we now seem to accept the "new normal" as gas is averaging about $3.50/gallon and rather than hear complaints all over the place I actually heard more praise for the fact that gas had come down 12 cents. Don't high gas prices also disproportionately hurt poor people? Where's the outrage?

"At a Decorah, Iowa, town hall meeting on Monday, President Obama repeated his argument that “a rising tide does lift all boats” – in other words, economic policies that aim to benefit all Americans are sufficient"

The rising tide lifting all boats quote is actually a JFK quote originally and the only problem here is that JFK and modern Democrats, like Obama, have completely different views of taxes. Most Democrats fail to mention that.

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is between two kinds of deficits, a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, produce revenues, and achieve a future budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness, the second reflects an investment in the future" - JFK

You see, the rising tide lifting all ships was a reference to how low taxes and a booming economy are good for everybody, especially the poor. The only problem is that after JFK was assassinated it fell to racist liberal LBJ to actually pass the tax cut. He did so, but coupled it with his massive government social engineering expansion often referred to as the "great society". The massive expansion of government led to a massive increase in government spending and diminished the gains of the JFK tax cuts, (which adjusted for inflation were actually larger than President Bush's). Isn't history fun? It's a shame that while President Obama like to use quick quotes of JFK he refuses to look at his economic policies when it relates to taxes as he travels the country calling for tax increases rather than spending reduction.

"But Smiley and West say the Obama administration has ignored the plight of blacks and the poor while focusing heavily on business interests."

Remember, as I said before, poor people don't raise a lot of campaign cash for either party, "business interests" do. That's the key. Much of the insight here is very telling as we always see progressive liberal politicians run on the platform of caring about the poor and attacking conservatives like myself for not having any compassion for the poor. Yet when they get into office the plight of the poor seems to increase under their policies while folks like me still get criticized for lacking compassion.

"In the 1990s, Smiley criticized President Bill Clinton for toughening penalties for crack-cocaine possession."

How dare President Clinton toughen penalties for crackheads, where's his compassion? Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

"Blacks still have deep affection for Obama. In a recent Washington Post poll, 86% of blacks approved of Obama’s job performance. But just 54% approved of his economic policies in the Post poll, down from 77% last fall"

Remember earlier when I talked about how I can understand why the black community wants the first black president to succeed to the point where he'll be largely given a pass on his failures? This proves that to be true. He's down to a 54% approval with black Americans on his handling of the economy yet still enjoys a 86% approval in his job performance. My point being correct is the only explanation as to how this is possible.

Earlier I stated how this post is really about you and that's what I'll get into now. I recently explained how Obama deserves to be re-elected if a majority of Americans fall for his rhetoric rather than looking at his results. Washington and the politicians can't fix our country, only we can.

We need to stop looking at every damn issue as being about black and white, or left and right. Everything comes back to a fight between Democrats and Republicans. It's the same fight over the same issues every single election and it blinds us from being objective.

We are the key to saving our own future. If we don't engage in educating our kids, teaching them about the importance of a strong work ethic, and respect for other people, then how can we expect them to grow up with anything less than an attitude of greedy expectancy?

If we can't be honest, then we can't be saved. I understand why so many people aren't engaged and are therefore more easily duped by the routine promises of the political elite. As Americans we have the Constitution to remind us that we have to have a natural distrust of politicians as they will always be inclined to abuse power if we give it to them. You see this with things like the EPA.

When a politician proves to be incapable of improving our country then we have a responsibility to hold them accountable. The problem is that far too many of us refuse to hold them accountable because we don't want to feel like traitors by voting for a Democrat if we're a Republican or voting Republican if we're a Democrat.

Many minorities feel the same way about President Obama. Electing America's first black president is quite an accomplishment. However, now many minorities feel as if they are traitors if they don't support him. Turning so much of our political discussions into arguments about class warfare or racial bias blinds us from discussing what's really important. A future of freedom and success for our children.

Look, I'd rather be playing Gears of War 3 on my XBOX than spending hours researching and engaging in politics but I have a responsibility to try and help ensure that my children have a chance to live in freedom as I have. The more we ignore the wrong steps taken by our politicians and the more power we give to the elite political class under the pretext of taking care of us then the more we deny that freedom to the next generation. Which we all claim to care about regardless of party or class.

Let's be honest with ourselves first and foremost since most of the politicians aren't going to be. Let's get it right and correct the One Big Ass Mistake America (OBAMA). He had his chance and he failed. There's no shame in that, many have failed in the past and most politicians have failed to deliver on campaign promises. The presidency isn't an easy job, but when a president proves he isn't up to the task we have an obligation to not overlook bad policies for the sake of saving a political party, saving the future for our children is more important.

Gingrich/Cain 2012!....or Cain/Gingrich 2012! Doesn't matter to me. Think about it. See you next time, thanks for reading.

The Return Of Candidate Obama

2011-09-09T16:52:00.014-04:00

As we get ready to remember and reflect on the 9/11 attacks 10 years later it's interesting to see and be reminded of who candidate Obama was back in 2008. It's hard to believe that it's been 10 years since that tragic day. For today, I'm going to address the jobs speech and perhaps set a context up as to why, perhaps, Obama does deserve to be re-elected. I'm sure those words shock many coming from me but keep that point in mind. By the end of this story you'll understand what I mean. Let's start with the jobs speech.

One thing I've never denied President Obama is that he is a gifted, inspiring speaker, (it may be scripted off of the teleprompter but he's still effective). Those of us who've followed politics for a long time may remember when President Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 when Kerry was trying to defeat President Bush. Obama gave the best speech of the convention and I recognized his ability to give a speech then and have never forgotten that.

The thing we have to analyze is whether an inspiring speech that makes you feel good is worth ignoring the results of the speaker. We as Americans are always being tested by politicians when in fact we should be the ones testing them. The problem is that far too many of us get wrapped up in supporting a party, a speech, or even the race of a politician in a way that makes us ignore results in place of belief in intentions.

President Obama talks about hard work and paying fair share, yet his ideology advocates neither. Progressive Liberals, socialists really, believe that if you don't work hard you deserve to be subsidized by the government out of compassion. Many progressive Republicans, (often referred to as neo-cons), agree. Don't forget that President Bush increased social welfare programs out of compassion.

He talks, as many liberals do, about paying a fair share, yet he's okay with 42% of Americans paying nothing. How is paying nothing a fair share? We all agree that the rich should pay more in taxes but it seems that the anti-capitalist left ignore the fact that the current system is exactly that.

President Obama and other Liberals have not problem demonizing the evil rich corporations, oil companies, and "fat cats", yet they ignore the pass given to unions and liberal organizations through lobbyists etc. They criticize Conservatives like myself as being in the tank for big business yet they are the ones who support bailing them all out.

They don't criticize the unions who can't afford the pensions of the workers they claim to stand up for because those unions use their money to donate millions of dollars to Democrats in the hopes that they'll then receive a government kick back to bail them out of the pension funds they'd have been able to better afford had they not given the money to politicians in the first place.

Explain this one to me, during the jobs speech President Obama talked about reforming Medicare, yet Paul Ryan was attacked for trying to do exactly that. When talking about reforming entitlements they attack Rick Perry for calling Social Security a "ponzi scheme" in order to scare senior citizens away from Republicans. Let's talk facts for a moment though.

What would you say if I asked you to give me money out of every paycheck until you're 62 years old. Then when you turn 62 I'll start to give you regular checks in your retirement. What would you say if you knew that the average life expectancy at the time was 59? Wouldn't that look like a scam? Especially if you knew that I was spending the money you were giving me anyway. That is exactly the case with Social Security. Look up the average life expectancy of the 30's for yourself and you'll see it's true regardless of what the fear mongers on the left say.

I support Newt Gingrich for president as I've said before but the heat Rick Perry is receiving for his attacks on the socialist security system are nothing more than an attempt to scare senior citizens, (which are a huge chunk of voters), away from Republicans in favor of President Obama. If our senior citizens are gullible enough to fall for that then we deserve another term of Obama. Personally, I have more faith in our seniors than that. I don't believe senior citizens are that dumb but apparently those on the left, who claim to have so much compassion, do.

He talked about making us the most innovative, educated people in the world. How do you expect to pull that off with the feeling of entitlement in so many people and an education system driven by a government bureaucracy partisan agenda rather than being driven by learning actual facts and life lessons?

President Obama talked about passing the trade agreements but this makes no sense. The trade agreements have been waiting for his signature since day one. He's let them sit there without sending them to congress for 2 1/2 years and all of a sudden he trying to make it seem like Congress is the reason it hasn't been done. Funny how I didn't see the Democrat controlled congress pushing for those deals to be signed for the 2 years they were in charge. Makes you wonder why? Especially since President Obama is now telling us that they would boost American manufacturing and help with jobs. Are we supposed to believe that that is the fault of the Republicans is congress as well?

He talked about agreeing with cutting spending and regulation and how he could say that with a straight face is impressive. All he's done since taking office is massively increase both spending and regulations. Therefore you have to ask yourself this question. Do you believe President Obama or candidate Obama? Here's one point where the two couldn't be more different. Candidate Obama, who gave the jobs speech, had to literally disagree 100% with President Obama in order to even talk about cutting spending and cutting regulation as President Obama has done nothing but massively increase spending and regulation since taking office.

Obama says he rejects the notion that stripping collective bargaining rights are necessary to compete in the global marketplace. Oh yeah, well try telling that to China. Tell that to the bankrupt postal service that can no longer afford benefits for retirees. Tell that to the bailed out unionized car companies that despite being given billions of dollars are still in trouble. Tell that to the right to work states, like Texas, that are crushing all of the progressive states on private sector job creation. He may reject stripping collective bargaining from union workers but I reject bailing out unions that donate millions to his campaign and then claim they are in financial trouble. I also reject using the power of the federal government to give an edge to unions over non-unions and it's funny how Progressive liberals constantly talk about "fairness" yet ignore this very real point.

President Obama says he'll listen to all parties and asks for people to speak up. Yet when the Democrats controlled the legislature 100% he ignored the Republicans and even ridiculed the tea-party which was an example of people doing exactly that. I say again, do you believe smooth talking candidate Obama or the real Obama you've seen leading this country for almost 3 years?

Obama doesn't want his jobs plan to pass, the plan isn't going to work but that's not what it's about. Let me give you another ludicrous point about his jobs plan. He claims that he'll give a tax credit to businesses that create new jobs or increase the pay of workers. Let me ask you something, how big would that tax credit have to be for it to be worth hiring another worker? Hiring another worker, especially a full-time worker isn't cheap.

Think of this, let's say you pay a new full-time worker a crap poverty wage of $20,000/year. Now you have to give health care coverage to that worker and we still don't even know how much that will cost under Obamacare but I think it's safe to assume it's at least a few grand. Let's say it's $4,000/year and I'm probably being nice setting it that low but let's continue with the example. Now, the cost of that worker, (who's basically making a poverty wage), is $24,000/year for the business. Do you expect Obama's tax credit per worker to be more than $24,000/year? Of course not, therefore, his tax credit for new employment sounds good in a campaign speech but doesn't match reality in the business world.

After all, the tax credit would have to be massive to entice worker employment simply for the sake of receiving the tax credit and how then would the left be able to resist criticizing the tax cuts for rich corporations? His tax cut per worker is a joke and economically unfeasible and ignorant.

He talks about our schools being in such rough shape and the need for infrastructure spending for new roads etc. Well, simple question there. What happened to the trillion dollars you got last time in stimulus that you said was paying for those very same things? We're supposed to believe that this smaller stimulus will take care of all those things when the much larger stimulus didn't? If Americans are willing to accept that nonsense then you do in fact deserve re-election President Obama.

It's on us as Americans now to stop treating politics like some American Idol contest. There are real problems facing our country and the truth is that it's our fault. We allow ourselves to ignore history in place of feeling better about ourselves. We make excuse after excuse for our party, ourselves, and our children. We're told not to discipline our kids because we don't want to hurt there self esteem but then wonder why they are turning into disrespectful, entitlement driven asses.

We are afraid to reform the government entitlement programs out of fear of being labelled as lacking compassion. It's time to grow a pair and make a stand for the truth. I applaud Rick Perry for being honest about socialist security being a scam. If the elderly fall for the rhetoric of the dishonest groups like Moveon.org and ignore the problems the system faces even though it's the children, (you know, the children that the progressive left always claim to care about), that will suffer when the system does collapse due to our inaction on the necessary reforms needed to the government entitlement programs.

You may recall in a recent post I talked about the Reagan tax plan and his thoughts of social security. It's funny how the disingenuous folks on the left love to quote Reagan about saving socialist security in 1983, (which he in fact did), but they fail to inform people of what he said was in store for the long term future of the program. I've used this quote before but it's relevant and worth repeating. Hey MSNBC, take a break from calling people like me morons and listen up, you might learn something true for once.

From a letter from Ronald Reagan to Mr. Austin Trimmer Jr. dated July 24, 1981.

"If I may, let me explain the situation and what it is we're trying to do with Social Security. I have reneged no pledge. I said during the campaign that we would do nothing to hurt those presently dependent on Social Security checks-that we would not pull the rug out from under those people so dependent. I did say that I would try to restore the integrity to the program. As it is now, the program without change will run out of money for paying benefits to the present recipients sometime late in 1982. Beyond that, however, there is a long-range actuarial imbalance which means that down the road in the next century, but within the lifetime of younger workers today, the program will be several trillions of dollars out of balance.

Our proposal was intended to resolve both the short-term problem and that long-range imbalance. We did not, in any way, affect the benefits of those presently dependent on the program."

Are you still convinced that those of us who advocate reforming the Social Security program wouldn't have the support of Ronald Reagan? He warned us this was coming and he understood that people already dependent on the program have to continue receiving benefits. This is exactly the position all of us who see and admit the need for reforming the system advocate. The media can keep insisting that we'd be too far to the right for Reagan but his own words prove otherwise.

It's on each of us now to stand up for the truth and if that means I have to be criticized for lacking compassion by those desperate to save the Obama presidency for another term then so be it. If seniors are scared off by the lies being launched by those who would stand by and do nothing to reform the socialist security system then they are free to make the same mistakes other special interest liberal groups keep making.

It's time for the rest of us to grow a pair and stand up to our ignorant critics. One other point I found interesting after the Republican Debate. This is a little off topic but important. Fake Rev. Al Sharpton was talking to Herman Cain after the debate and he was of course confused as to how a black man could dare to be a Republican. Sharpton likes to reference the 3/5 clause in the Constitution where slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for the census. He uses that to make the bogus claim that Tea party advocates and those of us who want a return to the principles of the Constitution want to return to slavery.

What ignorant Al fails to understand, or else flat out lies about, is that the 3/5 clause gave LESS representation to slave states then they otherwise would have had and therefore Fake Rev. Al's speaking out against the 3/5 clause is in fact a statement to the effect that he wishes the pro-slave states had more power and influence in Washington. He takes that position while calling Conservatives like me morons, I can't help but laugh and at the same time feel bad for his ignorance.

Even Frederick Douglas, who I'm sure Rev Al would claim to support originally thought the Constitution was a pro-slavery document.....until he read it. He then pointed out that it was an anti-slavery document. It's a shame Rev Al is so smart because apparently if he was a moron like he would say I am then he'd realize that.

It's time to make a real choice America. Either endorse the lies and fall for the celebrity charm of President Obama and his lying supporters, or make a stand for the truth and fight to save America from a future of Socialist government dependency and failure. It's a choice for each one of us as individuals, screw all of that collective talk. Will you prove you actually care about the children and teach the truth? Or will you doom them to a life of dependency and debt out of compassion? I've made my choice. In 2012, you will make yours.

Perhaps this 9/11 you can remember why America is worth saving. On 9/11 we united in tragedy, perhaps in 2012 we can provide real hope for our children. It takes more than using the word hope in a smooth speech. Candidate Obama will sound inspiring but we now know that President Obama is depressing. We will find out next year if we care more about smooth speeches that sound good, or necessary action that sounds tough. This is our country and this will once again be your choice. You know where the ideologues stand, now it's time to decide where you stand. You can choose to be in a group of sheeple and be told what you should believe, or you can look at the reality all around you and make a stand for what you believe.

We all know President Obama's going to blame Bush and the Republicans in congress for all of his problems and we all know the Republicans will do the same. Given the results of the last few years you have a pretty simple question to ask yourself. Does President Obama deserve another term or not? Just remember that a campaign is when politicians tell you who they want you to think they are. The actions they take while in office tell you who they really are.

You have more than a year to think about it but on Sunday think about how much your life can change in one day. Think about how much the world can change in 10 years. Think about the path you want to follow in the next 10 years, and think about whether or not that is truly the path you are on. Take care and never forget.

I Was Right, Deval Patrick Was Wrong, What A Shock

2011-08-27T21:39:00.000-04:00

While I sit here in Mass preparing for Hurricane Irene I'd like to provide a little update on a couple of stories I've done in the past. There are some older stories on this blog that you should read in preparation for this one. In the search box, upper left corner of this blog, type Deval Patrick, you'll get some stories from the past where I've taken on Mass governor Deval Patrick over various issues.

You'll see, or you'll remember if you're a long time viewer of this blog, the stories about the town hall meeting I attended with the Deval and the e-mail response I received after the youtube question his staffers took from me after the event was ignored and never posted online. His response cited "technical difficulties" but never e-mailed an actual answer.

I cited 2 main points in my question, the first being about taxes and the other being about private sector growth in Massachusetts. I pointed out in my question that was never answered that all of the growth he mentioned in the town hall meeting was paid for with federal stimulus dollars and therefore there wasn't in fact any real growth, besides government, here in Mass.

I asked him how he planned to grow the private sector in mass after the stimulus money ran out because if we kept on track with the growth he was citing then the next year he'd just be right back at the government's doorstep asking for more stimulus dollars, which is probably the bulk of Obama's new jobs plan to be revealed next month. I asked that 2 years ago in '09.

Here's why I'm bringing this up. I'm grazing through the headlines of some of the papers a few days ago and a front page headline from The Boston Globe on Monday, August 22 caught my eye. It read:

"Anxiety rises as stimulus dries up - Federal cuts may stall state recovery" - by Casey Ross

I can't exactly quote the article without permission from the globe but the title tells you enough, I will give you dollar figures to think about from the article though.

It points out that in 2009, what year was my town hall meeting with Deval, let me think......oh yeah, that's right 2009, as you'll see I prove if you did the search of the past stories as I pointed out in the beginning of this post. Anyway, it points out that in 2009 Mass received $7.4 billion in stimulus and Mass is down to the last $300 million. Maybe Deval should have taken my youtube points more seriously, huh?

I told Deval this would happen and he ignored me. Not exactly surprising but it should make you think. Imagine if Deval took me seriously, he'd have been able to spend the last 2 years preparing for this instead of just giving propaganda speeches to ignorant people in order to get re-elected. Now, we're about to enter full blown panic mode as Deval's failures are about to be exposed as he can no longer shift all of the costs of his failing policies to the federal government. However, there's another factor that no one could have prepared for.

Hurricane Irene, it's due here tomorrow and any significant damage to the state will only make things worse, too bad we still don't have that $7.4 billion. Now, a state of emergency has been declared for Mass by President Obama and that will provide federal money to help with whatever this storm ultimately costs. I don't disagree here. This is the type of thing the government can help with and it'd be in better shape if it didn't try bailing out everything for the past few years. Problem is that the federal government is so damn broke that they aren't in good shape for these types of problems.

I hope the damage from this hurricane is as minimal as possible in terms of dollars and deaths but after the wind and rain calms down we have another problem. Hurricane Economy is still ravaging many states including Mass and that isn't going away when the wind dies down the way the stimulus money is. Maybe Deval will finally start listening but I doubt it.

Warren Buffett's Insomnia

2011-08-21T15:35:00.006-04:00

It's been about a month since I last wrote anything so we have some catching up to do. As you all know Rick Perry is now in the race for the presidency on the Republican side and that must be making the media favorite Mitt Romney pretty upset. I've said before that I don't trust Romney as a conservative and when he ran for president back in '08 he had the worst spending to vote ratio of any candidate, Mike Huckabee had the best. We'll see how this all shakes up in the months to come but I'm glad Tim Pawlenty left the race as few cared that he was ever in it to begin with.

I haven't changed my stance as I still think Newt Gingrich is the best candidate for the job this time around but I don't expect the Republican party at large to agree and unfortunately he'll most likely lose the nomination much to my dismay. That's enough about all of that so let's get down to business with what this article is really about.

Apparently Warren Buffett hasn't been able to sleep well lately because he feels so guilty about how little he is paying in taxes. He's out there with President Obama talking about how we should raise taxes so that Buffett and other rich guys, like Bill Gates can stop feeling so guilty about being rich and get back to paying their fair share.

Buffett, chairman of the conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway, said his federal tax bill last year was $6,938,744, the equivalent of 64 shares of Berkshire Class A stock.

"That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income -- and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent," he said.

This makes me wonder about a very basic and simple question. If Warren Buffett and other rich liberals really want to pay more in taxes then why do they need the government to raise taxes on everyone, including small business owners who fall into the $250,000+ category? Sure to the average folks all of them are rich but they also create a majority of the jobs. Why doesn't Buffett and company simply write a check to the government with no change in tax rates needed? You may have noticed that George Soros, another billionaire who destroys currencies around the world in order to massively enrich himself seems to agree with Buffett on taxes. Of course without Soros money then groups like MoveOn.org and many others wouldn't even be able to exist.

Let's use an example with simpler math figures as the questions above won't be addressed by folks like Buffett and I'll get to why in a bit. Well use the figure of $1,000,000 dollars to keep things simple. Buffett says that he paid 17.4% to federal income taxes and he should have to pay more. If we use the million dollar figure that percentage would work out to $174,000. Now since we don't know exactly how much of a percentage would help Buffett sleep better at night let's just say he'd rather pay 25%.

This would, again to keep it simple using our million dollar figure, push his taxes from $174,000 to $250,000. If Warren Buffett would like to pay more in taxes then why can't he write a check to cover the difference from his 17.4% up to 25%? If you had the million dollars that I've been using as an example then you'd simply have to write a check to the government for $76,000. Warren Buffett is a billionaire investor and yet it seems he hasn't been able to figure that out, that seems strange to me.

Of course in truth he has figured it out but as usual there's something more sinister behind his motives here. He's trying to give credibility and justification to Obama and other progressives call to raising taxes on the rich. The real problem is that the mega-corporations and mega-rich aren't going to be hurt by the higher taxes the way the smaller competitors will. This is what happened during the New Deal, which most professors won't actually teach anymore, using the NRA, (the blue eagle government regulatory rules not the gun guys), to control prices and having a high tax rate led to the crushing of smaller businesses to the advantage of larger ones as well as maintaining a roughly 20% unemployment rate during the socialist new deal, which most liberals still refer to as an astounding success due to their ignorance of the factual results of the New Deal policies.

Keep in mind that much of the "new jobs" during the new deal were just giving government jobs from FDR's many new government agencies to unemployed in order to create the illusion of jobs and prosperity even though the private sector was being destroyed. Sounds an awfully lot like our current president doesn't it, keyword being awful.

Obama's policies have thus far failed and most Americans are beginning to come to and admit at least that much. As usual there's plenty of finger-pointing going on in order to shift blame but that's the norm for political failures in our time. Plenty of Republicans would probably still defend Bush as a conservative even though he proved that he wasn't especially in his second term in office. (Bush 43 even defended the failed bailouts in his book Decision Points).

It'll be very interesting to see if Obama looks like he's headed for a Reagan vs. Carter-esque defeat whether Hillary Clinton will re challenge him in an attempt to save the Democrats from another ass-kicking like the congressional one they received in the 2010 mid-term elections. Hillary would most likely have no problem defeating Obama in the nomination this time around and while she probably realizes that she may avoid running for office over fear of the divide it would place within the Democratic party.

Those who continue to defend socialist liberal policies are trying their best to find a way to justify why Obama's government centralized economic planning isn't working. The fact of the matter is that it isn't about application as many tend to believe, even though there is practically no evidence of socialism working out well for the people and prosperity, it's a matter of the principles of socialism.

Socialism, even if you don't want to call it that, we'll call it total government control over the economy, can't work for one very simple reason. Government is naturally inefficient and corrupt. The amount of things that government has to monitor in a socialist society are simply too many and too large for it to handle well. Politicians are naturally inclined to want to help political allies and friends from both parties and that is only made worse by our lobbyist which are so entrenched in Washington that both parties would never pass a simple law making lobbying illegal. Regardless of the fact that it would most likely have widespread support from a majority of the people.

There is no doubt as it's proven that throughout history lower tax rates help with employment. Liberals love to talk about the Clinton 90's as a great example of high tax success but they ignore some major factors, such as welfare reform, which Clinton vetoed twice, even though he didn't mind taking credit for it after it was proven to work. This is another reason for Republicans to nominate Newt Gingrich, just throwing it out there. Liberals also tend to forget something else...

In 1997, the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton. The 1997 bill:

Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;

Created a new $500 child tax credit;

Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax
costs of higher education;

Extended the air transportation excise taxes;

Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million;

Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs;

Established education IRAs;

Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and

Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax

Notice the first thing which I put in bold, wait a minute....!! Is that an evil capital gains tax cut for the rich I see.......why yes, yes it is. Do you remember how horrible the economy was from 1997 through 2000? Actually it's liberals who love to point to that economy as great. Don't you remember all of the criticism of that evil conservative Bill Clinton cutting taxes for the rich? Of course you don't but never mind just keep listening to Obama and Buffett talk about how we need to increase the capital gains taxes.

For the record it was Ronald Reagan who cut the capital gains tax rate down to 28% which Clinton then lowered again to 20%. Remind me what happened in the 80's and 90's.....oh yeah that's right, economic booms.

So the next time you see President Obama and Warren Buffett talking about how Buffett feels guilty because his capital gains taxes are too low, send Buffett a memo reminding him that he can write a check anytime. If he refuses to write one then be sure to ask him why not? Maybe there's more than meets the eye with the case he and the President are making. Never forget that in politics much is not as it seems.

Reagan vs Obama On The Debt Ceiling Debate

2011-07-19T19:28:00.010-04:00

Here we go again. It's a debate that happens again and again in congress when we get into debt. Raising the debt limit for the country. Raising the debt ceiling can be important and I wanted to look at the differences and similarities regarding the debt ceiling back throughout the Reagan administration. Perhaps you saw President Obama mention Reagan's debt limit increases in order to justify why he needs congress to raise the debt limit yet again. There's one quote from recent debt talks that I'd like to address. Start by reading about the breaking down of the debt limit discussion.

"Would Ronald Reagan be sitting here," he reportedly asked. "I've reached my limit. This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this." - President Obama

Let's start with the facts. True, Ronald Reagan did raise the debt limit several times throughout his presidency. However, he also criticized BOTH Republicans and Democrats for playing games with the debt ceiling increase. Just as the modern Congress uses earmark, "pork barrel", special interest spending measures hidden in bills to get special favors for their districts etc. the same games were played back in the 80's. Some things never change.

Take the following entries from President Reagan's diary, notice that both Republicans and Democrats are criticized here:

Feb 5, 1981

"Lots of phone calls - Sen Robert Byrd is playing games with bill to raise the debt ceiling. Has held vote over until tomorrow."

Notice that this was less than 1 month after Ronald Reagan took office. Don't think for a second that this was only a problem with the Democrats:

November 3, 1983

"Met with Conservative Republican Senators who are playing games trying to come up with amendments to the debt ceiling bill. We must have that bill or government checks will start bouncing."

Are you starting to understand? These debates are nothing new and Congress using what should be simple bills to pass horrible aspects of legislation seems never ending. Just wait until I get to the criticism from Liberal groups about Reagan raising taxes. That too was because of a game played with the debt limit. I'll get to that in a bit. Here's another example:

May 11, 1987

"Dem's are playing game hoping to trap me into tax increase. We have to have an extension on the debt ceiling by May 28 or face default."

Remember this one because it becomes important. It was the Democrats using the debt ceiling debate to force tax increases on Reagan. That way future Democrats could criticize Reagan as a tax increaser. Also, any agreement to tax increases other than the debt ceiling were for specific purposes.

The Highway Revenue Act of 1982 for example which raised the gas tax from 4 to 9 cents and was set to expire after 5 years. The additional revenue from that gas tax was supposed to be specifically used to fix roads. However, those who criticize Reagan for his tax increases which are for the most part very specific like the example I've just given. They tend to forget that before any of these tax increases went into effect Reagan passed one of the biggest tax decreases in history but spread it out over 3 years because it's the only way Congress would go along with it. This in part explains the recession of 1982, when Democrats were accusing Reagan's economic policies of being a failure, as the complete tax cuts didn't take effect until 1983 and the economy was booming by 1984.

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981

Individual income tax reductions. Reduced marginal tax rates 23 percent over three years; reduced maximum rate to 50 percent and maximum capital gains rate to 20 percent; indexed income tax brackets, personal exemption and standard deduction for inflation beginning in 1985; and provided new deduction for two-earner married couples.

Capital cost recovery provisions. Replaced facts and circumstances and the Asset Depreciation Range guidelines with Accelerated Cost Recovery System. Faster write-off of capital expenditures under simplified rules. Most equipment written off over 5 years, structures over 15 years. Allowed liberalized safe-harbor leasing rules, which effectively allowed companies to sell tax losses.

Savings incentives. Extended eligibility for IRA's to include active participants in employer pension plans. Increased Keogh annual contribution limit to $15,000.
Estate and gift tax provisions. Permitted unlimited marital deduction: increased estate credit to exempt from tax all estates of $600,000 or less; and reduced maximum estate tax rate from 70 to 50 percent.

Accelerated corporated estimated tax payments and tightened rules on tax straddles with mark-to-market rule.

Source

Now, let's get back to the debt ceiling debate. Obama wants to pretend that after using the former Democrat controlled congress to pass trillions of dollars worth of new spending, (over 1 trillion for stimulus with omnibus earmarks, health care, etc), he supports cutting spending as part of a compromise. Do you think he'd pretend to support the same if the Republicans hadn't taken the house majority thanks to the tea party movement?

Now we have former president Bill Clinton saying that Obama should just go around congress using the 14th amendment to avoid default. This is one of the most bogus arguments attempting to make the case that the president has the authority to increase the debt limit without congress using the 14th amendment to the Constitution, let's see if you agree:

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, section 4:

"The validity of the public debt fo the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

I'd say the print I've highlighted is the base of Clintons argument:

"The validity of the public debt shall not be questioned."

Fair enough but he has a problem. The very next part of the U.S. Constitution states:

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, section 5:

"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"

Notice it says the Congress, not the president, has the power to enforce the 14th amendment through legislation. Therefore, Bill Clintons argument is wrong. If he were right then Ronald Reagan would have had no need to worry about the games being played by Congress in the 80's. I'm not all that surprised that a liberal ex-president doesn't understand the Constitution and hopes that you don't either. He forget another provision in the Constitution that also denies Obama the right to increase the debt limit without Congress:

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 10:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

At first you may not see how this amendment applies but I'll explain. The government only has the authority to do what the Constitution gives it the power to do. Meaning the government is supposed to maintain limited power only gaining the powers the Constitution grants it. The government doesn't start out with all the power and is then limited by the constitution. It starts out with no power and then is only supposed to be allowed to follow the guidelines provided by powers granted by the Constitution itself. As I showed you with Amendment 14, the Constitution gives Congress the responsibility of handling the debt issues, not the president. Therefore Bill Clinton is wrong and Obama has no authority to increase the debt limit without the consent of the Congress. Nice try progressives.

Now let's continue with the problem's Ronald Reagan was having with the Congress.

July 10, 1987

"Discussed how to deal with Congress efforts to cut defense budget to ribbons. They're planning to add things as amendments to Debt limit bill which I must sign or create a world wide financial panic."

Follow this and the next few quotes because I have a theory to consider. You'll understand in a moment but I don't want to get ahead of myself so let these next few quotes sink in and remember that the Liberals love to criticize Reagan as a tax increaser, even using it in a new ad about the debt limit debate.

July 21, 1987

"Debt ceiling will be an important item with what the Dems are attempting to do to it. Then the same individuals are trying to make our catastrophic illness proposal into a budget busting expanded program which will actually impose costs on senior citizens."

July 22, 1987

"Debt limit & Dem. games main subject of 1st meeting. Then Catastrophic Health program & here too they are distorting it to be a costly budget buster."

Here are some details as to what he's talking about.

"President Reagan, ending more than two months of Administration bickering, today endorsed a Medicare catastrophic illness plan to give 30 million elderly Americans "that last full measure of security" against the grim choice of bankruptcy or death.

Under the plan, the government would cover all hospital and doctor expenses under Medicare after a patient had paid $2,000 out of his own pocket"

This provided care specifically for elderly Americans to avoid going broke because of a catastrophic diagnosis. What's funny is how at the time the criticism was about how we couldn't afford it. You would swear that this article was written about the health care debate with Obama. The article is from March 9, 1987 yet it says things such as:

"A government program that would really save the elderly from catastrophic health care bills, however, would mean adding another open-ended entitlement program to the red-inked federal budget"

"almost any hospitalization or long illness can be a financial disaster for the 37 million Americans who have no health insurance at all. Now that the issue of catastrophic medical costs is on the national agenda, it will be politically difficult to limit any new programs just to the elderly."

"It may be tempting to make political capital out of catastrophic health insurance, but the nation will pay a price for it--one way or another. Congress still has time to explore other possibilities--such as broadening private coverage and sterner controls on costs--before it gets any deeper into the entitlement morass"

Hard to believe this is from a 24 year old article, huh? How little we seem to learn. The debt limit debate is very much the same. It's the same political games being played by the politicians that are no different from the games played in the past.

Now let's get back to the debate over the debt limit, I had to go off track to address that health care article because it related to the Reagan quote I used and it need an explanation. Remember the last quote I used was:

July 22, 1987

"Debt limit & Dem. games main subject of 1st meeting. Then Catastrophic Health program & here too they are distorting it to be a costly budget buster."

Now that you understand what he was talking about here we can move on. This is where it gets very important that you pay attention.

September 22, 1987

"a very disturbing meeting with Jim Miller, OMB [office of management and budget], Will Ball, Cap Weinberger, Jim Baker & of course our staff. The subject was the bill to extend the debt ceiling which expires tomorrow. They have loaded that simple bill with a cut in Defense so great we'd have to kick 400,000 out of the service. I'd have to agree to billion's in new taxes & on & on. Jim Baker says if I veto we could conceivably have a world crisis financially because we'd be defaulting on $24 Billion worth of bonds. I have to come up with a decision on - do I sign or do I veto. Everything in me cries out veto."

READ THAT AGAIN RIGHT NOW!!

The Congress, controlled by Democrats, loaded a debt limit increase with Billions in new taxes, (think of it as what in today's context we refer to as "pork" spending), as well as a bunch of other horrible things that Reagan disagreed with in order to force him to sign or default.

All of a sudden the Democrats using Reagan in their new ads don't look so credible. Remember how much the Democrats of today and groups like MoveOn.org etc. like to criticize Conservatives labelling Reagan as a tax increaser. Well this bill being referred to above to increase the debt limit is why. It wasn't that Reagan supported tax increases and didn't fight hard against them, it's that the Democrats forced this on him in 1987 and then decided to shift blame and use it against his legacy in the future.

As you can see the above quote is from September 22, and here's what he wrote 2 days later:

September 24, 1987

"I have decided to sign the debt extension bill but with a hard statement to the effect that it's probably the worst legislation ever sent to me. But I must sign to keep us from defaulting on $24 Billion worth of Bonds."

September 26, 1987

"Did my radio show on Dem. blackmail in connection with debt limit extension."

Maybe we should ask Bill Clinton why Reagan didn't just increase the debt limit without congress using the 14th amendment, oh wait that's right, I already took care of that issue, nevermind. Don't you think if the president actually had that authority Reagan would have had a damn good reason to use it here?

Remember how I said that I had a theory? Reagan signed that bill in September of 1987. October 19, 1987 is known as "Black Monday" due to a significant market dive. Wikipedia presents several theories as to the causes of Black Monday. I'm not saying this legislation was so much of a direct cause but I think it's safe to say that it couldn't have helped, just saying.

There's another point I'd like to use here in closing. Reagan signed legislation he was completely against over $24 Billion dollars in 1987. We used to think $24 Billion in default would be catastrophic. Now because of our spending and programs like stimulus making 24 Billion look like chump change we have truly dug a hole we can't get out of. Obama as well as many others in Congress have neither the brains, nor the balls to do what must be done. As for the rest of us there are still too many Americans who simply don't have the stomachs for it.

We don't need a new debt limit to know we are already in default, do you really think that the rest of the world, including those who hold our bonds, (like China), have any confidence in being paid back by the cowards who run our country? We did this to ourselves.

We allowed ourselves to forget or to simply never learn about what history could teach us. How we've face these issues before yet we keep electing the same jackasses who fail to acknowledge it. Fixing this will require sacrifices that no politicians will make, and unfortunately many Americans can't seem to stomach it much either.

Everyone claims to care about the children yet we refuse to sacrifice in the present to save their future. When I was younger I used to hear older people talk about how they're glad they are old because they pity our generation's future outlook. Unfortunately, I feel the same way about our children's future if we don't change our ways, and fast. I didn't even get to become old before I felt that way. Do you really care about the children's future as so many bleeding heart liberals claim to? Then how can you not understand these points? I've never written anything that I found to be all that complicated or confusing. If you're so damn smart and you can piece together 2,000 page pieces of legislation with a bunch of your corrupt friends, then why can't you understand the simple reality presented in a blog such as this?

The sophisticated elites would tell you that I'm the one who's a crazy right wing conservative tea party lunatic. Who do you think makes more sense?

"we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it?" - Nancy Pelosi

Our New Declaration Of Independence

2011-07-03T16:48:00.003-04:00

We've all been celebrating July 4th for our entire lives. It means more to me now than it ever did when I was a kid. Sure, in the back of my mind I knew what we were celebrating but like so many others I gave more thoughts to the cookouts and fireworks than the true meaning of the holiday.

Now we find our country once again being burdened by an overbearing government more interested in acting like our parents than acting like our government. More and more of us are becoming dependent on government and in fact losing our independence because of it. Those who believe in a big government platform believe that government has to control more of our lives because people are incapable of knowing what's best for them and can't be trusted to govern themselves. In his inaugural address back in 1981 Ronald Reagan said it best:

"If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?" - Ronald Reagan

Interesting question indeed. The tea party movement that has grown over the last few years with obvious results in the 2010 election cycle was in large part it's own declaration of independence. Being a movement that supports a smaller, more efficient, less intrusive government no doubt fit labeling it a conservative movement. The thing is that the seeds of the tea party began in the Bush years. Conservatives were in a way declaring independence from progressive Republicans.

Democrats who supported the tea party movement were also sending a message that the Democratic party in Washington wasn't accurately reflecting all Democrats. It should be no surprise that a message of limited government and maximum freedom resonates. That was the message of the original Declaration of Independence.

From The Declaration of Independence

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it"

The health care plan of President Obama was clearly opposed by a majority of Americans. That doesn't mean there weren't plenty of supporters but far more opposed than supported it. It was a major factor in the landslide defeat of the Democrats in 2010. The above quote from the original Declaration of Independence state that the powers of government require the consent of the people and if the government ignores the will of the governed then the people have the right to alter government.

That's exactly what we did in 2010, the government wasn't listening to us so we altered who our representatives were. Liberals love to call us a Democracy, (we are in fact a constitutional republic), but in a Democracy with a definition of majority rules, health care still shouldn't have been passed as a majority of the people were in fact against it, even if a majority of Democrats in congress were in favor of it.

"He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."

This sounds like I could be talking about one of the many Czars that President Obama has appointed through executive order without the consent of Congress or we the people. Yet, this quote is actually another from the original Declaration of Independence referring to the king of England.

"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."

The health care bill alone created many new offices and positions. Instead of swarms of officers this president is using swarms of new regulations to the same effect. This government is killing our oil production through regulations on gulf drilling resulting in higher energy prices. You don't need swarms of officers if you can just use swarms of new rules and regulations. These are some of the problems with the effects of big government and the founders experiences with living under the rule of the King of England are the very reason they intended for us to maintain a smaller government with less intrusive leaders.

Among the list of reasons in the declaration for wanting independence is the cutting off of trade:

"For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world: For imposing taxes on us without our consent: For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"

President Obama is also stalling trade in the interests of protecting union workers from foreign competition.

So this year on Independence Day take a minute to reflect on what's really being celebrated. The Declaration of Independence isn't just some old document written for a bunch of disgruntled old men unhappy with their leadership. It's a blueprint, just as our Constitution is. They teach us all of the lessons we need about why a big overbearing government is a bad idea and will only lead to far more harm than good. Individual freedom will never be outdated.

The lessons of the past help us tackle the problems of the present but we must learn those lessons in order to understand those problems. This year as we celebrate July 4th let's make a new declaration. As we celebrate our independence and freedom, let's declare our independence from ignorance. This is our generations challenge to preserve that which has made the United States so great for so long.

Learn from the past, apply it in the present, and in doing so save the future. Only then can we guarantee that future generations will be able to enjoy the freedom and independence that we so often take for granted. Happy Independence Day, may we never lose our freedom because we became to lazy to defend it.

The Republican Debate Review And Another Gem From MoveOn.org About Economics

2011-06-18T22:22:00.001-04:00

The recent Republican debate in New Hampshire is over and I have to say that I think overall it was the right message and everyone did fairly well. One thing I liked most about it was the fact that there wasn't much time wasted with the candidates attacking one another. Such attacks will no doubt be used by Obama, (or Hillary if she runs and beats him for the nomination), against whoever the nominee eventually is from the Republicans.

I find it funny how so many people from both sides, as well as the media, seem to think that Mitt Romney stands out as the best candidate with the most support. We seem to forget that Mitt Romney had the worst spending/vote ratio out of all the Republican candidates in '08, Mike Huckabee had the best. There are also 2 lessons to be learned about the polls, one from the '04 election cycle and another from the '08 election cycle.

Back in 2004 when the Democrats were trying to decide who would take on Bush in his re-election bid John Kerry was pretty much dead in the polls for the nomination. Despite that, he came out on top in the end.

"Kerry had entered the primary raced as the favorite, but his early performance on the campaign trail was uninspiring, especially in contrast to the high-energy Dean."

Then we come to 2008 and the nomination of the Republican who would step in to try and replace George Bush after his second term. As well as who would try and capitalize on the unpopularity of Republicans due to the ongoing recession in '08, and run for president with the Democrats. Did many people actually think that Obama would be able to compete with Hillary Clinton for the nomination? Of course not but look what happened.

In 2004, the Democrats went with a Vietnam veteran thinking it was the best chance they had to oust Bush, they were wrong. In 2008, Republicans essentially went with the same plan. Nominating a Vietnam veteran and trying to use that to offset the dissatisfaction with the Republicans at the time. A moderate "maverick" seemed like the best chance for Republicans to maintain the White House, Sarah Palin was then chosen by McCain to help with his lack of support from Conservatives and women. Just like in 2004, the plan was a disaster. The loss wasn't all bad though as it led to a Conservative revival within America that has given rise to the Tea Party movement.

The point here is that the polls early on really mean little to nothing. It doesn't concern me that Mitt Romney is seen as the front runner. It's not surprising given the dismal failure of the Obama economic agenda that a businessman, instead of a veteran, seems like a strong candidate this time around. There are areas where I as a conservative don't trust Mitt Romney and it's part of the reason I hope he doesn't win the nomination. I'd vote for Romney if he did end up the candidate, unlike McCain who I didn't vote for, but I think we can do better.

One problem I had with the recent debate is the structure of the questions and lack of time for the candidates. The 30 second answer rule isn't bad but each candidate needs to be able to address each question. It makes no sense that a question will be asked of say, Herman Cain, then only 2 others or so are able to also reply to the question before they move on to another question. It should be streamlined and simpler as we would all get more out of the debates if they worked like this:

The 30 seconds for a reply can stay but the structure of the questions should simply start at one end and work toward another. Ask the question of the first candidate in line, then go down the line allowing each candidate to give an uninterrupted answer. Also, make sure that all of the questions remain on topic relating to specific issues the country cares about. This would allow all candidate to focus on the same issues. Maybe I'd like to know more about the debt ceiling thoughts of the candidates. Unfortunately, only Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachmann are really given time for that specific question so the rest miss out. See what I mean?

For now I'll ignore the polls about who the front runner is until it actually starts to play out in the primary votes and we begin to really see where a majority of voters stand on the candidates.

I have one other issue I'd like to bring to your attention. MoveOn.org has released a video from Robert Reich trying to explain the economy in about 2 minutes and of course it does the typical bash the rich and raise taxes pitch that the left-wing liberals always use. Watch the video for yourself first.

Let's start with point 1. Since 1980 the economy has doubled but adjusting for inflation wages have barely increased.

He of course wants to start in 1980 to make it more of a Reagan and Republican problem because of the vast amount of economic growth since that time period but I'd like to go back just a touch farther if I may, to 1976, (Carter). Scroll down on this chart and look at the inflation rates from 1976 - 1987.

For Carter let's start with 1977 since that's the first year he was actually in office:

Inflation %

1977 - 6.5%
1978 - 7.62%
1979 - 11.22%
1980 - 13.58%

As you can see Jimmy Carter was an abysmal failure at fighting inflation. The longer he remained in office and the more his policies were in effect the worse it got, hence Reagan's massive landslide victory over Carter in 1980. Inflation is just as important, if not more so, as wages when talking about income. Now let's look at wages. Scroll down to the chart on this page.

Average wages:

1977 - $9,779.44
1978 - $10,556.03
1979 - $11,479.46
1980 - $12,513.46

Total wage increase during Carter = $2,734.02

Now let's look at Reagan.

Inflation:
Term 1:

1981 - 10.35%
1982 - 6.16%
1983 - 3.22%
1984 - 4.3%

Term 2:

1985 - 3.55%
1986 - 1.91%
1987 - 3.66%
1988 - 4.08%

Now let's compare the inflation to the wages.

Average wages:
Reagan term 1:

1981 - $13,773.10
1982 - $14,531.34
1983 - $15,239.24
1984 - $16,135.07

Total wage increase after Reagan term 1 = $2361.97

Pause here for a moment. Carter's wage increase was actually $372.05 more than Reagan's term 1 wage growth yet Jimmy Carter lost in a landslide while Reagan was re-elected in 1984 with an amazing 49 states landslide. Why?

The answer was inflation and employment. Under Reagan millions of jobs were created and inflation was kept in check, the result come re-election was an easy victory. Under Carter inflation was spiraling out of control and unemployment was high, the result come re-election was a landslide defeat.

Average wages:
Reagan term 2:

1985 - $16,822.51
1986 - $17,321.82
1987 - $18,426.51
1988 - $19,334.04

Total wage increase after Reagan term 2 = $2,511.53

Total wage increase after 2 terms of Reagan = $4,873.50

One last comparison to make here. When Reagan was elected in 1980 the average wage, (see above), was $12,513.46. His last year in office the average had increased to $19,334.04. This means that average pay increased by more than 50% under Ronald Reagan while inflation over 8 years averaged only 4.65%. The claim that wages remained flat when adjusted for inflation under Ronald Reagan is now proven blatantly false, Robert Reich is wrong.

This information also proves that Robert Reich is wrong to say that all of the gains in the economy since 1980 have gone only to the super rich. Keep in mind that he states in this MoveOn.org propaganda video that he prefers the Carter tax rates to the Reagan ones and the wage and inflation statistics I've shown above prove that the economy, as well as wages and inflation were far worse under Carter than Reagan. Of course he doesn't expect you to show research the way I have here and he expects that you'll just take his word for it. His belief that we need to return to the Carter era tax rates shows either true economic ignorance or blatant lies about what's best economically for the country, I'll let you decide which is the better description of him.

He then goes on to mention the money that the rich have buys political power. That much is true. That's what the whole fight about lobbyist is about. Yet moveon.org doesn't go after the unions that get special treatment from the Obama administration. The answer is simple. Get rid of lobbyists and make lobbying illegal. It would have broad support from most Americans but politicians from both sides will never push for that since so many from all sides are part of the problem with lobbyists.

Robert Reich then mentions the capital gains taxes, (which Bill Clinton also reduced). Essentially that means a business profit tax. That profit is used to pay you your paycheck and also to expand business leading to more jobs but the soak the rich crowd on the left ignore that point. He claims that the lower taxes are leading to the budget deficits. This is not true.

Massive government spending and few jobs are what's leading to the budget deficits. If you aren't working then you aren't paying taxes. The high unemployment which President Obama has completely failed at relieving decreases revenue and increases deficits because you are now paying people to not work, (through unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.), and you aren't making any money back from them since they aren't working and therefore paying payroll taxes. Lower taxes increase employment, just look at Texas, and increased employment leads to increased payroll tax wages collected by the government. Combine high unemployment with massive government spending and it's a double negative on revenue, if you aren't making money and you won't stop spending money you end up with a deficit. It's simple really, just apparently too simple for Robert Reich and Moveon.org.

He claims that our inability to borrow as easily as we could before is leading to higher unemployment. However, easy borrowing led to the housing bubble which in turn led to the housing crisis we now face. TARP was passed to ensure that banks could keep lending yet the economy has only gotten worse. The country got so carried away with borrowing and spending money that we forgot how to make and save money. It's that belief in borrowing more and more as well as spending more and more that leads to programs such as stimulus and subsidized housing. It's also that belief that leads to attacks on anyone who talks about cutting budgets in government. It's false economic propaganda championed by groups like moveon.org as well as failed government social programs that are the real cause of this weak, "anemic recovery".

One last point, there's no such thing as an anemic recovery, you either have a recovery or a recession. Which do you think best describes our country's current economic situation? Nice try Robert and moveon.org but I rest my case.

The Ironic Truth Of Progressive Liberalism

2011-06-04T16:36:00.002-04:00

I hope a lot of liberals, especially the more progressive liberals, read and consider the points I'm going to make here. I was born and have spent most of my life living in Barney Frank's district. He has, unfortunately, been the congressman representing this district longer than I've been alive, (elected in 1980, first term began in '81, I was born in '82). Conservatives who read that might think it's somewhat of an unfortunate curse. I in fact think it's been more of a blessing.

One thing I have here is no shortage of liberals to challenge my conservatism to it's core. I've learned much from my conversations, (more like debates), with those who consider themselves liberals. The constant challenge I get here has meant that I've had to be very sure about where I stand and why. Being in such a liberal district in such a liberal state has actually made me into a sharper, more knowledgeable conservative. That in itself is rather ironic and that type of irony is what I'd like to discuss here.

Like I said I've learned much about liberals and I'm going to show you some things that I'd like you to consider regarding where liberals stand on various issues. I hope a lot of liberals read this because I'd love them to try and say where I have this wrong. Everyone who reads this should really think about the points I make here and ask themselves how any of this makes sense.

Regardless of which side of the aisle you are on these are arguments that you should think about. If you don't agree with me that's fine. This is still America and differing opinions speaking out without fear is one of the greatest, (and too often forgotten rarest), freedoms that we have here. Let's get to the issues, I'll start with something nice and controversial; abortion and the death penalty.

It's no big secret that I oppose abortion. The typical pro-choice argument against those like me who are pro-life is that we don't respect women's rights. Cases of rape are the standard line of attack from the pro-choice crowd against the pro-life crowd. I've always found it fascinating that this is the same group that is often softest on crime when it comes to rapists. I fall into the lock them up for 20 years to life and throw away the key crowd, while it's the more liberal among us who fight for rehabilitation and softer punishment.

Case after case deals with a repeat offender and each time they are shown leniency and let back out onto the streets they in many cases repeat the crimes and finally get a tough sentence when they cross the line and end up murdering someone. The same crowd that fights to be lenient on these criminals are the ones trying to convince you that it's those who want to be stricter on the criminals that don't care about women's rights.

As it relates to the abortion argument and capital punishment I find it fascinating that the pro-choice crowd often fights so hard to save the lives of convicted violent criminals whom we know are guilty, yet they don't lift a finger and even go after those of us who try and make a stand for those whom we know are innocent, unborn babies. Remember the fight to save Tookie Williams. The pro-choice crowd couldn't wait to defend Tookie against the evil death penalty but if you make a stand for a baby who has clearly done no wrong regardless of the means of conception then you're the one who doesn't care.

We often hear the argument about what if we execute someone who is actually innocent. Fair enough point but not really relevant in today's context. Have you seen any of the TV shows detailing modern forensics? TruTV's forensic files being among the best. If you commit a crime worthy of the death penalty, and few crimes are, the things that are done to make sure we have the right criminal are downright amazing. This gives far less of a chance that a person who is in fact innocent ends up on death row. It'd be nice to see those who claim to stand for mercy and rehabilitation fight as hard for those whom nobody can deny are innocent, babies.

The next issue I'd like to discuss is the poor. The key to progressive liberals arguments relate to making everyone a special interest group and then try to paint yourself as a hero for that group. Here are a few of the groups that liberals claim to be the heroes of, minorities, elderly, poor, homosexual, the planet, the children, and on and on and on.

This is key to Liberals but before we really get into it I'd like to say something I've learned from local liberals that I've talked to. The average liberal, not the political exploiter but the average run into you at the supermarket liberal, does honestly believe that they care about the special interest groups listed above. The average everyday liberal honestly thinks that liberals are the best fit for helping those various groups. The problem is that the intentions, and most average everyday liberals do in fact have good intentions, are often the only thing that matters and the results, which are the only thing that should matter, aren't acknowledged.

The welfare state was intended to use the government to help the poor, that's the feel good initial intention. The reality is it created what is now generations of government dependency, not help....dependency, and it has actually increased rather than decreased poverty. Folks like Barney Frank, whose district is literally falling apart, (I know because I live here), love to claim they are fighting for the poor.

The problem is that they fail to acknowledge that the policies they promote are often the reason you ended up in poverty in the first place. As long as they can convince you they care then they will be rewarded by the very people they are letting down with their misguided policies all because rather than looking at the actual results of the actions taken by these do-gooders their supporters simply believe that they care about them. That's all it takes in some places to secure the votes.

Perhaps it's just a guilty conscience. Politicians caused the housing bubble by pushing subsidized housing and helping people who couldn't afford a house buy one. Once again, good intentions, get poor people houses. Fannie Mae had one such program called an interest only or interest first loan. It worked like this, for the first 15 years you paid only interest taxes and insurance, thus building no equity in the home for half the life of the 30 year mortgage.

After 15 years the mortgage doubled in order to get the full loan paid in the 30 year time frame. The logic for this is that over 15 years you're expected to make more money through pay increases etc. over time. But what happens if in that 15 year time frame you end up losing your job, seeing a decrease in pay due to a recession etc? I'll tell you what happens, you end up unable to afford your mortgage doubling, you have no equity in the home, and you lose the house. See how this works? Good intentions, bad results, typical case of progressive liberalism.

The best part is that once it all falls apart all of the politicians, regardless of party just line up to point the finger at the other guy. While there's plenty of blame to go around on average that's not what elections are about. Obama's getting hammered at the moment because the economy still sucks despite all of the promises that massively increasing our government spending and debt would solve the problem.

We often hear about how those who oppose gay marriage but support civil unions, like myself, are oppressive against homosexuals. Did you know that minorities, blacks in particular are the reason gay marriage failed when brought to the voters back in '08 in the extremely liberal California?

"That said, African-American opposition to gay marriage and gay civil unions is not new. In an ABC News/Washington Post poll in late 2007, blacks opposed gay civil unions by 58-36 percent. (Whites were in favor, 55-41.) In earlier polling we've done on gay marriage, blacks have been even more broadly opposed, 66-31 percent."

How come we don't see the liberals complaining about African-Americans being oppressive against the civil rights of homosexuals? The answer is simple, African-Americans are also one of the groups that liberals depend on and exploit for votes. It makes more political sense to blame the failure of gay marriage whenever it's brought to the voters on some vast "right-wing conspiracy" leg by a bunch of evil homophobe conservatives than to face reality and risk alienating a special interest group they are so dependant on for votes.

The more immediate target for the liberals at the moment are the elderly. With the baby boomer senior citizens this is a massive group of voters that no politician can win without. Enter the current mediscare tactics being used to scare senior citizens about the Paul Ryan plan. Even though the one true scary fact is that we know various social welfare programs, (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.), are in fact headed for bankruptcy. That's not a scare tactic it's a scary fact period.

Liberals are attacking Paul Ryan's plan and even using Newt Gingrich's criticism against it. That would be fine if they had an alternative but the truth is that they don't. They accuse Republican supporters of the Ryan Plan of wanting to destroy Medicare, remember that the elderly poor are another special interest group the left want to exploit through scare tactics for votes, meanwhile Obamacare actually did cut Medicare by $500 billion dollars and the left couldn't wait to defend it.

Let me play devil's advocate with Paul Ryan's plan for just a moment by asking you something. Have you read the bill? In truth I haven't. I did in fact read hundreds of pages of Obamacare before they pulled the bill offline out of fear of overexposure. The mistake I see Republicans and Conservatives making with the Ryan plan is that we are blindly following and trusting it simply because it's a Republican plan.

How does that make many of us any better than those who blindly followed Obamacare simply because it was a left wing plan written by Democrats? In truth it doesn't make us any better and I can't blindly trust the Ryan plan I haven't read if I myself criticized Obamacare supporters for the very same thing. Perhaps those on the right who are criticizing folks like Newt Gingrich for not getting in line behind the Ryan plan should remember that. Try reading the bill yourself. After all, if you support the Ryan plan simply because he says you should then you really can't criticize those on the left who supported Obamacare.

In truth I don't know if the Ryan plan is great or not but I can at least give him credit for addressing the very real issue at stake. While the liberals play the typical shoot the messenger without offering an alternative game that they've played countless times before.

Want an example? Fine, remember when President Bush tried to address the Social Security issue in his second term?

"Democrats say that Bush is misleading the nation on the nature of the problems Social Security faces"

This is the same thing isn't it? What have the Democrats proposed as a fix to the Social Security problem. The answer...nothing, in fact in many cases they continue to refuse there's even a problem at all. Remember this?

It's ironic that President Obama gave the country such a belief in hope. He was the guy who was going to heal America's image and repair our friendships with ally nations. Yet on his watch the middle east is only becoming more anti-American and dangerous than ever.

He was the guy who was going to save us from President Bush's bad economy and crushing debt. Yet on his watch the economy has only gotten, and continues to get, worse. At the same time he has quadrupled Bush's evil debt and expects you to give him a pass.

He was going to realize Martin Luther King Jr's, (whose father was a life long Republican), vision of true equality for all. Yet, the social divide from rich and poor, as well as minority groups have only gotten worse.

President Obama was going to heal the environment, yet the worst oil spill in history, as well as uncommon tornadoes etc. have been happening on his watch. It seems the more arrogant your promises, the more god will humble you.

President Obama seemed like a blessing to the Liberal Democrats yet his agenda led to the biggest political ass kicking in an election cycle, (2010), since the 1930's. That is the ironic truth of Progressive Liberalism.

Perhaps you think I've gotten something wrong in this post. Feel free to explain where I have it wrong with a comment. I enjoy the debate, I get plenty of practice living where I do. I think most who read this will instead see that it makes a lot of sense. At least it does to me. If you see things differently, that's fine, that's what it means to live in the land of the free. I've made my case as clear as I can. If you think I'm just part of some "right wing conspiracy" it's ok with me. I heard worse and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I think most who read this will instead think that I'm onto something here and the real conspiracy lies with those who will attack me for it.

Memorial Day 2011

2011-05-30T15:40:00.000-04:00

This is in fact a slightly altered re-post of my memorial day message from 2010 for anyone who didn't see it a year ago.

Today we remember all of our heroes, past and present, for doing what so few of us have: serving our country and in many cases giving their very lives to improve the lives of so many others.

This is a day when most of America stands with our military and veterans. This day is not about a day off of work, a cookout, or an unofficial start of summer. Today we reflect on what we so often take for granted. The freedoms we get to enjoy that are missing in so many other parts of the world. The soldiers who give so much in the present and have given so much in the past to defend so many others.

Our soldier do more and have done more for total strangers than many of us have done even for family and friends. For that level of sacrifice and dedication to doing what's right to defend the defenseless and to help the helpless no thank you could ever be enough. Our support may not be enough...but at the same time our support is all our soldiers and veterans ask for.

I pray for all who have served and who are serving, thank you all. I hope everyone has a great memorial day, take care, and remember what today is really about.

You may have the day off, but to a solder serving in harm's way there's no such thing as a day off, just days that are better than others. For all of those we have lost, you are not forgotten. For all of those in danger, you are not alone. God bless our soldiers past and present. Let us never forget what others have sacrificed in order to preserve the freedom that we so often take for granted.

Challenge From A Voice In The Wilderness

2011-05-17T17:40:00.010-04:00

A blogger recently commented on some of my posts and I wanted to show it to you. Rather than just add a comment of my own I figured I'd turn my response into a post all it's own. The blogger calls them self A Voice In The Wilderness. Here's the comment:

"Thank you for this blog! The pictures of all of my favorite GOP peeps just happen to be there: Barry Goldwater. Who can forget the man that only lost to LBJ by a handful of votes? Newt Gingrich, a man who committed adultery at the time he was targeting Clinton for the same thing, but this was different; Newt did it out of passionate love for his country. Besides, my hat goes off to the man who gets away with not paying property taxes. Heck, Newt Inc. still owes the State of Missouri. He’ll get away with that too because the revenue boys like easier targets. Don’t mess with Newt, b@#&*%$# Ronald Reagan, my all-time hero! The man who opened the doors for busting those socialist unions(Don’t they know that protecting their workers from management is a mortal sin and downright unpatriotic?) In addition to creating all those minimum wage jobs, Ronnie gave us the 2nd biggest deficit in history, topped only by Baby Bush(we now have the biggest deficit ever and everybody know that it’s Obama’s fault .After all, the Republicans have been very cooperative since 2009.)

And that nice looking man in-between Goldwater and Reagan- ok, I don't know his name but I think it's William F. Buckley, TRULY one of the coolest conservatives I can remember(and I mean that.)If I’m wrong, blame it on Obama.

And who can forget my favorite favorite, that foxy lady who can’t keep her mouth shut, but that’s why we love her right? You betcha!

While I am at it, let me make a prediction of the 2012 election: Gingrich will beat Obama in a landslide. Why? Because he’s still a frisky lad at heart and likes a little action on the side. What better way to stay out of another war?

Thank you! Retorts welcome on my blog.I'll fax you a cup of coffee. :)"

Here is my retort:

Finally, someone actually tries to make an argument with more than just insults. I make no apologies for Newt's adultery but it's not fresh news and unlike Clinton, (who lied under oath about his affair), Newt has at least apologized for it. Furthermore, weren't the Clinton supporters, (which I assume you are), the ones claiming that personal matters shouldn't make a difference as it's private and none of our business? Clinton's affair wasn't an issue for me, his lying under oath was. After all, if he'll lie under oath about something that most people don't even really care about, what would he lie about that's important? It was Dick Morris, Clinton's own advisor, who points out that Clinton let Osama Bin Laden get away from us in 1998 because he was afraid that launching an attack in Kandahar, Afghanistan, (where the CIA knew he was at the time), would look like a distraction from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

As far as Newt's unpaid taxes, it was for 4 states, adding up to a bit more than a whopping $6,000. Also, those taxes have been paid.

"The tax liens ranged in size from a $195 property tax bill in the Atlanta suburbs to $1,969 in unpaid Missouri taxes. Most were paid shortly after tax authorities filed them"

In other words, Newt personally didn't know about the missed taxes, small as they were, and after it was brought to his attention the taxes were paid. That certainly pales in comparison to Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich, you know, the billionaire who avoided taxes and was given a pass by Clinton, ignore that though. If you want to play the hypocrisy game then let's play, Liberalism is based on hypocrisy so I'll win this one easy.

As far as Ronald Reagan busting the socialist unions. Damn right, unions drive up costs, hurt businesses, and screw harder workers over through tenure. Many were founded by socialists. If you still can't see the reality of power politics in regard to unions I feel bad for you, luckily though, most of the country sees through the unions game. Labor laws protect workers, union rackets only exploit them. If you don't like your job, quit, if your employer is truly mistreating workers then launch an investigation through internal company measures, (they all have them). As far as Ronald Reagan's deficit, I'll let him defend himself on this one.

"I'm convinced we must take the lead and wait no more on the Democrats for a bi-partisan approach to the deficit. They think they have a campaign issue. They've been in charge of the congress for 45 years and for 45 years they've run up deficits. Now they want to hang the present deficit on us and yet they've only given us half the spending cuts we've asked for." - Ronald Reagan March 8, 1984 Diary entry.

Now that you've lost those argument's I can't help but laugh at this comment
by you:

"(we now have the biggest deficit ever and everybody know that it’s Obama’s fault . After all, the Republicans have been very cooperative since 2009.)"

Is that supposed to be a joke? Democrats held the majority of congress throughout all of 2009 and 2010. Have you already forgotten that since the Tea Party led to a Democrat ass kicking last November? The Republicans you blame for Obama's deficit even though they had no control over the last 2 years have only been in control of the House of Representatives since January of this year. You can deflect blame from Obama all day long if it makes you feel better but it's clearly an ignorant point to try and make.

I pay almost no attention to Palin but I do think it's funny how the left attacks her for a lack of experience when she has far more political experience of Obama, and that's a fact. You also said:

"While I am at it, let me make a prediction of the 2012 election: Gingrich will beat Obama in a landslide. Why? Because he’s still a frisky lad at heart and likes a little action on the side. What better way to stay out of another war?"

Nice way to end your rant. It's worth pointing out that involving us in a third war in Libya was all Obama and was done without the consent of congress but you'll give him a pass there right? At least Bush went to congress and got people like Hillary Clinton to at least vote for the wars. Gingrich has admitted his mistakes of the past and been forgiven by his family. It's laughable to watch critics attack him for that while Clinton's wandering willy is ignored even though he was far worse. Thanks for the comment, it's been fun. Keep the coffee, you're the one falling asleep in the wilderness.

Bin Laden's Bin Killed, Stay Awake

2011-05-02T10:43:00.001-04:00

It's a great day. It's been a long time coming but we can finally say with confidence that the most wanted man in the world has been killed. It's barely been announced as of this writing and yet I'm already getting sick of the scepticism surrounding the news.

Let's start with this. Both President Obama and our military deserves credit here. It's a shame that there are already partisan's trying to divide this issue. If we can't even unite on a moment such as this then we as Americans have already destroyed everything this country has stood for in history and we should be ashamed of ourselves if we allow that to become this generations legacy as Americans.

This is great news. To the critics who believe this is a lie to improve President Obama's approval rating, be better than that. At this point to believe that simply because you don't like Obama, (as I clearly don't), makes you no better than the critics of President Bush who attacked him for anything and everything and you should be above that.

We all have questions, such as whether or not the Pakistani government knew he was there and was protecting him when they were making themselves out to be helping us with the war on terror. He was in a fortified compound near military and the U.S. didn't let the Pakistani government know about the operation which was a good move. What if someone on Bin Laden's side in the Pakistani government found out about it and tipped him off to let him slip away as he had several times in the past? He slipped through our fingers in 1998 in Afghanistan under President Clinton, (according to former Clinton advisor Dick Morris). This also happened under Bush shortly after 9/11. These are good questions to have but we should just enjoy the moment of triumph.

I have other questions though. For example, the information leading to Bin Laden was attained from a Gitmo detainee. Will all of the Obama supporters chanting USA in the streets still be in favor of closing Gitmo given that fact? Will the left remain on such a hard line against our military and military recruiters considering that the CIA and Navy SEALS did such a fantastic job of conducting this operation, killing Bin Laden without suffering a single casualty?

The left will give all of the credit to President Obama and the right are going to try and shift most of the credit to Bush, the military, and Gitmo. Would it really be that difficult for all of us to give credit to all of the above on that one. I don't remember the Bush critics being all that happy when we caught Saddam Hussein do you? You may not have agreed with Bush's actions in Iraq but if you support the recent actions in Egypt and Libya is Iraq really all that different? All three, (Saddam, Gaddafi, and Mubarak), were dictators and terrorized their people. The past is the past and what's done is done but can we stop with the hypocritical partisanship of the past for the good of the present and future? Unfortunately, I'm really not so sure that we can.

Partisanship is fed into us from many angles on both sides and some people just want to believe what they believe and you can't change that. Let me explain why I put "stay awake" in the title of this post.

Our fight isn't over by a long shot. Psychologically, this is a great boost for us and a great blow to the terrorists that hate us but in the end it's still just one guy. Think about this:

FDR died on April 12, 1945. That may have been a pretty good day for the imperialist Japanese. I'm no fan of FDR due to his pre-WW2 actions but he did a good job fighting the war, FDR was a popular leader just as Osama Bin Laden was for terrorists. It wasn't until August 6 and then August 9 that we dropped the 2 nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The death of a leader is of course significant but we mustn't fall back into a false sense of security because of it.

We must stay alert and remember that there are plenty of other people who hate America just as much as Bin Laden, remember that Bin Laden didn't pilot any of the planes on 9/11 and obviously wasn't a single suicide bomber killing himself just to kill innocents. Do not fall back asleep just because we've dealt such a serious blow to our enemies.

To those whose political opinion differs from my own I say maybe it's time to scale back your criticism of our military heroes who take risks the likes of which you and I will never know to keep all of us safe. You don't have to agree with a war to recognize the heroes of that war. Even Hillary Clinton and President Obama praised the work of President Bush in fighting AIDS in Africa. Every president has good and bad decisions that define the legacy of their presidency. It's okay to disagree with most of President Obama's policies and still give him some credit here.

We've all heard the saying that we have won the battle but have yet to win the war. That certainly seems to fit here. So stay alert, keep paying attention, keep learning and growing. I'm certainly not the 19 year old kid I was on 9/11 and I don't think there are many people out there who can say they are the same person they were 10 years ago.

I fear that after the initial "high" and showing of pride that many of us feel this day will fade over time just as it did as the months and years following 9/11 passed. Do this country a favor and don't be one of those people, we've got enough of them. Be better than that and show the world that we are the land of the free and the home of the brave. Stand with what is right, give credit where it's due even if it's not exactly someone you usually agree with. That will show true American pride far more than chanting USA!! USA!! with a beer in hand. Think about it.

The Next Big Fight....Raising The Debt Ceiling

2011-04-29T17:20:00.000-04:00

First things first, our thoughts and prayers go out to everyone affected by the tornadoes, (I have family in Alabama). I'm confident that Americans will band together to help those communities recover, (we usually do).

Here we go again. One day everyone's talking about tackling the debt and deficits, the next day we talk about increasing the amount of debt we're allowed to borrow ourselves into. Isn't politics fun? Believe it or not this isn't as simple of an issue for me as you may think that it should be, let me explain.

It's no secret that I think Art Laffer is one of the best economists out there. When asked about raising the debt ceiling, he recently supported raising it but stated that congress should have strings attached to it. Read his article here.

"After World War II, the U.S. cut federal government spending dramatically. In 1945, federal government spending as a share of GDP peaked at 31.6%, and by 1948 it was down to 14.4%. Private real GDP (e.g., GDP less government purchases) for the three years 1946, 1947 and 1948 grew at a 7.5% annual rate. So much for the idea that cutting government spending hurts the economy."

You have to ask yourself what Austan Goolsbee, (Obama's current top economic advisor), is thinking. Art Laffer points out exactly where Mr. Goolsbee is wrong by using facts rather than simply ridiculing Goolsbee's ignorance on economics. It appears that Art Laffer sees Goolsbee as more of an accountant, (and not much of one), than an economist.

"The mistake Mr. Goolsbee makes when he says that a massive reduction in government spending will reduce output is to confuse accounting with economics. In the simplest accounting terms, GDP is equal to consumption plus investment plus government spending—that's true. But reducing government spending doesn't reduce GDP dollar-for-dollar, as this accounting equation would seem to be saying."

It's Obama's faith in people like Austan Goolsbee that have made this so called recovery anything but. The only reason the stock market hasn't crashed is because we keep bailing it out with printed money. It is for this reason that the inflation rate, (counting gas and food), stands around 9.6% even though Obama and Goolsbee won't admit it. For the record, the recalculating of inflation rates and the decision to exclude gas and food began in 1980, (under Carter not Reagan as Reagan didn't take office until 1981), it seems as though it was a trick by Carter to make inflation look better than it was as we faced massive inflation under Carter. Luckily, the people understood that inflation faces us every day from the supermarket's to the gas stations and everywhere in between so Reagan went on to win 44 out of 50 states in the election of 1980.

Now back to the debt ceiling. It's true that Ronald Reagan also fought to raise the debt ceiling. However, Reagan also fought hard for spending cuts against a Democrat controlled congress. While President Reagan didn't get as much in spending cuts as he would have liked he did get a good amount of Democrats to agree with his budgets and at least enough spending cuts to prove he was serious about the issue.

The position Laffer takes on the next debate over the debt ceiling is the same position Senator Rand Paul has taken with this issue. Raising the debt ceiling has to be met with proof that we are in fact taking the debt seriously and therefore needs to be tied with significant spending cuts.

Pay attention to the rhetoric used as May begins and we approach the debt ceiling. This fight will be very similar to the recent one where Boo-hoo Boehner caved and the congress pretended to cut $38 billion from the massive budget. Also, when you see Obama accusing the Republicans of playing politics with the debt ceiling, (you'll see it as we get closer to reaching that limit by mid-May), remember this. There are Democrats who are also ready to vote against raising the debt ceiling but President Obama will most likely not mention them.

One other point to make so this can relate to you personally. It's the reason I was conflicted about this for awhile. What's the point of having a debt ceiling if you're just able to raise it every time you approach the limit? Think of it this way. Let's say you have a credit card with a $2,000 limit. So you go out and spend the $2,000 but then you call the credit card company and tell them you have to keep spending or your household will crumble.

The credit card company then says okay fine and increases your limit to $4,000. You, of course don't learn anything and keep on spending as usual. Next thing you know you've hit the $4,000 so you just call again and ask for a $6,000 limit. Does that make any sense? That's essentially what we've been doing with the debt ceiling for some time now. We have to cut our expenses and that means we have to cut spending end of story.

In conclusion I leave you with this point. This one goes out to all of the left-wingers out there. Ask them this, (I issued this challenge on facebook but received no replies so I'll try here).

If conservatives are in the tank for big business and wall street then why is it that the liberals and progressives support bailing them all out?

Most true conservatives, (myself included), were against the bailouts from the beginning even under George Bush. The liberals like Obama are all for bailing out the very industries they claim to hate. Meanwhile, the conservatives were against the government rushing to the rescue of the industries that we supposedly are all in collusion with to keep the little guy down. As usual, the rhetoric doesn't seem to match the reality. I'll leave it to you to figure out. Feel free to comment an attempt to explain that one but so far my challenge for the left has gone unanswered.

No Spines vs. No Brains, President Obama's Deficit Speech Analysis

2011-04-15T17:30:00.005-04:00

If you read my last post then you'll see that it all played out exactly how I said it would. Liberals talked about how the proposed cuts would starve and kill everybody etc. It's the same old game and no surprise. As the title of this post implies, what you've mostly seen in this budget debate is a debate between ignorant, Keynesian Dumbocrats and wimpy, spineless Retreaticans.

Look how much arguing went on between the 2 parties over a measly $38.5 Billion in cuts to the $3.7 Trillion budget. Republicans are too afraid of the potential political ramifications that may come from the typical fear mongering of the Democrats labeling Republicans as lacking compassion to make a strong stand on budget cuts. Democrats are so convinced that government spending automatically qualifies as a good investment so they label all cuts, (aside from military of course), as catastrophic.

You have to keep in mind that President Obama and due to his actions late in his second term even to a degree President Bush are following an economic theory championed by English economist John Meynard Keynes. It's an economic philosophy that believes that government can inject money into the economy through various spending programs, (e.g. stimulus), in order to spur economic activity leading to economic growth. The centralized planning models fatal flaw is much akin to the growth in the welfare state for example. When you become too dependant on government you lose the competitive edge that allows you to grow without it, thus leading to more and more government subsidizing of costs and therefore a lack of actual growth within the economy. The increase in costs becomes less of a concern when you don't pay for it, note the increase in college tuition without matching increases in quality of that education for example as much of the college costs are covered through financial aid from the government.

On the one hand the Democrats are hoping that all of the same old fear tactics will work and on the other hand the Republicans are afraid that the same old tactics will work. Obama has weighed in on the issue in his recent speech and I'd like to give you an analysis of President Obama's recent speech. If you haven't watched the speech for yourself then you should stop reading and watch it for yourself first. Obama has always been given credit by me for being a great speaker and I maintain that again today.

Here's how this will work. I will first give you a quote from Obama's speech, watching the speech will allow you to see for yourself that I'm not going to change any of the words he says. I'll give you a comment from the speech and then give my thoughts as it relates to the quote at hand. I will also use other quotes and facts in order to back up whatever point I'm making at the time. It is my belief that Obama's main concern isn't in fact the debt and deficits, his concern is re-election. Now let's get started.

"We contribute to programs like medicare and social security which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work."

If that's the case then what did we need health care reform for? Seniors are apparently doing fine. Also by "basic income" he means you get to live in poverty off of social security. Just ask someone who lives exclusively off of socialist security and you'll see what I mean.

"As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally born a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate. Everybody pays but the wealthier born a little more."

Actually, 47% of people in this country broke even or actually made money based on income taxes. That means that 53% are already paying for 47% yet the system is unfairly rigged in favor of that 53%.....if you say so. Also the wealthier don't cover "a little more" they cover a hell of a lot more. Quick thought, in 2005 the late Ted Kennedy made around $300 million through various foundations etc. yet he paid only $156,000 in taxes on that money and hid the rest overseas, I wonder why the left had no problem with that? Oh, and the politically well connected to Obama, GE made 14 Billion last year and paid no taxes but never mind that though, nothing to see here folks, move along.

"A little credit card debt isn't going to hurt if it's temporary, but as far back as the 1980's, America started amassing debt at more alarming levels."

Actually, it goes back well into the 60's and 70's but he's trying to paint it as a Republican issue and more specifically a Ronald Reagan started problem and I'd like to give the gipper a chance to defend himself.

March 8, 1984 diary entry

"I'm convinced we must take the lead & wait no more on the Democrats for a bi-partisan approach to the deficit. They think they have a campaign issue. They've been in charge of the congress for 45 years & for 45 years they've run up deficits. Now they want to hang the present deficit on us & yet they've only given us half the spending cuts we've asked for." - Ronald Reagan

Notice some key words there, take the lead, campaign issue, only given half the spending cuts we've asked for. Now you tell me that quote isn't perfect for today.

"We increased spending dramatically for 2 wars and an expensive prescription drug program but we didn't pay for any of this new spending. Instead we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid for tax cuts. Tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country. Tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of 500 B every year over the next decade."

It's true we didn't pay for the 2 wars but the lie in this quote is the "unpaid for tax cuts". If you look at revenues following the 2003 tax cuts implemented by Bush and recently extended under Obama, government tax revenues INCREASED following the cuts rather than decreased. This has historically proven accurate as even JFK reminded us.

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is between two kinds of deficits, a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, produce revenues, and achieve a future budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness, the second reflects an investment in the future" - JFK

You see, the problem isn't that tax cuts don't generate revenues. The problem is that if spending goes out of control then it outweighs the gains of the cuts. For example, if you get a $50/week increase in your take home pay every week and to celebrate it you start spending $60 more per week on going out to eat more often, you'll end up having less money than before the raise. The problem isn't that you aren't taking home more money, it's just that your increased spending has eliminated the raise and then some. The same rule applies to the relationship with taxes, revenues, and spending as it relates to government.

"In the last decade if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit our deficit would currently be at low historic levels in the coming years."

The prescription drug benefit is the only arguable point as I've already shown that the tax cuts increased revenues and therefore did in fact pay for themselves and then some. The prescription drug benefit was already addressed in the previous quote though so this was little more than an additional misinformed dig at the Bush tax cuts for those who don't understand economics. As far as the deficit being at low historic levels, this is little more than optimistic rhetoric based only on pointless speculation on what could have been.

"In this case we took a series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs, kept credit flowing, and provided working families extra money in their pocket."

Several problems here. The Chamber of Commerce has already stated that there is no real accurate way to judge a job as truly being "saved" so talking about millions of jobs saved is simply an optimistic view designed to make you forget the millions of jobs lost since Obama took office which can be tracked. One of the criticisms Obama has had regarding the banks is the fact that credit wasn't in fact flowing so to take credit for keeping credit flowing is in fact contradictory to his own past rhetoric. As far as working families having extra money....let me just ask you if you feel like you have extra money since the stimulus etc. have passed?

Perhaps the fact that inflation has begun with food and the price of gas doubling since Obama took office has made you forget about all of that "extra money" that you have. By the way isn't it funny how food and gas prices aren't included when calculating the inflation index, what a coincidence. The 2 products you can't go without are the 2 products that aren't considered when telling you how much your money is worth, what a great scam.

"By 2025 the amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our health care programs, medicare and medicaid, social security, and the interest we owe on our debt."

By financing "our health care programs" he actually means his health care program. Medicare and medicaid are 2 of the programs that the left goes after the right every time they are mentioned for reform. Socialist security is a third. Also, look at this and tell me that $38.5 Billion in cuts looks all that impressive. We need massive changes and massive cuts in order to fix this, this lobbyist controlled scalpel scheme that both parties are subject to when regarding the budget is a joke.

"We won't be able to afford good schools, new research, or the repair of roads."

Never mind the fact that "we won't", the reality of our current situation is that we can't afford much of anything presently. As far as details, we spend more on money on education than ever before yet the quality of that education has declined dramatically and many other areas of the world, (China and India for example), are kicking our asses in the field of education despite spending less on it. The problem with education in America isn't money, it's bureaucracy.

"New research", oh, you mean like green jobs which have led Spain to the highest unemployment rate in Europe. How about the repair of roads? Did you know that despite having some of the worst roads out there New Jersey didn't receive much stimulus money where it was needed? Meanwhile, here in my hometown they repaired a major road, that wasn't needed, but the green signs reminding us that stimulus paid for it look great.

"The implication is that tackling the deficit issue won't require tough choices or politicians suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid. Even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget."

I think most of us are aware that tackling the deficit will require tough choices, we just don't seem to have enough politicians that are willing to make those choices, Obama included, talking about it on the campaign is one thing. Many on both sides of the aisle have proven that actually making those choices are decisions many are not willing to actually make when it counts.

Also, just because something is a small part of our budget doesn't mean we should treat it as insignificant, after all Obama, didn't you say that everything needs to be on the table? Foreign aid counts as everything doesn't it? For example, let's say you buy a coffee everyday for $2.00. That's not a big part of your budget but if you stopped buying it and make coffee at home or went without then you'd save $60/month. It's not much but it's something, the same applies to the government's budget, cuts to the many small budget items can make a big difference.

"around 2/3 of our budget is spent on medicare, medicaid, social security, and national security."

Well what does that tell you? It tells me that those are the 4 areas of government spending that we have to spend the most time on addressing. Unfortunately, those are the 4 areas that most politicians are most afraid to tackle for political reasons. Democrats instantly go after anyone who proposes changes to medicare, medicaid, and social security. Republicans refuse to tackle spending issues that tend to relate to national security.

If you go after medicare, medicaid, or social security you are labeled as hating the poor, elderly, or disabled. If you go after defense spending you hate the troops or are willing to enable the terrorists. For these reasons they are most likely to be able to avoid serious changes or cuts as politicians actually have the backbone to challenge the conventional wisdom regarding these programs. How are we supposed to get serious about tackling our debts and deficits if the very programs causing most of the problem are deemed untouchable by those in Washington? Now you know why the $38.5 is being hailed as such an accomplishment when in fact it means next to nothing.

Then President Obama got into Paul Ryan's proposed 2012 budget which just passed in the house of representatives today. Obama did in fact give the Republicans credit for at least proposing a budget, unlike the Democrats, which is why we're in this situation with the budget debate in the first place. Now, of course President Obama doesn't like this plan since it's a plan that cuts spending which, due to his Keynesian, socialistic, economic view of centralized control of our economy by government, is simply not in line with his economic philosophy. How many times have you heard President Obama and others, usually Democrats, talk about how catastrophic reducing government spending would be? Go back in this post and read the Ronald Reagan quote again. The Democrats didn't like spending cuts back then and they're even more resilient to them now.

Here's some of Obama's criticism of the Ryan plan:

"A 70% cut in clean energy, a 25% cut in education, a 30% cut in transportation, cuts in college pell grants that will grow to more than $1000/year, that's the proposal"

Let's start with that. "Clean energy" is a joke and wouldn't survive if it weren't heavily subsidized by government money. I'm all for working on solar power, (wind is impractical and doesn't provide enough energy to be a viable solution), and the problem with bio fuels for example are the effects on other things. It's true that Brazil uses sugar, (which they are a big producer of), to make ethanol and we use corn, (which we are a big producer of), to make ethanol. The problem is that it reduces supply to be used for food and therefore drives up the cost of many other things. Corn is one of the most widely used foods in our food chain. Look how many products use corn syrup for example. A vast majority of the corn we grow is in fact used for that purpose.

Also, we use mostly corn to feed our livestock, cows etc. If we reduce supply and drive up the cost of corn, it also drives up the cost of beef and milk, (which means all dairy products really). Meanwhile, who the hell is even using ethanol in their cars? Have you ever filled your car with ethanol? I'm guessing most reading this are saying no right now so where's that great investment really going? Let's move on.

A 25% cut in education......good. The cost of education is at it's highest levels and yet the test scores of our students have remained largely flat or gone down. What's all that money buying us? Expensive pensions, increased wages, and job protection for tenured teachers. We spend thousands of dollars per student and yet our drop out rate has only gone up. Money isn't the problem with education in this country, bureaucracy and government are the problem with education. How come we don't hear Obama complaining about the monopoly on college text books? Why does it cost $800 for a couple of books that you are required to have for specific classes? The answer of course is that the government supports and subsidizes much of that cost through financial aid so there's no incentive to keep costs down.

Why have college costs spiraled so out of control in this country? People went to college before the government paid for most of it and they actually got a better quality education for a much more reasonable price. Once government got involved the costs skyrocketed, just wait until you see what it does to health care. As far as the 30% cut to transportation I'd like some details as to what exactly that 30% is. Speaking of which, let's talk roads.

"It's a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse we can't afford to fix it"

At the moment we can't afford to fix anything but that's not the point. Remember what stimulus was supposed to do? Wasn't that supposed to fix roads and bridges? Where did all the money really go (cough)THE DNC(cough) if the Ryan plan is going to make sure all of our roads and bridges turn to crap? We spent over a trillion dollars on roads and bridges etc. with our wonderful Keynesian stimulus packages, or so we were told, and now that we've already spent that money President Obama is acting like we're about to spend nothing on fixing roads in the future. Does his argument there really make sense when you think about it? Maybe it's just me but I'm going to call that bluff.

"it says instead of guaranteed health care you will get a voucher and if that voucher isn't enough to buy the insurance that's available in the open marketplace well, tough luck, your on your own. Put simply it ends Medicare as we know it."

Do you remember what the 4 biggest problems with our budget are? Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and national defense. Now, I don't know enough about Paul Ryan's proposal to call that statement by Obama false, (maybe like Obamacare we have to pass it so we can find out what's in it, take that Nancy Pelosi), but there's something telling about the end of this Obama quote. "Put simply it ends Medicare as we know it", well, if Medicare, Medicaid, and social security are 3 of our biggest problems then in order to truly get back into shape couldn't it be argued that all 3 of those programs have to be ended AS WE KNOW IT. You see, ending as we know it doesn't mean getting rid of the programs, it means reforming and changing these programs and I thought Obama was all about change. He should be embracing changes to those 3 programs yet even though he knows they aren't sustainable all he can do when a change is proposed is criticize as usual.

"Elderly, poor children, middle class families with autistic children or down syndrome, severely disabled, fend for yourselves."

See my last post about the scare tactics used whenever cuts are proposed and this quote doesn't surprise in the least. This type of rhetoric is always used to paint critics as heartless bastards who just want to starve and kill everyone. This quote was worth showing but really doesn't warrant much more than that as a response.

"We can't afford education etc. but we can afford 1 Trillion in tax breaks. The bottom 90% saw income decline while rich saw increase"

Don't forget, lower taxes = higher revenue so once again this quote is for those who don't understand the Laffer curve or supply side economics. It's easy to make most of us hate the rich by criticizing millionaires and billionaires but that because it's not as sexy as saying he wants to tax the hell out of business owners who provide us with jobs.

"Ronald Reagan's own budget director said there's nothing serious or courageous about this plan"

Ronald Reagan didn't agree with everything everyone in his administration said all of the time, what president does. Hell, Obama won't even listen to the debt commission he himself appointed. This is a way to inject Reagan's name into a criticism of the Republican plan by Paul Ryan. There's nothing courageous except the fact that they at least came up with something and proposed it, unlike the Democrats.

"I don't think there's anything courageous about asking for sacrifice from those that can least afford it and don't have any clout on capital hill."

Well then, how about you make sure there's no such thing as having "clout on capital hill" by making lobbying and lobbyist illegal. You could propose it tomorrow, it'd have about a 99% approval with the public, and any politician who stood with the lobbyists interests over the public's would be doomed. Hell, that alone would probably secure your re-election and cause the polls to skyrocket in your favor so why not do it? The answer of course is that just like the rest of the politicians Obama is in bed with his own corporations and lobbyists just like many others. That's why companies like GE get away with paying no taxes even though Obamacrit likes to bash those evil corporations....you know, except the ones he likes.

"we're a nation that built a railroad accross a continent"

Damn right but you have got to read this, government involvement strikes again with usual results. From the link:

"After the transcontinental railroad was completed in 1869, congressional investigations revealed that some railroad entrepreneurs had illegally profiteered from the two Pacific Railway Acts"

Due to government subsidizing and paying more for risky terrain there was a lot of track that actually had to be ripped up and redone. Building was based on getting the most money out of government rather than working for efficiency and reduced costs. It's a shame more people don't learn from our history.

"we saved millions of seniors from poverty with social security and medicare"

Talk to a few seniors living off of social security and ask them if they think that's true. Medicare and social security are 2 of the 4 biggest problems we face in our fiscal mess. Medicare may help but social security only helps you maintain living in poverty if that's your only source of income. This quote is a lie plain and simple.

"to meet our fiscal challenge we will need to make reforms, we will all need to make sacrifices, but we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in."

He's right here. We don't have to sacrifice the America we believe in, we have to sacrifice the America we currently live in. Most of us believe in a better America than we currently have. In talking about his own budget Obama made some questionable claims.

He talked about saving $4 Trillion over 12 years, funny since best case scenario he'll only be president for another 5 but that's not the point.

"It's an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table"

You know, except for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, 3 out of the 4 biggest problems. I'm sure his plan cuts plenty from national defense but remember all 4 have to be addressed. Like I said, Democrats won't touch the first 3 and Republicans avoid the fourth. So to say it addresses every kind of spending is just a touch away from the truth. He laid out 4 specific steps in his plan.

Step 1: keeping the agreed upon cuts, (38.5 Billion) over 12 years. He claims that saves $750 Billion.

The problem is that 38.5 * 12 = 462 Billion. Obama must be hoping that we are clueless in basic math, the $750 figure is a lie, end of story.

Step 2: find savings in defense budget.

I believe him here, remember the big 4, this is the one the Republicans pet peeves. Liberals never have a problem cutting defense and I agree that it's necessary depending on what's cut so congratulations Mr. President I agree with you for once in this post.

Step 3: further reduce health care costs.

It's a nice thought, but this is based on the assumption that his health care plan will in fact reduce costs. There's much reason to speculate that that may not be the case. This is based on a claim that may or may not prove true. I for one am not optimistic based on the history of government programs costing far more than promised, like social security for example.

Step 4: review the tax code and make changes.

I agree here as well but only if it's simplified. Simplifying the tax code will in fact save a lot of money and make more money on our bottom line as well. I just don't trust the folks who need thousands of pages for anything they propose to come up with a simplified, more streamlined tax code. After all, if it's simplified how are you going to hide perks for your friends like GE and the unions, (perks for unions were hidden in the health care bill)?

President Obama also mentioned that his plan calls for a review in 2014 to see if bigger cuts are needed. Translation: re-elect me so my plan for a 2014 review will be realized and I'll still be around to make the cuts we know we'll need. Hell I can save you some time Mr. President, WE NEED BIGGER CUTS, NEVERMIND YOUR REVIEW.

"I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me. They want to give back to their country."

I disagree, there's no penalty for paying extra taxes. If the guilt of not paying extra in taxes is keeping you awake at night then you don't need a speech or policy from President Obama. All you need to do is write a check. Maybe Obama should write a letter back to the rich who don't feel like he's taxing them enough and ask why there's no check enclosed with the letter. I'm sure the reply's would be fascinating.

"There are those who believe that we shouldn't make any reforms to medicare, medicaid, or social security out of fear that any talk of change to these programs will immediately usher in the sort of steps the house republicans have proposed."

Here Obama is talking about the Democrats. He just listed the 3 out of 4 things I told you Democrats won't and he said it himself in a single sentence. The problem here is that in reality Obama is one of them. He's trying to act like he supports changes to these programs to look like a deficit hawk but in reality he opposes all changes proposed by the Republicans, since the Democrats refuse to propose changes to these programs.

"We have the obligation to prove that it works by making government smarter and leaner and more effective"

In other words you have the obligation to make government smaller, not bigger, unfortunately here you don't believe your own words, see health care, the auto industry, the banking industry, the housing industry, or stimulus for details.

Thanks for sticking with me until the end on this post but I'd like to leave you with one last quote from President Obama as well as a quote in response.

"Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Niel came together to save social security for future generations"

That's true, social security was saved at the time but you forget, (or let's face it, you don't know), that Reagan also left us with a warning.

From a note written by Ronald Reagan dated July 24, 1981

"If I may, let me explain the situation and what it is we were trying to do with Social Security. I have reneged no pledge. I said during the campaign that we would do nothing to hurt those presently dependent on Social Security checks - that we would not pull the rug out from under those people so dependent. I did say that I would try to restore the integrity to the program. As it is now, the program without change will run out of money for paying benefits to the present recipients sometime late in 1982. Beyond that, however, there is a long-range actuarial imbalance which means that down the road in the next century, but within the lifetime of younger workers today, the program will be several trillion dollars out of balance."

Obama remembers and admits the first part of this quote to be true. The problem is that the warning, which I've put in bold print, is forgotten and is now here, we've run out of time and the Democrats denying there is a problem with social security, as moveon.org and others do all the time, won't make it go away. Thanks for reading, I hope you've learned something and found it worth your time.

Typical Hypocrisy and Shutdown Scare Tactics

2011-04-02T18:53:00.002-04:00

It's fascinating watching President Obama's supporters on the left try to justify the actions taken in Libya. You'd think there would be outrage considering all that was said about President Bush regarding Iraq. Those on the left that support Obama's actions in Libya ignore the fact that he went around Congress and sought no congressional approval for this military action. In contrast Congress, (including Hillary Clinton), voted overwhelmingly for the resolution granting the use of force against Saddam Hussein.

The justification from the left is actually insulting in my book as they are counting on you having the attention span of a stone when talking about why the action in Libya was necessary. For example, claims that what Gaddafi was doing to his own people allows for the military action under the UN's Responsibility to Protect act. It's true that Gaddafi oppresses his people but didn't Saddam as well? Give me an honest answer for once those of you on the left. Do you support aiding oppressed people in the world or don't you?

President Bush got together a fairly large coalition of nations together for both Iraq and Afghanistan, whether you agree with the wars or not that isn't the point. President Bush got congressional approval, (Obama used to say he didn't vote for the wars when he was debating Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign of '08 but it's a pointless argument since he didn't become a U.S. senator until 2005 so it was impossible for him to have voted for the wars anyway), meanwhile Obama leaves congress completely out of the Libya decision making. There has only been limited outcry from the Democrats with regard to this and the only reason the double standard doesn't surprise us is because let's face it, by now we're used to both sides playing these games while our country suffers.

Now, let's address all of this talk about a government shutdown. I'd like to tackle two side issues regarding the bigger picture here. The first issue is with the Republicans and it regards the cowardice and lack of spines with regards to spending cuts. The country by and large is perhaps more on board with reducing government spending than ever before yet the Republicans have been coming up with pathetically small cuts. Not as insulting as the Democrats mind you but a joke nonetheless.

We here talk about several billion in cuts and the like but it comes out of a $1 Trillion+ budget. It's the equivalent to buying a $30,000 car and bragging about saving $100.00. The proposed Obama cuts are and even bigger joke and amount to saving $1 on that car. Meanwhile the interest on our debt alone will mostly wipe out most of the proposed spending cuts anyway. Perhaps it's just the curse of D.C. everyone gets elected acting like a tax cutting Conservative but when they show up for work the campaign flies right out of the window for many. Even John Boehner, whom I do like, is getting wishy washy and timid about cuts, not surprising considering how much he cries, (sorry I couldn't resist and like I said I do like him as the new speaker of the house).

The Republicans need to make a stand about spending cuts, critics be damned, (they're going to paint you as evil careless asses anyway so what's the difference). The future of our country is truly at stake. The future of our children is truly at stake and unlike the politicians I'm not just saying that because it sounds good in front of a crowd on the campaign trail, I say it because I have children and it's the truth.

As for the Democratic critics of reducing spending, who cares, it's the same old song and dance from them. They can't justify that they've massively increased the debt and deficit, (even though they criticized Bush's smaller debt and deficits), so instead they do what they always do, launch fear mongering insults:

Think Socialist Security needs to be reformed? You hate the elderly.

Think Welfare programs need to be reformed to assure only those in need get help? You hate the poor.

Don't support everything Obama does? You hate Blacks.

Support immigration reform and border security? You hate Latinos. And on and on and on.

These are not new arguments. In fact they are the oldest tricks in the book for the Liberals and luckily, (as you saw in the November elections), the country is starting to finally not buy into all of that BS. Better late than never I suppose but there's much to be done.

Let's talk government shutdown now. Listening to the news it sounds scary doesn't it? Listening to the Democrats you'd think that if the government shuts down on April 8 we'll all be dead by April 15. Listening to the Republicans you'd think that they'll do anything to shift blame away from themselves if the government shuts down due to fear of where the country will stand on the issue.

Personally, I'm hoping more of the country sees it the way I do. If our government isn't doing anything then at least it isn't doing anything wrong. Socialist security paychecks will still go out, cops and fireman will still be working, (unless of course the unions won't let them since the unions are looking out for the people's interest......yeah, that makes sense).

The issue of cutting spending is no longer a simple matter of principle between big government progressives and small government conservatives. It's an issue about securing the very future of our country. It was the message of the November elections and the politicians had damn well better get on board and stop with the usual political games.

We are being told that if the government shuts down it will be a catastrophe. However, isn't that the same thing that was said about Bush's TARP bailout and Obama's stimulus package? I have criticized the various stimulus and massive government spending programs since day one because history shows that they do not work, (not that a unionized teacher is all that interested in teaching you the accurate history on that one).*

*Quick side note - Factcheck.org has proven that my previous posts regarding the misinformation from MoveOn.org etc regarding the issue of Socialist Security were dead on.

Also, the newest edition of Newsmax magazine also proves my accuracy regarding the average life expectancy now (75), vs. the 1930's (around 60), giving more credibility of my claims that social security was designed to take money away from you for your entire working life and never pay you back, (hence the starting pay out at the time of the programs start of age 62 to start collecting, good old FDR, the miserable economic failure hailed as a hero by false historians).

Let's get back to the issue of the government shutdown. Obama's re-election is practically not possible at this point and his criticism of the Republicans if the government shutdown does happen should be of little concern in all reality. Obama's biggest re-election worry should be the fact that if Hillary Clinton does decide to challenge him again he has no shot of securing the nomination of the Democratic Party. That would make 2012 a little more challenging for the Republicans but the biggest issue for the Republicans would be becoming their own worst enemy, (as they did with progressive John McCain).

It would be inaccurate I think to claim that the country wants a shutdown but I also think the Democrats are overplaying their hand by thinking the country doesn't see through the scare tactics regarding government spending. At this point the U.S. debt is no joke and we the people are taking it seriously like never before, after all it was one of the base principles of the tea party movement and look how successful "tea party candidates" did in the November election. It seems that if the options are more massive spending and the government continuing to run or spending cuts only through a shutdown then the country is overwhelmingly ready to face the ramifications of a shutdown.

They said pass stimulus or else so it was passed.

They said pass TARP or else so it passed.

They said pass health care or else so despite the fact that we the people overwhelmingly were against it and massive union bailouts have now been found in it, it passed.

It's time that they start listening to us. We need to show them we are no longer afraid of the scare tactics of politicians. They should be afraid of not listening to us. I for one don't need to bother with scare tactics. I'll just keep talking about and showing you the truth. If they want to be afraid of something I've said than they can be afraid of this:

The November 2010 election was only the beginning and if you don't start wising up and paying attention then you will be next. We aren't out of tea yet.

How Obama's Stimulus Driven Road To Recovery Affects Japan's Recovery

2011-03-18T19:14:00.000-04:00

Disasters always call for charity. Whether it's a hurricane in Louisiana or Florida, fires in California, terrorist attacks in New York, or disasters in Haiti and Japan. Every time some form of a major tragedy strikes we are all called upon to assist in the relief efforts. While there has been much reaching out with aid to Japan due to the recent earthquake and tsunami there has been criticism to a point as how it's not as much as it should be. Not even matching the relief efforts in Haiti despite the fact that the devastation is far worse. I'd like to address that by tying together a few things.

We often hear about the road to recovery that we are supposedly on by this administration and it's supporters. We hear talk about this "jobless recovery" and the excuse that jobs are a lagging indicator that come later. The economy always affects charity on a personal level. If you feel confident and secure in the economy, if you have a stable job and are making enough money to have a decent amount of disposable income than you are more likely to give to charity. The lack of charity towards Japan as compared to disasters of recent years is telling not of what we think of the Japanese disasters scope but rather how we think about our own economy and personal security economically.

Our own families have to come first and there's nothing surprising about that. So many Americans have found themselves struggling to get by and provide for their own families that it is in many cases impossible to be very charitable. Maybe this will shine a light on the fact that we need more jobs and more confidence in order to be more charitable. No more talk about extended unemployment, denial of a failed stimulus, or a trillion dollar health care program that is guaranteed to worsen our health care system at a greater cost to each of us.

Many of us have been consistent in our refusal to support failed economic policies such as the Bush TARP bank bailouts, and the Bush and Obama failed stimulus spending policies but I'd like you to think about this.

Stimulus, Bush's was over $700 billion dollars and the TARP, (Troubled Asset Relief Program), bank bailout added to it made an easy trillion. Then we get Obama who passes his own stimulus, ($787 billion tied to an additional $410 billion earmark filled omnibus bill), that's over a trillion dollars again. Hundreds of billions to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac while doing little for the homeowners who pay their mortgages to those two government entities. Next comes the socialist health care program, that could be another trillion when all is said and done.

Auto maker bailouts, union bailouts, extended unemployment, and on and on and on. Our debt has now exploded to over $14 trillion dollars and increases to the tune of billions of dollars a day. Now, what does that have to do with the disaster in Japan?

Most of us are aware that stimulus only made things worse and did jack in terms of fixing the economy. Imagine if we hadn't spent all of that money and think of how much more money that would have given us for disaster relief in Japan. To date we've given I believe roughly $65 billion in aid to Japan......that's nothing. Look at the figures I provided you regarding all of the bailouts. $65 billion is a pathetic joke considering how much our government has been willing to waste, (oops I mean spend), on dismal failing Keynesian economic policies.

Our failing economic policies and wasteful government spending, as well as our high unemployment have caused us to be unable to assist with charitable donation as must as we usually do. I do, however, want to give you something to ponder. Taking the kids to a fast food restaurant can easily cost $30. Buying a new DVD movie is an easy $20. A new video game tends to run $60. Going to the movies, grabbing a coffee or muffin every day is a good $10 to $20 a week. How many of these things do you regularly do?

There are over 300 million people in this country. If a measly $10 per person were donated, (a family of 5 gives $50 for example), to the Red Cross for efforts in Japan, that would be an additional $3 billion dollars for relief. If you can give more, and many of us probably can, then we would generate a massive amount of money very quickly. Even if Obama doesn't realize how tough this economy is for many of us we do realize it. Hopefully everyone who reads this will think about it the next time they order a pizza or grab a coffee.

It's easy to criticize other people, especially the rich, about how they spend their money but perhaps it's time for each of us to take a quick look in the mirror and ask ourselves what we're doing to help other than running our mouths.

Even my own charitable donations have been scaled back in comparison to recent years yet I still sponsor a few feed the children kids, donate to the DAV (Disabled American Veterans), and the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars). As well as give a little money to the church each week, (and the church is regularly helping shelter the homeless). I tell you this not to make myself look good, simply to prove a point that there are those on the left who would consider me evil and selfish because I'm a Conservative. Maybe instead of criticizing others it's time to look in that mirror and sincerely ask yourself:

What am I really doing to help others?

I hope I've got you thinking about that with this post.

What STRATEGIC Means and the Next Test Of The UN, (Useless Nations)

2011-03-12T20:39:00.000-05:00

Tragedy seems to come at us through the news fast and furious these days. The most recent of course being the earthquake that just rocked Japan, 5th largest ever recorded, and my thoughts and prayers are with the Japanese people as they work to overcome this tragedy. It's amazing how nature can instantly create a tragedy that dwarfs things like 9/11. While as of yet we aren't sure how many people have died in this tragedy you can bet it'll be much more than the 3,000 lost on 9/11. Not to mention the damage to infrastructure and the potential for nuclear meltdown at several nuclear power plants in Japan.

I'm not going to criticize President Obama on his response to this as of yet because there was no warning of this tragedy and we have yet to see how our response will play out. I am, in fact, going to be watching with much more criticism the United Nations, (useless nations as I regularly refer to them).

After all, the UN owes Japan. Did you know that Japan is the #2 funder of the United Nations overall budget behind only the U.S? In light of the tragedy currently facing Japan the UN is expected to spring into action with relief. I'm not going to be overly critical as of yet being that it's still to early to judge results. That will take some time.

The UN's blind-eye pacifism isn't all that successful with preventing human rights violations or armed conflict but perhaps disaster relief is one area where they can step up and actually salvage some pride with success. We'll find out soon enough.

Putting all that aside I'd like to discuss another issue, oil prices and the U.S. strategic oil reserve. Oil prices fell due to the tragedy in Japan for the moment only because the country isn't in dire need of oil at the moment, it's in need of humanitarian and disaster relief at the moment. The situation is rather awkward but it does reflect a short term decline in demand and thus a decline in the price. It won't matter to most of us as the price at the pump isn't going to go down since this is a short term market fluctuation based on the rare circumstances of a large scale natural disaster.

President Obama has begun talking about tapping the strategic oil reserve if needed in order to help with gas prices. That isn't an energy policy and it would do little to help with gas prices. I criticized it when President Bush proposed it as well back in 2008. It seems that in light of rising prices presidents are so quick to start talking about the strategic oil reserve as some magic energy fix.

Perhaps you should look at the name. It's called the STRATEGIC Oil Reserve, keyword being strategic. It's not intended to save you .10 a gallon at the pumps when gas is $4.00. It's an emergency backup supply in the event that we are cut off from Mideast oil. It's a resource that we could tap into in the event of a worldwide supply crisis while we transition into vastly more domestic supply that would be necessary in the event of being cut off from mid-east oil.

President Obama used a typical left-wing energy lie in his talking points and American Solutions exposed it. Obama said:

“We can’t place our long-term bets on a finite resource that we only control 2 percent of,” Obama added, referring to the U.S. share of global oil reserves. The U.S. consumes more than a quarter of worldwide production, he said.

Let's look at the facts about energy for once. Since the left-wing of the political spectrum are so dedicated to a policy of proven failure in "green energy" and green jobs.

More and more Americans are no longer falling for the lies from the left when it comes to energy. The higher gas prices climb, the more devastating the economy feels to individuals on a personal level. You can't talk recovery to someone bringing home $400 a week and spending $100 a week on gas.

Relying on the strategic reserve is anything but a sound strategy. Relying on domestic energy production as opposed to reserves is a real energy plan. It's time for plan D....drill, baby, drill.

The Constitution Matters To President Obama....Sometimes and Can The Socialists Handle Socialism?

2011-03-02T19:59:00.000-05:00

So a lot has been going on in the time since my last post sometimes it's hard to know where to begin. Let's start with this. President Obama has decided to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

"Holder wrote that the president has instructed government lawyers to no longer defend the law in those two lawsuits.

However, administration officials pledged to continue to enforce the law, which remains in effect unless Congress repeals it or a court strikes it down."

So, a lower court decides that the Defense of Marriage Act, (signed into law by that evil Conservative President Bill Clinton), is unconstitutional and Obama agrees so he decides to stop defending the law. Wait a minute.......

Didn't a lower court also declare that the individual mandate in the President's health care law unconstitutional? Look, it's simple, questions about the constitutionality of laws should head straight to the U.S. Supreme Court. Why waste countless hours and millions of dollars watching decisions like these float through various courts when we know that regardless of the outcome it will be appealed by the losing side only leading to a lengthier and more expensive process?

The U.S. Constitution serves as the blueprint for how our government should act. The problem is that we have so many lawmakers who try and twist and spin various "interpretations" of the U.S. Constitution in order to pretend that somehow the agenda they are pushing is backed by the Constitution. The various expanses of government authority and power, especially under President Obama, have absolutely no basis with the U.S. Constitution. For the most part lawmakers know this so they have to convince the public that it's a necessary step for government to act in our interest.

Whether it's stimulus or health care, housing or education, it seems the more government involvement there is the worse the situation becomes. Yet the answer being constantly fed to us by government officials, unions, professors, and many others is that more government is necessary. In fact, it's more government that has expanded most of these problems and it's the more government answer that is causing these problems to get worse instead of better. It's hard to get more government involvement than you get with Socialism and that's where we head next.

We have all of these left-wing groups pushing for socialism in America, sometimes they decide to call it other things like social justice or state capitalism but policies are socialist nonetheless. We have kids in school, from grade school to college being taught that socialism is great and works out fairly for everyone. No greedy heads of corporations making money on the backs of the people etc. It's funny that we have so many people who've never actually lived under socialism talking about how great it is. If you ask them to name one socialist nation that has had more prosperous people than the U.S. throughout history and none of them can do it. Yet they still blindly believe that somehow socialism will yield different results if we adopt it here.

Advocates for socialism in America believe that a few greedy, rich businessmen in America control all of the money and get that way by screwing over the people who work under them. Yet, these same socialists believe that giving almost total control of our economy and country to a few high ranking politicians will yield better results. I find that manner of thinking not only ignorant, but irrational. Do you really think that the businesses that we work and shop at are more disconnected from the average person than the politicians?

They show up at campaign rallies, (paid for by special interests), make promises they know they can't keep in order to make us feel good, and then when it doesn't work out they point fingers and make excuses as to why it's not their fault that it didn't work out how they planned. It's no longer about why you should elect them so much as why you shouldn't elect the other guy.

Take President Obama for example. He got elected promising hope and change. He was giving great speeches. He inspired people with his great campaign speeches. He did have a gift for giving people hope. The problem is that hope entails believing in something before actual results. For example, you hope something will work out, but hoping means that you aren't sure if it will actually work out. Therefore, the other side of hope means facing the realities of results.

We already have plenty of socialist programs and we've had many of them for a long time. Subsidized housing, food stamps, welfare, even social security. They could all be considered socialist policies. Guaranteed housing, guaranteed food, guaranteed income, (that applies to both welfare and social security). How are those programs working out? The housing market crashed, more people are now on food stamps than ever before in the programs history, welfare is treated like a lifestyle, and social security is headed for complete financial collapse.

I'd like to know what evidence the socialist propagandists are pointing to that gives them the belief that socialism will work in America. Every socialist-type program America has ever adopted has only led to an increase in the problem the program was intended to fix. Isn't the saying, "good intentions pave the way to hell". Every single one of these socialist programs was sold to us with good intentions, whether it's taking care of the poor, or the sick (as in health care), or the old, etc. Yet every one of those programs have only left the people it was intended to help worse of and left everyone else with the burden of supporting those programs financially.

Deny it if you want to but I'd really like to know how it's even debatable. Why do you think the socialist and communist groups are so interested in teaching the youth? Young people are the easiest to influence. If you've spent your entire life learning how great something is, like socialism, then it's incredibly difficult to get you to realize the lie you've been led to believe. That is why they need the young in America, who've never lived under full blown socialism, to believe that it's so great. The unions are largely socialist in the way they work and negotiate yet they are falling apart and dragging entire states and therefore the entire country down with them. Yet they are still trying to convince you that socialism would be wonderful for the U.S.

We are now in the 3rd year of President Obama's presidency and what has he got to show for it? The re-election campaign will be in full gear very soon and what can he say to justify another term? Hope? Change? Do you still think of that when you see him speak? Do you still feel hopeful with the course we are taking as a nation? Do you really think we've changed for the better?

If you think life is so unfair in this country, (life isn't fair....deal with it), how can you expect to make it under socialism? Maybe it's time for the young socialist in this country to ask themselves that question. You won't have money or prosperity under Socialism. Life would be a lot less fair for you as well as everyone else. Political leaders rarely make good on campaign political promises, how can you expect them to make socialism into a prosperous model for growth within this country. We've tried tidbits of socialism plenty of times in this country, from FDR, to Bush, to Obama and where has it taken us. The lie has been exposed and the game is over. It's time to wake up.

I've said it before, socialism will leave us all equal in poverty, not prosperity. Those who we've given all of the power to and who are well connected to those people will poorly micromanage our entire lives. The rest of us who don't have a seat at that table will be forced to take whatever scraps they are willing to throw us. That is the reality of socialism. That is not freedom. That is most certainly not the American dream. Socialism for most of us will instead be the American nightmare.

Never forget the fact that Socialism is also very difficult to get rid of once you have it. Just look at how hard it is to reform the various social programs we already have. Social security, welfare, housing, food stamps, look what happens when you push for reforming these broken systems despite the fact that everyone knows they are broken. If we adopted total socialism and it didn't exactly work out how those who embrace it say it will how difficult do you think it would be to get rid of?

The saying goes that you don't know what you've got until it's gone. Maybe it's time for people to take a serious look at what so many, from the teachers to the students, from the politicians to the public, are willing to trade our system for. It's easy to sell socialism to a bunch of people who've never lived under it before. It's not so easy to get rid of socialism when it doesn't work and you live under it.

I'd like to return to America: land of the free, before we fully become Socialist America: land of the freeloader. We must take these points seriously and really think about it. By all means debate your beliefs and stand for something. Just make sure you know what you stand for and why. If you claim to want socialism in America then make sure you understand the realities of socialism and what it has historically led to in the past. Don't be a socialist because you think it's "cool" or fair. After all, as we grow up we learn that most of the cool things we did as kids proved to be some of our biggest mistakes. Most people know that to be true.

The difference is that most mistakes we make set us back as individuals. Whether it's drugs or alcohol, laziness or craziness. Many adults know that the mistakes taught us valuable life lessons and led us to better decisions in the future. The mistakes being made by the socialists in this country will set us all back as a country rather than being held back individually due to your own choices. How can you call that a system that's more fair?

As Usual, Teachers Unions Don't Give A Damn About "The Children"

2011-02-19T14:20:00.000-05:00

I'll make this one quick and let you decide. I stand with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker on this one and I suspect that most Americans do too. Wisconsin taxpayers fund those schools and teachers salaries yet they get to avoid the classrooms and deny much needed education time for "the children" the bleeding heart liberals claim to care so much about. If you cared about the children then you'd accept that you already have a better deal than most workers in Wisconsin and you'd get your whining asses back to class.

Let me give you two different points of view on this one and then you can decide for yourself who deserves your sympathy on this one: the governor or the labor unions. The first point of view comes from Dick Morris and Eileen McGann via DickMorris.com. This is their take on the situation in Wisconsin.

IN WISCONSIN: DEMOCRACY IS ON THE LINE

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on DickMorris.com on February 18, 2011

Democracy is on the line in the streets of Madison, Wisconsin. Will the popularly elected state legislature and governor (both now Republican for the first time in forever) get to run the state or will the union thugocracy, now crowding the streets, prevail?

The spectacle of Democratic legislators hiding out in the woods to avoid creating a quorum in their legislatures illustrates, more profoundly than anything else ever could, the extent to which we have lost control of our destiny and government to the public employee unions.

The teachers unions, the Service Employees, and AFSME have hijacked state government and are now holding them for ransom.

We are all citizens of Wisconsin now! Our freedom is on the line.

At last some real leaders are emerging within the Republican Party - the newly elected governors! Governors Chris Christie (NJ), Mitch Daniels (Ind), Scott Walker (Wisc) John Kasich (Ohio), Jim Corbett (Pa), Jan Brewer (Ariz), and Butch Otter (Idaho) are showing America how it is done.

The union mobs have taken to the streets in Wisconsin to protest hotly against having to pay 12.6% of their health insurance (the private sector average is 20%) and 5.8% of their pensions (private sector average is 7.5%). They want us to subsidize them so they can get to be richer than we are! Upward redistribution of income!

Governor Scott Walker, the courageous, young Republican just elected in Wisconsin also wants to limit teachers union bargaining to wages and benefits, but to leave work rules in the hands of school administrators. His ideas are vital to good schools but outrageous to the entrenched defenders of bad education in the teachers unions.

The most innovative governor in America - and also a likely GOP contender for president - is Bush's former OMB director Mitch Daniels. He is pushing forward with an exciting bill for statewide choice in schools, limits on teacher collective bargaining, caps on salary increases, and tenure reform. He has already pioneered using Health Savings Accounts to reduce health insurance costs - voluntarily - for state workers.

In Tennessee, with no noticeable leadership from the Republican governor Bill Haslam, the GOP state legislature is taking matters into its own hands. Senate Education Committee Chairwoman Dolores Gresham and Representative Bill Dunn have taken the lead in pushing legislation to prohibit collective bargaining with teachers unions entirely. They are also planning moves to expand school choice. Their landmark bill has just been reported out of the Senate Committee and, with Republican majorities in both houses, is likely to become law.

In Idaho, a gutsy Education Commissioner (elected) Tom Luna had his car vandalized and his family got death threats for trying to expand the pool of teachers to include all college graduates so as not to be limited to the indoctrinated graduates of education schools.

In Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Arizona, bills to advance school choice and reform schools are advancing.

And then there are the cowards - Governor Rick Scott of Florida who electrified the state with his bold proposal for education vouchers for statewide school choice only to shelve the bill and abandon it when the going got tough. He was aided and abetted by State Senator Stephen Wise (R-Jacksonville) who acted like a RINO by surrendering to the unions and letting the voucher proposal die in his education committee.

But there are enough courageous and true conservatives out there to move the cause forward...rapidly!

Now, let's compare that to what left-wing propaganda site MoveOn.org is saying about the situation.

Dear MoveOn member,

Madison, Wisconsin, is electric right now.

Tens of thousands of middle-class Americans—teachers, nurses, firefighters—are demonstrating at the capitol today. They're trying to stop the new, tea-party governor from ramming through one of the worst union-busting bills in recent history. He's using the pretext of a budget crisis, but it's one he created by giving tax breaks to business owners.1

Yesterday afternoon, 14 Democratic state senators walked out of the chamber in defiance to stop the vote on the bill. They're in Illinois now, speaking to the press from undisclosed locations to evade capture.2

Today protesters from all over Wisconsin are holding the biggest rally yet, with tens of thousands of people expected to come. But the national media is not giving the story the coverage it deserves, and without more attention, the Republicans may push the bill through.

We need to show that millions of Americans are standing with the protesters and help draw the nation's eyes to Madison today. Can you take a moment right now to change your Facebook status to this:

"Today I stand with the teachers, nurses, and all public employees of Wisconsin who are fighting for their rights. If you do too, change this to your status for the rest of the day."

Click here to go to your Facebook profile and change your status.
For Wisconsin's schools and kids, the stakes today couldn't be higher. Kim Hoffman, a middle school music teacher, spoke for hundreds of great teachers across the state when she said: "I love teaching, but [if these cuts go through] I'd have to start looking for another job, period."3

Gov. Walker's budget represents one of the boldest assaults on workers and the middle class in memory, and it comes at the worst possible time for Wisconsin's weakened middle class.
Today is the critical moment. With the bill temporarily stalled after Democratic Senators fled the state to deny the Republicans the ability to vote on the bill, there is a chance to kill the bill for good.4 Organizers expect their largest crowd yet, but they need to know that we have their back.

Can you help draw national attention to Wisconsin by changing your status on Facebook for the rest of the day?

Click here to go to your Facebook profile and change your status.

Thanks for all you do.

–Daniel, Laura, Lenore, Duncan, and the rest of the team

P.S.—If you don't have Facebook, that's fine—to spread the word, just forward this email along to five (or more!) friends, and ask them to do the same.

The Tea Party is back in action rallying in support of the governor and that's the side I'm taking.

At a time when those of us who still have jobs feel lucky just to be able to keep our jobs it's a disgrace to see these unions rising up claiming they are getting an unfair deal. What's unfair is tenure for a bad teacher. What's unfair is a pension that most workers don't get and no states seem to be able to afford.

WHAT'S UNFAIR IS THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS UNIONS GIVE TO POLITICIANS LIKE PRESIDENT OBAMA WHILE AT THE SAME TIME THEY ASK FOR A BAILOUT.

We do care about the children and we don't want the unions to continuing to bankrupt the futures of our children so we stand with Governor Walker. As for the rest of you union thugs out there protesting in Wisconsin.....round up the student's you brought with you as propaganda props and GET YOUR ASSES BACK TO THE CLASSES. That's how you can show that you really care about "the children".

Why The Left Rising Up Isn't All That Scary Here And A Government Shutdown Doesn't Sound So Bad

2011-02-16T18:49:00.000-05:00

Before we get started I just want you to always remember the fall of Egypt. If it goes bad as I suspect it will the many on the left and others will have to remember that they thought this was a great thing for Democracy. As the future will most likely prove them wrong they will do what they always do.....lie about history when teaching in order to maintain the feel good lie that is progressivism.

I'm going to explain a couple of things that progressivism has brought us but with a bit of a different twist. One of the very things that threaten progressivism with failure are in fact the results of progressive policies themselves. Let's start with some progressive history. Not the BS you get from some of the propagandists, (we tend to call many of them teachers), but the realities of progressive policies.

This will explain why at the present time I'm not all that concerned about a bunch of lazy, whining, ignorant, students and a handful of entitled, manipulative, propagandist, (remember, some call them teachers).

One of the biggest growth periods in the U.S. for progressivism was the 1930's under the failed New Deal policies of FDR. FDR wasn't the first president to believe in such big government control by any means but he created much of the modern problems we currently are faced with.

One that many Americans are beginning to be willing to accept as a big lie and failure is Social Security. We all, (well okay not all, Huffington Post, MoveOn.org, I'm looking at you), most of us know it isn't going to last. It was begun under FDR as a way for the government to take more money from workers and never pay them back. If you are a worker of my generation then you know the program will work exactly as planned as we will be paying the Social Security tax our entire working lives and will never be paid for it because we are many years away from retirement and the program is already on the verge of collapse.

I've said if before and it says it all. The average life expectancy for white people in the 1930's was only about 62, (conveniently the very year you began being paid benefits). For black people it was even worse, average life expectancy was only around 50. The program has remained unchanged for 80 years now because every time someone calls for reforming the system the propagandists keep telling you is fine the liberal, nanny-state groups start bitching about how the program is fine. Then the typical cries about how would be reformers are trying to leave grandma out starving in the cold begin. Life expectancy has increased very much, but the Social Security entitlement hasn't. High unemployment has only made it worse because that means less workers paying into the system that is already on the fast track to being broke.

This causes politicians to refrain from touching the system for political purposes. It reminds me of the saying that ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. It's like a cracked pipe leaking water, eventually it will rupture and the problem will be far worse than if you fix the crack now. The same rule applies to the entitlement programs right now, today. The Social Security pipe is about to burst and yet we keep ignoring it because of the cowards we call politicians refusing to take a stand and say, "I'm sorry you fell for the government lies America but it's time to wake up." Chris Christie in NJ is one of the few who takes such a stand on some of these issues, especially with the unions.

There were other programs that were equally disastrous economically with FDR, the WPA was used to pay people to fix roads etc. but in fact paid many people to stand around doing nothing, (today we call that stimulus).

LBJ, another loser of a liberal president that the propagandists love to lie about, took it a step farther with his "great society". This was the establishment of the modern welfare state. As the liberal nanny state began to take responsibilities away from families, families began to break apart. This was made worse with the liberal feminist movement and other such feel good liberal movements that led to a rise in single parent families and abortions. Even though all research proved that single parent homes were far more likely to end up in poverty, which is exactly what has been happening for many years.

We continued to take responsibility away from people and shifted the thinking from personal responsibility to the government's responsibility. Government assistance became the breadwinner, entitlements began to be thought of as rights, and taking care of your family began to take a back seat to taking care of yourself. That is the truth of progressivism, like it or not.

This is in fact part of why I'm not all that afraid of an uprising of students etc. here at the moment. We have young people in this country that don't have the work ethic to make it through a part-time job at the supermarket without feeling like they have it rough. Do you really think a group like that can stand up to the message of the Tea Parties? If you can't handle a part time job, you can't lead a revolution, period.

The big government promise of taking care of everybody is in fact only screwing everybody over and letting everybody down. The founders understood this, Conservatives understand this, why is it so hard for the left to understand this?

Now we're hearing talk of a government shut down and how disastrous that would be. I have to tell you, considering all we've seen government screw up in recent years a shut down doesn't sound all that bad. We should all understand that rushing into major decisions often leads us to the wrong decisions. Wasn't that the lesson of the stimulus packages, health care, and subsidies like housing? In rushing to do something we only made it worse. It is not only time to slow the growth of government down, it's time to stop and reverse it all together.

As for those who want socialism altogether in this country they should do some research into how socialism leads to tyranny. Need proof? Watch a speech by Hitler, he himself refers to his Nazi party as the "National Socialists Party", look it up since you aren't going to learn that in school. The propagandists are too busy telling you that the Nazi's were right wing conservatives, a lie so easy to disprove that it's laughable.

Put aside your pride and just look at the facts of history. When government grows in America, freedom weakens. When politicians are protected, they lose principles because there are no consequences for failure. It then comes down to each of us as individual Americans, as it always has and always should, to fix what's wrong with our country. The answers have never come from our government, or from the growth of it, and the right answers never will.

The State Of Our Union....Better Than Some Others

2011-01-29T19:05:00.001-05:00

President Obama has now delivered his third state of the union speech and I found this one pretty interesting. There is no doubt that President Obama has entered back into campaign mode. What I found most interesting was how much he was trying to be a centrist leader again.

There didn't seem to be much as much energy as usual in this speech though. You could tell as you watched it that it was another speech full of feel good rhetoric and little in the way of an actual plan for the future of the country. Actions speak louder than words and all of the centrist rhetoric in the world can't erase the course you've charted with past actions. President Obama seems oblivious to the real problems facing not only this country but the entire world.

It's not that much of a surprise really. After all he doesn't really have any experience, much less a successful record, in facing these kinds of issues whether it's the recession or foreign policy. One thing we've learned in the last few years is that we needed much more than a "community organizer" full of hope and change to face the major problems that seem to be materializing and growing all over the world.

The major focus of late has no doubt been the riots and protests happening all over the world, most notably Egypt and Tunisia. I've been watching as the stories develop and wanted to take you back to Tuesday and this story from Reuters. Keep in mind this story was the same day as the State Of The Union speech.

"FACEBOOK DEMANDS

Their complaints echo those of fellow Arabs in Tunisia: soaring food prices, a lack of jobs and authoritarian rule that usually crushes protests swiftly and with a heavy hand."

I can't help but wonder if that's the order the demands were stated in and if it was based on priority. I say that because I see the first two reasons as things we here in the U.S. are in very imminent danger of facing ourselves.

One of the great blessings we have here in our Constitution is the freedom of speech. Sure the President has the right to speak out and call Tea Party members right wing extremists or whatever other names those in disagreement with the conservative message of the Tea Party movement may choose to use, but in the end both sides are protected by the freedom of speech. Here, we stand with the protesters, but do not face the issue ourselves. More proof that our Constitution is not, and never will be, outdated.

However, now we get to the other two issues; high unemployment and "soaring" food prices. One is easy to talk about. We've had fairly high unemployment for the last couple of years and despite President Obama's best rhetoric it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Sure, he'll mention the "1 million private sector jobs created" last year, but he forgets to mention the amount of jobs lost. As an generous example let's say you lose $75.00 but then make $25.00. I know this is complicated stuff but I don't think you made 25 bucks, I think you lost $50. If job creation was more than just feel good political rhetoric than the unemployment rate would go down since more jobs = less unemployment, anybody having trouble with that one?

"The population is growing 2 percent a year and has a "youth bulge," with some 60 percent under 30 years old. Nine out of 10 jobless Egyptians are in this age group."

High youth unemployment......well it's a good thing there's nothing like that going on here.....oh, wait.

"They included calling for Mubarak to step down, Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif to quit, parliament to be dissolved and the formation of a national government. A union activist repeated the demands to the crowd in the square by megaphone."

A union activist?!! I'm shocked how about you? It looks like workers of the world unite isn't just a (communist) slogan anymore, it's the way we have to do our work. What's that? Oh that's right, Obama's debt commission member Andy Stern already said that. I'm sure it's no big deal so just ignore that.

"The ministry blamed the Muslim Brotherhood for rioting that took place, although the banned Islamist group has only played a bit part in the protests"

Well, now I'm relieved, if this group gains control of the country then we'll potentially have a second Iran on our hands and I'm sure that'll be fantastic. After all the people of Iran have it good don't they? Remember the protests there? Isn't it funny that President Obama and the left seemed to be more harsh talking about the tea party protests than they are when they see actual violence and riots? I'm sure it's just a coincidence so never mind.

What about high food prices? We all know that food has been on the rise lately but it has yet to really soar, the keyword there is yet. One thing we routinely take for granted here is the fact that America hasn't seen severe inflation since the 1970's. Now, that means that people in my age group and younger haven't seen heavy duty inflation our entire lives, unless of course you count the soaring housing bubble which has since burst and hurt thousands of families.

During the state of the union President Obama said, "we stand with the people of Tunisia". That's great but if they are protesting because of high unemployment, and food inflation then why are we following economic policies that are delivering those same results?

Another thing I found fascinating was President Obama speaking out against the government of Egypt shutting down the Internet and social networks. Condemn it all you want to on TV Mr. President but isn't that exactly the kind of control you want over our Internet?

I had a conversation with someone today and he claimed that the government can't shut down the Internet here because there are more providers than there are in Egypt and the government can't shut them down. This is not true.

A statement issued by Vodafone Egypt said it had been instructed to suspend services in some areas.

"Under Egyptian legislation the authorities have the right to issue such an order and we are obliged to comply with it," it said.

Do you really think that giving President Obama control of the Internet here won't allow that statement to potentially read:

Under U.S. legislation the authorities have the right to issue such an order and we are obliged to comply with it.

Given all of the things that this administration keeps trying to tell us it has to "regulate" which really means control this sounds plausible to me. Like I said, I found it fascinating that the President is criticizing Egypt for doing the very thing he himself wants to be able to do here.

Then we have the price of oil. This story from Forbes spells it all out.

"The situation could have ripple effects worldwide if the Suez Canal becomes jeopardized or even shut down. According to Canaccord Genuity, “this may be impactful as approximately 1.8 million bb/d of oil was transported through the Suez Canal in 2009. A closure of the canal would result in an extra 6,000 miles of travel for any oil being transported out of the region, an additional cost which could drive up oil prices.”"

Now, we were already hearing fears of $5.00/gallon gas coming our way. You may remember that when oil was trading at $147/barrel the price at the pump was $4.00/gallon. If this crisis persists we could see $200+/barrel and that translates into a pump price of over $5.00/gallon. That means a $100.00 fill up for a 20-gallon tank. At a time of declining wages and the struggles average families already face this will be devastating for many of us.

Never mind how devastating that would be to so many who are already struggling due to this recession. Think about all of the businesses in this country that have to ship the stuff to the stores for us to buy. That will cause inflation in and of itself even if all of the other inflation figures prove to be wrong, (which they aren't). The price of literally everything will go up as oil does.

In closing, the state of our union is fragile and the struggles we are facing are bigger than any politician seems to have the courage to tell you. It'll take more than a charming, charismatic, feel good speech to fix the problems we must confront. I for one am sick of hearing about 25 year plans that a president has, (considering a president only serves a max of 8), and that goes for president's of the past as well.

We face very severe challenges in the near future and I fear far too many of us are falling for the same old political rhetoric that we hear from both sides all the time. Too many people are not prepared for what may be coming our way. That, I fear, is sadly the real state of our union.

Bailout Green Jobs Bail Out Of Mass While Obama's Economic Advisory Door Keeps Rotating

2011-01-21T18:51:00.000-05:00

There are 2 things I'd like to address with this blog post. The first is a story out of what is, (unfortunately), my home state of Massachusetts regarding those wonderful "green jobs" and bailouts.

Evergreen Solar, a company that manufactures solar panels etc. here in Massachusetts. They have received $40 million in "state financing", basically bailout money, to build a plant and created some of those fantastic "green jobs" you hear so much about. This story explains all of the details and as usual I'd like to highlight some of the finer points of the story.

"Evergreen makes the case that the China move will make everything better and, on paper at least, it looks like it has potential.

But in Massachusetts, the nearly 1,000 people employed by Evergreen — in Marlborough and at its Devens manufacturing plant — might not be as rosy about China."

You see, the main point is that the company is shifting it's manufacturing to China where it's cheaper to do so. The bailout funds came with strings attached as they had to maintain the Massachusetts jobs for a few years but that gives them plenty of time to get established in China. The article points out the problems with these "green jobs" and the facts that may well show just how temporary they may be.

"• Everything that Evergreen Solar is doing in Devens — wafers and cells — is also being done in China
• Evergreen Solar will no longer be making its own solar panels by the end of 2011
• Evergreen’s Massachusetts job requirements will start expiring in 2012, and the company will be free of its commitments by 2014"

Translation: All of you in Massachusetts who received these great "green jobs" with that bailout money are almost guaranteed to be out of the job come 2014. That's only 3 years away. These bailout led economic plans are garbage and that leads me to part 2 of this post.

President Obama changes economic advisers more often than celebrities change spouses. His newest superstar is Jeffrey Immelt of GE. Under Immelt's superstar leadership GE has lost some 50% of it's stock value but he's of course tied into the light bulb industry which now has all sorts of new regulations regarding energy use. Do you still not see the trend America? It's just like the labor unions being in collusion with government despite bankrupting many states.

I'd like to leave you with one last link. This video takes awhile to watch but it's fascinating and will teach you more about history and economics than all of Obama's so-called economists could ever hope to know. This video will show you what's going on in such a clear way and with so many facts of history that even the most daring progressive liberal will just hide over at the Huffington Post cracking jokes about right wingers rather than risk engaging in a debate.

Watch and learn.

If you've taken the time to watch that entire video I have to ask you something. Did that video make sense to you? Or do you still think we're on the road to recovery simply because Obama keeps telling you that we are? "Back from the brink" my ass.

The Arizona Shooting

2011-01-14T15:36:00.005-05:00

Unlike most of the media I decided to wait for as much information regarding the Arizona shooting before I headed to the blog to speculate and place blame on a group or ideology. There is something I want to show you though. Some of what I will say here has been said by others, like Glenn Beck and President Obama. Take a look at this:

"Before the liberals try to blame the AZ shooting on some gun toting right winger they should take a look at some of his favorite books including the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. This is a tragedy caused by a crazy person and we'll find out more about the motive of Jared Loughner soon. I liked some of Gabrielle Giffords' positions and disagreed with others. I hope she makes a full recovery and my prayers are with all who were injured or killed today and their families. This isn't the Liberals fault or the Conservatives fault. This is the fault of a crazy person doing a tragically crazy thing.

I have to admit that I feel worse about the 9 year old who was killed than the others, especially since most of the focus will be on the congresswoman. I think most will understand and forgive me for feeling that way though. When tragedies such as this happen to children it can't help hitting us in the heart just a little bit harder. God Bless all who are suffering on this tragic day."

Take a second and re-read the bold text there. You know who said that? I did on facebook. Do you know when I said that? Saturday, January 8, 2011 at 6:35pm

I had that position the day of the shooting and I maintain that position now. It's unfortunate that so many others have an inability to do the same. Of course the left and the right want to go immediately into the partisan political debate whenever someone crazy does something crazy. The left immediately tried to liken this guy to a gun toting tea party member. The right considered him a crazy leftist.

While I pointed out that two very leftist books are included in his favorite books, I also pointed out that I did not and do not blame Liberals or Conservatives for this guys actions. You'd think that the left would do the same considering the following.

When you talk about the violence on the border and the problem with illegal immigration as legitimate reasons to increase border security, (as Gabby Giffords supported), opponents of that view instantly accuse you of wanting to punish hard workers who just want to support their families.

If a Muslim extremist blows themselves up and kills a bunch of innocent people, (including children), there's instant outcry as to how this isn't the Muslim religion as a whole. We all agree on that but it's rather hypocritical for the left and right to begin attacking each other on ideology regarding the AZ shooting.

There are countless similar stories where tragedy is used to make a political point. Remember how after 9/11 some people were attacked because they were perceived as being Muslim? George Bush even made a statement to try and calm people down and even those on the left who hated damn near everything about George Bush agreed with this speech.

I'm also not going to criticize the Obama speech at the memorial on Wednesday because I liked the speech. The cheers and applause at times from his college kid base seemed a bit inappropriate as it was a memorial service for those who died and not a campaign stop. I can forgive that to a point though because if you're a fan of President Obama then I understand that it's exciting to see him.

I really don't have much else to say as I think I've covered all I was hoping to cover. Hopefully, this makes you reflect for a moment on how you saw this tragedy. From what I can see, Glenn Beck, President Obama, and I seemed to get it right. While so many pundits from the typical partisan podiums got it wrong. I've said it before and I'll say it again.

It's not about right and left, it's about right and wrong.

A New Year And A New Set Of Resolutions

2011-01-03T16:46:00.008-05:00

It's the new year and I hope everyone has had a good holiday season but now it's back to work. Did you make a new years resolution to yourself this year? It's something we always seem to do but never spend much more than a month really focusing on.

We tell ourselves things like, "I'll quit smoking" and by March we're lighting them up. Another favorite is that "I'll lose weight this year". This proves much easier to say after stuffing yourself regularly for the past month with Thanksgiving and Christmas. Cutting back is easy in January but it usually doesn't pan out so well as the months go past and the new years resolution moves further and further into the back of our minds.

Well, I decided to pick something easier to stick with this year. I've decided to start going to church and bringing my daughters in with me. It had been several years since I last went to church, (my daughters baptism to be exact), and even then I pretty much never attended. I've always worked on Sundays and thus couldn't make attending church a priority, although I can't help but think that maybe it was more of a personal excuse than a real reason.

I'm not going to start getting all religiously preachy to you hear but a relevant story regarding politics came out of my attending church and it's almost amazing considering that it was the first time I'd been to church in so long.

Now, before I explain the story let me set it up by saying that it was the preacher who started it. I would also like to clarify that I'm not accusing the preacher of using the pulpit to take a bias political stand in favor of one ideology or another. I didn't take the message as such after listening to the whole point but it did worry me for a moment as this particular section of the service began. For the record, after the service, even though I'd only met the preacher at the start of the service 1 hour and 15 minutes before it ended, I took a minute to talk to him about what was said. Let me explain what happened.

This story starts with me asking you something. Have you ever heard the story of the grasshopper and the ant? I'll give you the whole story soon but most of us who know it are aware that it basically goes like this:

The ant works hard all summer storing food and preparing for the winter while the weather is nice and food is abundant. The grasshopper sings and wastes time all summer figuring he has lots of time to prepare for winter and through that procrastination he never actually does prepare for that coming winter. The grasshopper ends up pretty much begging the ant for help when winter does hit because of his lack of preparation. Moral of the story....too much play and not enough work leaves you screwed and begging those who have worked hard to prepare for help.

Simple, right? Now here's where it gets interesting and why the preacher caught my attention with the story. He didn't go into detail much about the story but he did refer to the grasshopper as what we would call more liberal and the ant as more conservative. The words liberal and conservative actually used by the preacher are what really caught my attention.

Now, at first I was worried that this was about a social justice farce, (essentially liberal propaganda being pushed by the church), as he began to talk about the how the ant should be generous and not charge the grasshopper for help since the singing of the grasshopper etc. helped make the work environment better for the ant and the grasshopper deserved the ant's help since he didn't charge the ant for those songs.

That of course is bull as the grasshopper wasn't slacking off for the benefit of the ant, he was only being lazy and putting what was fun ahead of what needed to be done. The reason I don't hold the point of view made by the preacher against him was because he continued to talk about the need to be generous with what you have and that's how he saw the ant's situation. Given the fact that this church is currently trying to help the local homeless people, (yes, even though we have that wonderful governor Deval and the man of the people Barney Frank as a congressman, there are in fact homeless people here. Shocking, I know), that message of generosity is the one the preacher was trying to convey.

The story itself is practically ancient, Wikipedia will give you more info about the history of it. Here's one version and it's worth noting that none of the versions are more than a page. The version I have comes as a preloaded classic in the kobo ereader. This is exactly what the story from that version says:

"The Ants And The Grasshopper

THE ANTS were spending a fine winter's day drying grain collected in the summertime. A Grasshopper, perishing with famine, passed by and earnestly begged for a little food. The Ants inquired of him, "Why did you not treasure up food during the summer?" He replied, "I had not leisure enough. I passed the days in singing." They then said in derision: "If you were foolish enough to sing all the summer, you must dance supperless to bed in the winter."

That's it, directly out of Aesop's Fables. Now back to the preacher, the actual story seems to have the ants pretty much saying tough to the grasshopper. Keep in mind that the grasshopper wasn't singing for the benefit of the ants, it was only his own laziness. He wasn't singing out of generosity, he was singing out of stupidity. While I understand the preacher's twisting of the story to fit in line with the generosity of the church the message is in fact an inaccuracy of the actual story.

I mentioned to the preacher after the story that while the point he was making about generosity was good and I liked the fact that he likened the attitude of the ants to conservatives and the grasshoppers to liberals, (anyone really want to argue with that one?), in truth had both the grasshopper and ants worked together to stockpile food for the winter then perhaps both would have had time to play as well as work. Stick with me on this as I'll now tie it into modern day politics.

The problem with our current situation is that the government under the Liberals has been doing all it can to turn everyone into grasshoppers using things like stimulus money, (3 years of unemployment anyone?), when what we need are in fact more ants, (workers). Another truth to the story that's lacking from government is the fact that the ants didn't have some government praying mantis showing up to take what the ant had to give to the grasshopper, yet isn't that what the government tries to do to the workers in order to pay for the non-workers?

Would the ants keep stockpiling for winter if they knew they wouldn't be able to keep the fruits of that labor? Would you continue to work hard if you knew the government would be taking your money just to pay for it's own greedy special interest? After 3 years of unemployment and living off of the government would you really even have the desire to return to the work force? That's assuming you could even find a good job or retain all of your skills. Or would you just decide that living off of the government is easier and requires little work and effort so why stop. That is the tragedy of the government rushing in to save the day.

So tell the government to stop using stimulus money, (our money), to breed a bunch of human grasshoppers. Get out of the way and let us grow more ants so we can get down to business and save our country.

As for those reading this, speak up and join the debate, left or right it doesn't matter. The problem with blogs is that I say something, you read it and at best leave a quick comment. Join the debate and let me know what you think on Facebook.

Christmas Eve

2010-12-24T00:00:00.001-05:00

It's Christmas Eve. The fight against Christmas has been quieter this year than in the last few years. I always find it fascinating listening to the atheists etc. who try a act like the season is offensive simply because they don't believe in Christianity. The best part is knowing that they don't mind giving and receiving gifts.

I can't help but wonder: what are you doing with those gifts if you don't believe in Christmas? There's one thing I've wondered as I've looked at the Christmas season this year given the recession we're still stuck in, (despite the administration's insistence that we're on the road to recovery).

Given that fact that so many people have lost their jobs and thus have less money to spend, I wonder how many of those people have started looking at the Christmas season differently? Perhaps one positive of this recession will be in the fact that people begin to remember, or maybe even for the first time realize, what the Christmas season is really about.

We're not very used to severe recessions, think about it. The last really big recession before this one was in the 1970's. That's over 30 years ago. As we try our best to stretch our dollars as far as we can the Christmas season gives us a great opportunity to look at what Christmas means to each of us personally.

Do you feel guilty if you can't give as much this year as you perhaps have in the past?.....If you do then you need to rethink your own concept of the Christmas season. After all, would giving someone a dozen hand picked flowers really mean less than a dozen flowers bought at the store?

Let me give you a true story to ponder from my own past. When I was 17 I was living with a friend and his parents who didn't have much money, as I didn't. They were willing to take me in and I paid rent to them as much as I could but it was tough.

Christmas day came around so my friend and I came up with a plan. We each took $1 and wrapped it up to give to each other. All of us had a good laugh at that one and it didn't cost anything. To his parents I gave a heartfelt letter of appreciation thanking them for all they had done for me even though they had no obligation to.

As it turned out, that letter meant more to his parents than I ever expected it to. At the time I was a bit disappointed that it was pretty much all I could give. I was told by my friends father, (RIP), that his mother had taken that letter out unbeknown to me just to re-read it. He told me that the simple letter that I was rather disappointed in when I gave it meant more to her than any gift I could have given.

That's the kind of message we need to remember this Christmas. A simple letter or a long overdue phone call to a distant friend or relative can mean more than the most expensive of gifts.

Santa's bag may not be as full this year but does that minimize the heart of the season? Does it really make a family get together any less joyful? By not having as much money to spend you begin to appreciate that which doesn't cost much money a whole lot more.

So this Christmas take a minute to just relax and enjoy the season. If it's been a bad year for you, you've lost a job, there's been the death of a friend or family member, or perhaps it's just been a pretty rough year in general, take a minute to just relax. Ease yourself of the stress and just enjoy this Christmas. You have most of the year to drive yourself crazy over all of your problems. Give yourself a break for just a few days, (at least today and tomorrow). If it hasn't been a bad year for you then the message is just as, if not more, important for you.

Make sure your children know that Christmas isn't about toys and gifts. Get your children to realize that Christmas is about family. The Christmas exchange of presents is about feeling good giving a gift more than getting one. Those of you with young kids know that it's the smiles on their faces that put a smile on your face more than anything you've received.

It's not the money you've spent on Christmas that makes it special, it's the time you get to spend with family and friends that make it special. Make sure you take a minute to think of our troops who can't be home with their families this Christmas because they are abroad helping to protect ours. I'd like to give a special Merry Christmas and thank you to them. Now why are you still reading this blog? Turn off that computer and go spend some time with your families.

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY!!

DC Has The Worst (Omni)buses

2010-12-15T19:25:00.001-05:00

Yes friends, Washington D.C. has done it again. 2,000 pages and $1.2 Trillion in new spending just before Christmas in the lame duck session. Congress is giving us another wasteful spending omnibus bill for Christmas. Perhaps it's better to show you the spending with the numerals instead of the word, it's a bit more powerful. That's $1,200,000,000,000 of our money, (which we don't have), going to things the politicians want that we don't need.

Both parties, as usual, are guilty here. They don't seem to understand that the old argument of, "without this money the government will shut down" blah, blah, blah....bull**it. You know what else? I for one don't think most of the country would mind if the government did in fact shut down and all of Congress went home until the new session starting on January 4th of next year.

Let me ask you something else. Were you even shocked when you heard about this massive spending bill? This is what Congress does every damn year. Those who actually pay attention to politics have been speaking out against this sort of thing for years. It's what gave rise to the Tea Parties and it was a big part of the landslide defeat of incumbent politicians this past November. Here are just some of the reasons that you should be outraged at this bill.

It's no wonder that Congress currently has the lowest approval rating EVER in the history of tracking it. Republicans, who railed against the spending when the country was criticizing President Obama are by no means innocent in this one. Personally, these Omnibuses are starting to make me feel like a snowman in the road. It's time for congress to stop driving these omnibuses right over the American people. They seem to forget that they are spending our money when you get right down to it and elections are never more than a few years away.

The Tax Cut Compromise Sparks Class Warfare....As Usual

2010-12-12T21:43:00.001-05:00

Well, it's dominated the news recently, President Obama and the Republicans in Congress have struck a deal on extending the Bush tax cuts. While there are a few objections coming from those on the right the bulk of opposition to this plan is coming from the left. As usual we're hearing the same arguments that the high-taxation promoting progressive liberals always use.

Obama's debt commission was unable to get the required votes to actually send it's recommendations to congress, (I told you they wouldn't). More on that in a little while though. There's certainly no shortage of articles out there from the left displaying their disappointment at President Obama for this compromise. The typical tax cuts for the rich sentiment that they always use even though those same tax cuts for "the rich" hit a large majority of small business owners that the left so often claims to care about.

Here's an article from Robert Kuttner off of Obama's propaganda blog the Huffing and Puffington Post that describes why bipartisanship is a bad thing and how Nanci Pelosi is right to reject it. Apparently he wasn't paying attention to the election in November. Here are some highlights:

"The economy will be fixed only with more public investment, more progressive taxation, and more regulation, but partisan compromise dictates less of each." - Robert Kuttner

By "public investment" he means more stimulus and if you still don't think the stimulus was a total failure than you're denial is astounding. More "progressive taxation", he would say that means more taxing of the rich but he actually means more taxing of everyone, which would reduce tax revenues as I've covered many times before, (The Laffer Curve). The last one here is my favorite, "more regulation", by that he means more government micromanaging of our economy. Just look at the last blog I did and you'll see I've already covered this one.

I've explained previously how the President's debt commission was a re-election rouse that was never going to accomplish anything. It was just meant to look like President Obama actually cares about the debt and deficits. Robert Kuttner in all his wisdom fell for it though.

"will very likely come out with a plan to narrow the federal deficit by slashing what's left of public investment. The whole tilt of this commission is somewhere between conservative Democrat and far-right Republican." - Robert Kuttner

Remember, public investment in his eyes means stimulus. He also links to a few other plans that you can view from his article. One of which he references here:

"One of these, Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, issued her own alternative plan, which increases social investment in the short run in order to get a stronger recovery going, then reduces the deficit over time with higher growth, progressive taxation and cuts in military spending." - Robert Kuttner

The higher growth is a projection that just assumes the progressive plan will actually cause growth. Sure, it'll grow government but not the economy, or have you been living in a cave for the last couple of years?

"One other progressive on the commission, former SEIU president Andy Stern, has held out hopes of a grand bargain but no bargain that might appeal to Stern seems to be forthcoming." - Robert Kuttner

Andy Stern is a Communist who calls himself a progressive. I'll prove that in a little while but we've got a few things to cover before then.

Here's another article, this one is from Bob Burnett, off of Obama's propaganda blog The Huffington Post, (remember, this is where Obama tells people to go for news, I'm just taking his advise).

"For months, Barack Obama knew that Republicans were cutthroats, who wouldn't hesitate to hold the working people of America hostage in order to secure a tax-cut "ransom" for the rich and powerful." - Bob Burnett

So all of those "rich and powerful" people that create all of the real jobs in this country are just holding Americans hostage and it's the progressives who are here to save you from those evil vipers. It's funny considering that every time the progressives are in control of our country we end up with a recession and a growing government and welfare state. Never mind that though, I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

"Negotiating out of fear is bad practice, in general, but wildly inappropriate in an era where Progressives are battling to maintain Democracy in America." - Bob Burnett

Well, Conservatives are battling to maintain our Republic and Constitution. Democracy means majority rules, right? Well, didn't a vast majority of Americans throw the Democrats out of office in November? Just as they did to the Republicans in '06 and '08. It seems a compromise with the Republicans is what a majority of Americans did want doesn't it? So, whose really fighting for Democracy here? As usual it isn't those that claim to.

The next two lines are not next to each other in the article but show something very telling as to how mad the left is at Obama.

"The good news is that we now know who are dealing with and have two years to take corrective action."

"I am confident we can do this, with or without Barack Obama" - Bob Burnett

See? They are going to push forward with the agenda that Americans overwhelmingly rejected in November "with or without Barack Obama". Looks like they'll be looking for a primary challenger if Obama doesn't change course.

There are plenty of other articles from the left out there saying similar things about progressive taxation etc. Some want to push a new deal system like a new unionized WPA, (Works Progress Administration). That was a new deal stimulus-esque job program where FDR used government jobs to help get Democrats elected in struggling districts. Add a union and I'm sure that will work out great. Wait a minute...isn't that pretty much what the stimulus has done?

To those of us that have done our research based on facts rather than biased ideology, we know that the tax cuts for the rich is an argument made again and again. Whether it's Calvin Coolidge, JFK (though the left is quieter about that one), Ronald Reagan, or George Bush, any tax cuts that actually lessen the tax burden on businesses that create jobs is always called tax cuts for the rich. Bill Clinton cut the capital gains tax also by the way, which helped those evil rich businessmen. This latest hissy fit by the left is no big shock and the arguments are nothing new.

In closing I'd like to get back to former SEIU union leader Andy Stern, the most common visitor to the Obama White House, and a member of the debt commission. In this video he's quoted as saying:

"Workers of the world unite, it's not just a slogan anymore, it's the way we're going to have to do our work" - Andy Stern

Now why would I call him a Communist? Look at that quote. Now I'd like to show you another:

"WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!"

The quotes seem very similar don't they? Well the quote in all capitals, (which is exactly how it appears in the book), is the very last line in the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx. Remember, Obama was influenced by the "Marxist Professors and structural feminist". Andy Stern's presence on the President's debt commission proves that Obama hasn't forgotten who he is. This was all expected and planned.

Next year, as I've said before, will be very telling. He will go around congress as much as possible using executive orders. Dick Morris covered this well. I'd link you to this story from his website but the site wouldn't load for me so I've just put the text here.

Via Dick Morris.com

Obama Using Executive Orders To Implement Radical Agenda

Does President Obama plan to move to the center in response to his overwhelming rejection at the polls on November 2nd? No way! Instead, he is moving to implement, through executive action, two of the most controversial items in his 2010 agenda -- a carbon tax and pollution permit system and a ban on the use of secret ballots in union elections. Through executive action by the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Obama Administration is planning to effectuate both policies without asking Congress.

Never mind that he couldn't persuade even a top heavy Democratic Congress to pass either program. Or that public opinion polls show massive rejection of both measures. Or that each is a sure job killer by itself -- and together, they are even worse. This arrogant, ideologically-driven radical is determined to have his way and the public be damned!

The EPA is currently soliciting public comments for its plan to use the Clean Air Act of 1970 to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The Clean Air Act, as the name indicates, is designed to fight against pollution -- unhealthy chemicals that are belched into the air by smokestacks. It was passed to fight sulfur dioxide, particulates, nitrous oxides and other chemicals that cause human diseases. To use it to fight carbon dioxide -- which we all breathe without ill effects -- because of concerns about global warming -- is a perversion of the law.

Worse, because the Clean Air Act is designed to protect public health by measuring aggregate pollution in each geographic area, it limits economic development in communities where the pollution levels exceed prescribed standards. But carbon dioxide doesn't poison anyone. It makes no sense to ban factory expansion in areas where the nature of the industries is that there will be high carbon dioxide levels (like oil area of Texas and Louisiana). But that's what the EPA plans to do, virtually making economic growth illegal in large parts of the United States.

Meanwhile, Craig Becker, the former chief counsel of the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) -- now the head of the NLRB -- has secured a 3-2 majority party line majority to repeal the Dana decision which mandates secret ballots in unionization elections. The NLRB will rule that if a majority of workers check off that they want a union on cards then the union will automatically be approved without a secret ballot vote of the entire workforce. Currently, if a majority of the workers sign the cards, a secret ballot vote is then triggered. Frequently, the union loses these elections, proving that the card check off is subject to coercion and bullying. The Democratic majority in the Senate wouldn't approve the card check change so the NLRB is planning to accomplish the same objective administratively, trapping workers into unionization they would reject if afforded the opportunity to vote by secret ballot.

Both the pollution permit/carbon tax and the forced unionization proposals will be job killers. The U.S. has maintained its 25% share of global manufacturing by replacing workers with energy driven machines. In the past ten years, the number of manufacturing employees has declined by 33% but our production has risen by 50%. But automation takes energy -- lots of it -- by taxing energy, we are eliminating the strategy that has preserved our jobs. And massive unionization of the private sector will also drive out our jobs. Since 1990, unionized manufacturing jobs have declined by 75%. But non-union manufacturing jobs have actually risen over the same period by 15%.

After he lost Congress in 1992, Bill Clinton, too, resorted to executive orders to maintain his momentum as president. With Congress unwilling to pass anything he proposed, the president canvassed the Administration for ideas that could be implemented by executive orders. A very productive period followed during which tobacco regulation, higher educational standards, affirmative action reform, and other key measures were implemented without asking Congress' permission. But Clinton's executive orders were on subjects on which Congress had not voted. They did not contradict the express will of the body. Obama is using the strategy to act in direct defiance of Congressional action. He is passing ideas Congress refused to pass, even when he had huge majorities.

Obama will live to regret these moves. Republicans in the House will defund these actions and insert legislative language making it a crime to spend appropriated funds to implement them. By this strategy, all of the controversial Obama legislation will be at issue during the budget fight -- taxes, Obamacare, cap and trade, and card check. The more these issues are inserted into the budget fight, the greater the chances of Republican victory.

So President Obama has not learned the lessons of 2010 and likely never will.

We'll soon find out, 2011 should be very interesting.

Spending vs. Investing, Social Security's Not So Secure, and Regulating Becomes Micromanaging

2010-12-03T18:58:00.000-05:00

First of all Happy Hanukkah to all of the Jewish folks out there. Now let's get down to business.

Spending vs. Investing

Do you know the difference? Unfortunately, far too many people, (especially in Washington D.C.), don't. Unemployment rose in November to 9.8% despite increased retail sales. That's another thing that always bothers me when I hear it.

We're all supposed to act surprised when the retail sales increase in November and December. This is just a guess but it might have something to do with Thanksgiving and Christmas. It's not recovery, it's called the holidays and retail sales always jump for the holidays.

I find the so-called economists fascinating that talk about government spending as if it's all an investment. That's not to say that it can't be done to a certain degree. Some government spending is necessary and could be seen as an investment, such as the military and national defense. The problem with far too many in Washington, (mostly on the Democrats side but that's by no means exonerating the Republicans), is that they see all government spending as an investment regardless of what the money is spent on.

You see this mentality routinely from those who say that the problem with the stimulus is that it didn't spend enough. If trillions of dollars aren't enough, do you honestly believe that there is a figure high enough to be enough in the eyes of the fools with that opinion?

Let's look at that stimulus spending for a moment. Did it help you? Did your rent or mortgage get paid off? Did your car payment go away? Did it save your job or do you believe it had anything to do with why you still have one? (If you still do).

Then we have the president's deficit commission. When President Obama issued an executive order to create the deficit commission he made a majority of 14 out of 18 needed in order for the proposals to make it into the Congress for debate. Obama knows that's unlikely given who the members are and what truly needs to be done in order to address our deficit problems.

Now, if President Obama knows that the deficit is unlikely to accomplish anything then why would he appoint one in the first place? The answer is simple, he has to make it look like he's actually trying to address the deficit. His propaganda blog Huffing and Puffington Post is on board.

Take this story for example.

"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) met with labor unions, seniors organizations, and liberal members of Congress Thursday afternoon to develop an alternative proposal to the deficit commission's draft report released last week"

So, labor unions: (whose pensions are collapsing several states and who Obama has been bailing out with our money), seniors organizations: (I'll bet that means AARP who recently announced that Obamacare will make health care more expensive for it's employees), and liberal members of Congress, (keyword liberal, so much for bipartisanship) to develop an alternative.

If Obama believes in his own deficit commission then why would his strongest supporters, labor unions and liberal members of congress, be so against the deficit commissions proposals when we haven't even really had time to pick apart their suggestions?

Social Security

This also brings into play more Social Security propaganda. This is along the same line as MoveOn.org's propaganda that I showed you awhile back. Read this for a refresher of what I'm talking about. I showed you the propaganda on social security back in June and this recent Huffington Post story I've been talking about shows it again.

"Sanders said the Simpson-Bowles proposal to raise the retirement age for Social Security, when the entitlement program is solvent until 2037 and contributes nothing to the national debt, seems to be something of a non sequitur."

This is a lie, Social Security is not solvent and will not last until 2037. It's full of IOU's thanks to Lyndon Johnson, need proof? Here.

From Snopes:

"Q: Which political party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically controlled House and Senate."

So the Democrats are the ones who started filling the Social Security Trust Fund with IOU's in the first place, I knew that but did you? Do you think Bernie Sanders or the labor unions know that? I'm not saying Republicans are innocent here but the left should stop trying to act like Social Security saints.

Think about this, they claim that Social Security is solvent until 2037. What about lost jobs? Every worker has money taken out of their paychecks to go toward Social Security. However, there have been millions of people in the last few years who've lost their jobs. No job means no Social Security tax, millions of people no longer paying that tax means less revenue for Social Security. Less revenue for Social Security means less time that it remains what they call "solvent".

The positions of those like MoveOn.org and others who agree are truly ignorant positions on this issue and prove the unwillingness to address this very real crisis.

Government Regulation Continues To Grow

Banks, health care, car companies, Wall Street, big business, small business, and now even more regulation for food. There are some misconceptions about the recently passed S. 510 bill regarding regulations for farming. Red Mass Group put out an article that eases some of the panic regarding the government getting too involved with our food supply. Here's the article. I worry about what else there will be that we find out about in time, like health care.

Here's what I worry about with the increased food regulations by the government. The problem I see with this is the fact that it's another step of government control. While this article may prove some of those more fearful of increased government control over farming wrong to some degree, with encroaching government it always starts with a foot in the door. Bits of control granted over time that ...lead to total control in the end.

Take the income tax for example, it started out small and only affected a small amount of Americans when implemented, since then it has only grown more and more over time. This next step gives the government more control and could lead to another farming crisis, the last thing we need. The government wont stop with this bill, it's just a foot in the door. Need proof? Just look at health care and the auto industry.

Think of government regulating like managing. No managing and there's chaos, too much managing and efficiency is crippled. Anyone whose worked for a micro manager before knows what I mean. It's harder to do your job with someone standing over your shoulder watching every move you make like a hawk or trying to do your job for you assuming you can't do anything yourself.

A manager has to trust the workforce to do it's job thus allowing you to be productive, innovative, and efficient. When there is an actual problem then it's management's responsibility to help respond to the problem.

Government regulation over our economy works in exactly the same way. If the government has too little control then those who are actually corrupt criminals get away with anything they want and everybody gets screwed. However, if the government has too much control then it can't manage the job and the economy can't be innovative and efficient. This creates an inability for the economy to grow.

That's exactly what's happening under the Obama administration. The government has increased regulatory power so much that the economy is in a stalemate. He even has a "regulatory czar" Cass Sunstein. After all, isn't that exactly what health care reform was? It's government regulation of health care. Thousands of pages of regulation, (just look at our 40,000 page tax code as another example of this), becomes thousands of pages of micromanaging.

Despite what all of Obama's supporters are trying to get you to believe you probably understand the micromanaging analogy of our economy because we've all worked for a micro manager and seen the adverse effects it's had on our various jobs. Go after the slackers, back off the productive workers, and it'll all work out. Unfortunately, being in the tank for the unions is the opposite of this.

Our economy is reacting predictably to all of this government micromanaging. If the government doesn't back off, (which under Obama, it won't), then don't expect the results to improve much. Despite all of the Spending this chart is very telling about unemployment under Obama. We've hovered between 9.5% and 10% for well over a year now.

If the tax cuts expire it will get worse. Throughout history higher taxes have never lead to vast economic growth. With the economy as weak and fragile as it is the taxes going up next year will turn this great recession into another great depression. Don't expect propaganda sites like The Huffington Post, (where Obama tells you to go for news), or groups like MoveOn.org to tell you any of that though. They're too busy telling us that Social Security is in good shape. I don't think you're that dumb, yet they clearly do.

Outrage Over The Scanners, Where Are The Progressives? Pelosi Now At The Top...Of The Bottom And MoveOn Gets Restless And Starts Moving

2010-11-22T20:41:00.001-05:00

It's a long title I know but there's several topics I need to address with this one. Let's start with the re-election of Nancy Pelosi to lead the Democrats in the House of Representatives as minority leader. After that I'll get to the scanners and conclude with the latest from MoveOn.org as all 3 issues are very telling about the mood of the Progressive left, (formerly known as Democrats).

I for one am thrilled about Nancy Pelosi's victory to lead the Democrats. With this vote the Democrats have shown that they couldn't care less about the will of the majority of Americans as their agenda, (Socialism in America), is more important than that pesky old will of the people thing. This shows me that the left is basically betting all or nothing on their vision of what America should be to them. The Democrats who actually stood against Pelosi to lead the party should be commended to a point but let's look at the results.

Here we have one of the most out of touch radicals in the history of the congress trying to lead one of the 2 major political parties in this country and the vote wasn't even close 150 - 43. That means that more than 3 times the amount of Democrats in the house voted for her to lead as opposed to those who didn't. That should be very telling about where most of the Democrats stand as to the will of the majority of Americans.

They've been planning this, don't think for a second that President Obama didn't know he was going to lose at least the house. After all, that's why a majority of the bills the Democratic Congress voted on weren't even read, they knew the goal, damn the consequences. They weren't about to let a Republican majority stop Obama. The next 2 years will be very telling.

Now on to the scanners and I'll be brief about this one because we've all seen the outrage from everyday passengers over the scanners and invasive searches. I don't need to tell you about the anger for obvious reasons but I do wonder something and you should think of this as well.

Remember the wiretapping of suspected terrorists that President Bush did? The left went nuts over that program. Meanwhile they are practically fondling and taking nude pictures of travellers at the airports.

Also, just to add insult to injury, they are considering exempting Muslims. Now, all of a sudden it's about security. Liberal hypocrisy at it's best, if Bush was pushing for the scanners the way the Obama administration is there would be Bush protests in the streets. Yet with Obama it's about security and best for the majority of travellers.

"every dictator who ever lived justified the enslavement of his people based on the theory of what was best for the majority" - Ronald Reagan

Now let's look at the latest from MoveOn.org and how it relates. Obama's running out of time and losing the support of the American people. The latest problem MoveOn.org has with the president is over taxes. Despite all the rhetoric about how evil those damn tax cuts President Bush passed for some reason a lot of Democrats are all of a sudden scared to let them expire. Now MoveOn.org is trying to keep Obama on track with the progressive agenda:

Dear MoveOn member,

Remember Barack Obama in 2008? The guy who refused to go along with a "dumb war" and said, "In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope."

I miss that guy. Imagine if someone told you in 2008 that Barack Obama was actually thinking about signing legislation to extend the Bush tax giveaways for the rich.1 I wouldn't have believed it.

Now more than ever, we need the Barack Obama we elected in 2008—the smart, tough, hopeful progressive champion who inspired millions of us—to stand up and say "no" to a millionaire bailout.

Right now, with the change we all fought for hanging in the balance, President Obama needs to hear from those of us who supported him the most.

So we're asking MoveOn members nationwide to record a video message from the heart to tell President Obama to go to the mat to stop any extension of the millionaire tax giveaways—and to bring back the progressive fighter we all knew and supported in 2008.

Can you record and share a video message to President Obama today? Click here to get started:

http://pol.moveon.org/obamavideo/?id=25271-17182837-FQoHc9x&t=2

A personal appeal from so many of us who worked hard to elect President Obama will send a strong message. And to make sure the White House and millions of Americans hear it, we'll take the best videos and turn them into an ad that we'll air on national television.

Can you share a video message today? Just click here to get started:

http://pol.moveon.org/obamavideo/?id=25271-17182837-FQoHc9x&t=3

Thanks for all you do.

–Nita, Marika, Duncan, Steven, and the rest of the team

We'll see what happens. I doubt that President Obama's going to listen to those who favor lower taxes and keeping them low and predictable in order to promote economic growth. The only growth he's seemed to favor since taking office is government growth. Now, who do you expect him to listen to, MoveOn.org or the Republicans, (and several Democrats astoundingly enough), who favor keeping taxes low in order to promote economic growth?

My bet's are on MoveOn.org because there's one thing President Obama has proven several times since taking office. The will of the majority of Americans isn't as important to him as the progressive agenda. We'll find out what he plans over the next 2 years and I suspect that it isn't going to be pretty. The President and the Republican majority in the house are at opposite ends of the spectrum on many issues.

Despite all this talk about working together I suspect both sides will come out swinging. The most unfortunate part of all this is that it's everyday Americans who will suffer the most from what is being done to our country. The politicians will work hard to protect the one class that they usually prove to care for the most....themselves.

Stay Focused, Or This Lame Duck's DREAM Could Become Your Nightmare

2010-11-13T18:00:00.000-05:00

This is a very dangerous time for our country. No, I'm not talking about the war on terror, I'm talking about the "lame duck" session of Congress that begins on Monday.

One of this Pelosi Congress' biggest problems was a refusal, (not an inability, a refusal), to listen to the will of a majority of the people:

A majority of Americans didn't support Obamacare....it didn't matter to this Congress so it passed anyway.

Most Americans didn't support the stimulus, (Bush's or Obama's), it passed, (and failed), anyway.

Most Americans didn't support earmarks, often referred to as "pork" spending. The stimulus packages and the $410 Billion "Omnibus" bill passed with it had thousands of earmarks costing billions of dollars.

Here's what bothers me about the next 2 months. I fear that with the election victory and the looming holidays, I know it's a little late but happy Veterans day and thank you to all of our Veterans who've served and who are serving, too many of us may get lazy and stay uninformed as we go into holiday mode.

That provides a dangerous window of opportunity for this largely outgoing Congress. Think of what they were willing to pass when they still had a near election coming to pass? All of those same congressman are still congressman until January. They could still pass bills this month and next whether you like it or not, and you won't.

They've already talked about the DREAM Act, (that's bleeding heart progressive talk for amnesty for illegal immigrants). They know most Americans don't support it but what do they care, you've already voted many of them out so what do they have to lose?

Think about that for a minute. It creates millions of new voters for the Liberals who will need all the help they can get in 2012. Do you think they care more about your opinion, or the chance to get a lock on millions of new voters next election? The only chance there is to stop this "lame duck" may be the Democrats that have to think about saving their own asses in 2012. We'll soon see just how important this progressive agenda truly is to them. Many of them proved some of these things were worth committing political suicide, we're about to see how many of those left are willing to do the same.

Cap and trade could pose a similar problem but it appears that for now we may be safe but only if we stay vigilant. You never know what a panicky lame duck congress may try to do. There's also what I'll call "the hissy fit factor". Many of those who've lost may just have one last big middle finger for the will of the voters since they are angry over losing their elections. It's like a kid throwing a hissy fit because they couldn't have their way. It's something worth watching for.

Then there's one last part of this and it doesn't come into play until next year. If Obama knows anything of history he had to anticipate some pretty heavy losses in the first midterm election of his presidency. Most presidents historically lose seats in the midterms though there have been a few exceptions, (George Bush's 2002 midterms for example, but 9-11 played a major role in that one). I'm sure that was in the back of President Obama's mind as the debates of his first 2 years were playing out.

That makes me worry about something. It's no secret that most of Congress didn't read many of the things they were passing. To most of us everyday folks that never made any sense because most of us wouldn't sign onto something we knew nothing about. Congress of course is nothing like most everyday folks and that's one of it's biggest problems.

I fear that next year we're going to learn about much of what's in those bills. We may find that there are all sorts of new powers granted to the executive branch, (in other words granted to President Obama himself). At a glance this may seem like a simple fix because of the U.S. Constitution but it may not seem that simple.

For example, crazy critics of Obamacare repeatedly called it a massive tax despite those who tried to label us liars. However, once individual states began challenging the Constitutionality of Obamacare, the Obama administration began arguing that the individual mandate to buy insurance was in fact a tax and the Constitution does grant the Federal government the authority to tax.

This proves that President Obama was anticipating this kind of a move by the states who are also using the Constitution in an attempt to stop the government from controlling damn near every aspect of our lives through this new progressive nanny state.

Obama's argument basically rests on the interpretation of Article 1: Section 8 of the Constitution:

"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

The Obama administration would argue that the part I highlighted in bold here is a justification to mandate a health care program as a new tax. The problem with that is that "common defense and general welfare" aren't tied together by accident. They are referring to the welfare of the nation in a security and debt sense, which I see as pretty clear here. The founders aren't talking about health care or the welfare of individuals, they are talking about the "general welfare" of the nation. Easy to understand unless you're a progressive who aims to undermine the Constitution for your own agenda's purposes.

On December 15, 1791 the founders made another thing pretty clear with the passage of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. You know them as the "Bill of Rights":

Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

There you have the basics of the States argument against the administration on Health care. Amendment 10 clearly says "to the people", to me that means that if an overwhelming majority of "the people" are against a big government health care plan, and the Constitution doesn't specifically "delegate" the power to control health care to the government, then get your big ass progressive hands off of it.

In closing, keep your eyes very closely fixed on this lame duck session and pay close attention to the debates that will become front and center as the administration goes to bat against a new Republican controlled House of Representatives. The powers potentially granted in those bills could open the floodgates of an all out battle between the branches of government. It's a battle that will affect all of us if as it plays out and it's a debate that we the people can't afford to lose. Stay sharp, stay focused, and stay on top of every move this government makes.

Keep your eyes on the lame duck congress, the new incoming congress, and this administration. None of them are deserving of our complete trust as of yet and we have no reason to grant them that trust lightly, it must still be earned. So I have only this to offer our ever growing government.

"It's you government that has grown too large and truly has a problem with obesity and it's time that the government's fat ass goes on a diet!" - Brandon Edsall

Take that Michelle.

Election Reflection, Massachusetts Should Change Its Name To Dumbassachusetts

2010-11-05T20:06:00.001-04:00

Well election day has come and gone. Overall it's good news. The largest party switch since the 1930's. Most of the country seems to get it and sent a clear message that we want to embrace the philosophy that the country was founded on. When it comes to government, less is more.

Then we get to Massachusetts, which sent quite the opposite message. I think we should put it right on the license plates.

Dumbassachusetts: The Welfare State.

Short, simple, and says all you need to know about this state. I couldn't help being in a state of mostly depressing shock late Tuesday night and most of Wednesday. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled that most of the country seems to get it. I just can't believe how ignorant a majority of Massachusetts truly is.

There are of course others, like California, but when you're comparing similarities in the thinking of your state and California you know you're in trouble. Since Massachusetts has told the country loud and clear that it wants to be the official welfare state I have a new plan for Massachusetts. I call it plan C.

Here's how plan C works. The C stands for "Contain". A majority of Massachusetts has proven that it just wants to have expanded social welfare programs, food stamps, no jobs, and never ending entitlements. The key to plan C is actually very simple but it requires something people like myself being something they aren't used to being, irresponsible.

If you're working hard, raising your kids with respect, and quite frankly sick of working hard so others don't have to, you need to leave. It's time to take your talents and your families out of this state and move them to a state that actually rewards hard work and where neighbors act like neighbors instead of thugs or snobs.

Now, how is this irresponsible? Well, since the housing market has crashed, (thanks again government and re-elected again Barney Frank), selling your house for an amount that will let you pay it off, much less make a profit will be pretty tough. If selling proves not to be an available option then it's time to simply do what many others have done, walk away.

Start working on finding where you want to go, a more conservative state perhaps, there are plenty of states that look conservative when compared to Mass. Find out about the job market, or if possible get transferred within your own company out of state. Start looking at places to live, (most will be cheaper than it is here in Mass). Once you've put all of those pieces together walk away from your mortgage, it'll take them awhile to throw you out of the house once you stop paying.

The amount of money I'd be able to save if I didn't have a mortgage would add up pretty quickly. This would add up to being one of the biggest decisions most of us who actually pay our own way and work hard have ever made. If it comes down to walking away from your mortgage then it'll ruin your credit in the short term, (another tough decision for those of us who have busted our asses to maintain a good credit score). However, not paying a mortgage will give you a good chunk of money in a short amount of time to establish yourself in a rental house or whatever in another state. Here's how it "Contains" Dumbassachusetts.

If the working class decides that Dumbassachusetts just isn't worth it anymore and they all leave you'll have a collapse in state revenues, no workers and no property taxes from homeowners = very little revenues. That doesn't bode well for the state's ability to subsidize the housing and food stamps etc. The state will beg for yet another bailout with no end in sight.

In a panic taxes will again be increased but it won't matter because under plan C there will be more people that actually pay nothing in taxes and get a net refund after considering the various government assistance programs than there will be workers to pay for it. The increased tax rates will further cripple the already crippled job market and lead to even less revenue as opposed to more.

By voting no on question 3, another mistake by Dumbassachusetts, we have told folks like the Deval that we don't mind paying 6.25% as opposed to the 5% we were paying before, this means that the 6.25% rate isn't going away anytime soon. In fact, as the economic climate continues to get worse here that rate will no doubt go up even further.

As responsible, hard working people, and businesses continue to flee the state, the states they move into will improve, while Dumbassachusetts will continue to decline. Then the state will fit the new license plates quite well.

Dumbassachusetts: The Welfare State

I wonder how the Deval and Dumbassachusetts liberals will be able to get away with blaming people like me for the states problems when there aren't any of us left here. Under plan C it wouldn't take very long to find out.

One last point. A liberal I've talked to regularly for the past few years told me yesterday that there were good parts of socialism that he didn't mind because capitalism wasn't working, (keep in mind these are the same people who object us calling President Obama a Socialist which he clearly is). I asked him what parts of Socialism he liked.

He had no answer. I then asked a more important question:

Name one socialist country that has become prosperous, much less as prosperous as the U.S?

He again had no answer. You see the problem here, the universities are teaching how wonderful socialism is to the young people and they can't even tell you why or sight an example of why it's so great. They just know that capitalism is evil because of all of those fat cats. Even though they line up to vote for fat cats like Barney and the Deval.

"the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" - Margaret Thatcher

As for me, I'm done with giving Dumbassachusetts my money. The current license plates in Mass say, "The Spirit of America", if that's true then America is lost. Luckily, the election this past Tuesday proved that Dumbassachusetts most certainly is not the spirit of America so let's make the plates a bit more accurate.

Dumbassachusetts: The Welfare State

For the record, you should watch the victory speech of Barney Frank and the concession speech of Sean Bielat. The contrast speaks volumes about the people on Sean's side of the aisle versus those whose ignorance keeps them on Barney's side of the aisle.

We've returned the views of Barney and the Deval to the minority nationwide in the house. Let's execute Dumbassachusetts plan C to ensure that it stays that way.

Question 3 In Massachusetts Answers And Explanations

2010-10-26T22:20:00.001-04:00

I was asked about my thoughts regarding the reduced tax questions Massachusetts voters will be asked on November 2nd, they are questions 1 and 3 on the ballot. I support reducing the taxes, (obviously), but I had to explain why rather than just give a simple answer because people are facing the scare tactics against the reduction of the taxes.

It's worth noting that since the Deval raised the tax from 5% to 6.25% revenues have DECREASED. Throughout history, lower taxes have actually caused revenues to increase rather than decrease but that's not the point here so I won't get into that explanation once again. Here's how I explained why I want to lower the tax.

It's no surprise that we're in a recession. It's also no surprise that politicians are good at wasting money. They are saying that if question 3 passes then we'll have to cut things like education and cops, this is not true. Let's say that revenues decrease and Massachusetts doesn't make as much money with the lower tax rate. That will force the politicians in Massachusetts to think about priorities.

In my last post you saw some of the many ways that the Deval wasted money as governor. If we give them less of our money then they will have to make the kinds of tough decisions everyday folks are making in their own families everyday. They will have to decide what's more important, funding cops and education, or funding "pork" projects which we all know is in no short supply in government. If they cut cops and education funding but they keep all of their own special interest projects and keep hiring their friends for six figure salaries in positions we neither need nor want, then you know where the priorities are with that particular politician. It will not be a question of taxes, it'll be a question of prioritizing necessary spending vs. discretionary spending.

Think of your own family budget for a minute, times are tough, people are losing their jobs, others, (like those on social security), are seeing no increase in wages, and many are in fact seeing decreases in wages. Now, facing such situations what is it most of us have to do?

Well, since we can't vote for our own raises the way congress can, the only way for us to have more money is to spend less, (government should take a hint on that lesson). The New Dealers, (New Deal supporters who are ignorant of just how miserably the New Deal failed at handling the depression of the 30's), are telling us that the government has to keep spending and spend more and more in order to avoid this recession becoming a depression. This quote comes to mind:

"A recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose yours." - Ronald Reagan

Using that explanation it's clear that many of us are in fact already facing a depression. It's true that the economy is 70% spending. What proponents of vastly increased government spending don't realize is that the economy is 70% consumer spending and it only works if consumer's are spending their own money. This is where lower taxes come in.

Let's get into detail. You're struggling to pay the bills so you look at your spending. You realize that you're going to the coffee shop everyday and spending $2.00 on coffee everyday and $5.00 a day for a sub at lunch.

You realize that if you make your own coffee and bag a lunch then your coffee costs less than .50 and your lunch is well under $3.00, (homemade sandwich, can of soup, granola bar, whatever). You've now cut your coffee and lunch budget to most likely less than $3.00 when it used to be $7.00. You're now saving $28.00 a week and about $112.00 a month. That's just from coffee and lunch everyday.

You start applying that to other areas of your life, you minimize driving as much as possible to save on gas, you rent a movie rather than go to the movies, you make dinner at home and don't go out to eat. You start to realize that those little savings made by cutbacks in everyday life start to add up. The point I'm making is that the key to making more money in a recession isn't necessarily making more, it's spending less.

There's a downside though, when you don't spend money on things like going out to eat and going to the movies etc. then those businesses get hurt by you not spending. The theory behind stimulus and bailout supporters is that if they give you other people's money then you'll go out and spend it at those businesses. The problem with that theory is that they are just creating what I'll call "shadow debt".

It's no different than you using a credit card, only it's uncle Sam's credit card. It's still debt that you can't afford, only since it's other people's money you're spending you don't think of it as debt. The reason that the solution is lower taxes rather than increased government spending is that when you are given more of your own money from lower tax rates the money you are spending is actually discretionary spending money that you actually owned.

That spending money doesn't increase anyone's debt. When you have more of your own money you are more likely to buy that $2.00 coffee, get that $5.00 sub, or go see that movie. That spending will help those businesses but not add to anyone's debt. The increased economic activity from you spending your own money will increase the revenue of businesses and yes, government.

If businesses start making more money off of the people who now have more money to spend they will need more workers to keep up with the increased business, the end result....more jobs. More jobs means more taxpayers, more taxpayers means more revenue. Have I lost you yet? Or are you starting to get how the economy really works?

Let's send a message to the politicians. Vote yes on question 3 and force the politicians to look at the budget the way we have to look at ours. Perhaps they then will truly begin to see what it's really like to live in the real world during this recession. Maybe then we'll be able to gain a bit of respect from the politicians who are supposed to work for us. We've sacrificed enough for their special interests, we've given them enough of our tax money to waste. Let's teach them a lesson and give them a little less.

After all, it's only 3.25 cents on the dollar, (6.25% down to 3%). They always use that argument when talking tax increases. It's only .5 cents here, or a dollar there. Well you know what...I'm tired of being nickel and dimed to death, how about you? Vote yes on question 3 and ignore the propaganda. Propaganda always ignores that which matters most, the truth.

9 Days Left, Down With The Deval Part 2

2010-10-24T17:24:00.002-04:00

It's a campaign cycle that never seems to end. As soon as we get through one election it seems as though we're right back into campaign season. For many of us the coming election in just a few days couldn't come fast enough. This will be the first major test of the Tea Party movement. This will also be a test of how popular Obama's agenda really is and how real the apparent resurgence of conservatism in this country actually is.

Due to the fact that I'm a Massachusetts conservative my focus has of course been mostly focused on the governors battle between the Deval and Charlie Baker, as well as the battle between Barney Frank and Sean Bielat. We're in the home stretch now so the politicians that are in the most trouble are pulling out all the stops in order to try and get a last minute grip on victory. That makes the ads more frequent and often times more dishonest.

There's one ad that really bothers me in particular though. It's from the Mass Teachers Association. They are trying to attack Charlie Baker for health insurance premium increases caused largely by things like Romneycare, (which, like it's big brother Obamacare, the Deval supports). That's why you don't see the Deval attacking Romneycare. In fact he usually makes it a positive point that "97% of Massachusetts residents have health care". Even though the costs have skyrocketed and the quality of care has gone down. Attacking Charlie Baker and those evil insurance companies is much more convenient.

The Mass Teachers Association is spending lots of money to re-elect the Deval while at the same time the schools are asking parents to provide things like toilet paper and other school necessities. Maybe the unions should stop spending money on campaign ads and start investing in the children the Liberals like to talk about so much.

The Deval likes to talk about all of the jobs he's saving, especially teachers jobs. The truth is that it was you who saved those jobs. Obama gave money to the state with his "jobs bill".

"The legislation provides $10 billion to save more than 160,000 teacher jobs nationwide, and $16.1 billion in Medicaid assistance to states that will save and create 158,000 jobs, preventing layoffs of police and firefighters, according to Congresswoman Niki Tsongas, D-Lowell. Tsongas said it's estimated that 2,400 teaching jobs will be saved in Massachusetts"

So you see, when the Deval talks about all he's done to fund education etc. he's not referring to his excellent leadership skills and money management. He's referring to yet another bailout that the state received. I wonder why unemployment fell in September here. What happened in September?....oh that's right, school started so the bailed out teachers went back to work. The teachers unions, through their ads are now helping to pay him back by attacking Charlie Baker.

Just look at how much money the Teachers Unions have poured into Democrats over the years. Now, after spending all of that money on campaigns they need your help to fund their jobs and pensions. We all have good reasons to be against all of these bailouts and wasteful spending programs. It's a vicious cycle. A special interest group, (like unions), spends money they can't afford to spend on politicians that will serve their interest, then the corrupt politician ignores public opinion and bails out the group that bailed out their campaign. Both parties are guilty, but both parties aren't in power.

Back to the Deval, here are some facts that you aren't going to see in one of the Deval's campaign ads. You may remember some of these facts from when they were fresh news throughout the last 4 years.

Deval Patrick gave a 33%, $1.1 million raise to his staff.

Deval Patrick went on a state hiring spree in the middle of a fiscal crisis – including hiring campaign donors.

Deval Patrick spent nearly $1,200/mo. for a top-of-the-line Cadillac sedan.

Deval Patrick spent over $27,000 in taxpayer money on luxury furnishings for his office before public outrage compelled him to reimburse the state.

Deval Patrick proposed a 19¢ per gallon tax on gasoline.

Deval Patrick raised the state sales tax by 25% during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Deval Patrick hired a $72,000 per year “chief of staff” for his wife.

Deval Patrick pushed to hire Marian Walsh in a $175,000 state job that had gone unfilled for years.

Here's the source.

The Deval hopes you've forgotten all of that when he goes on the campaign trail to talk about what a great job he's doing. At least he cares about the children right? Aren't liberals always talking about "the children". Keep in mind the Deval opposed Jessica's law. It took quite a fight to get a version passed in Mass due to the Deval's opposition. I wonder why the Deval wouldn't use that to make his case for "the children"?

Oh, hold on a minute, I remember, the Deval was a criminal defense lawyer before he became a governor:

"Trial lawyers dislike it claiming their jobs will be far more difficult with plea bargains off the table"

"Even with all these and other arguments in mind, voters of the state of Massachusetts showed great support for Jessica's Law. It wasn't until after hundreds of thousands of petitions were signed and delivered to Beacon Hill, a public calling out by Bill O'Reilly himself, and much media attention, that this bill found its way to the senate"

"It had already been over 3 years since Rep. Karyn Polito had begun pushing for such legislation. One can't help but wonder if the circus hadn't come to town would Deval Patrick have signed on the dotted line?"

For the record, Karyn Polito is running for State Treasurer, you may want to remember that on election day. I know this all makes it look like the Deval cares more about the child rapist than the child victims but that's only because you probably haven't seen all of the Deval's campaign ads about how much he cares about the children. The quote is worth repeating:

"Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are, how you vote tells people who you really are deep down inside." - Zell Miller

Here's another statistic you won't see in a Deval Patrick ad, this one comes from that evil right wing extremist group protectmasschildren.org:

•In 2003 Massachusetts had the third highest rate of child abuse among the 50 states, with 22 out of every 1,000 children being a victim. ~ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

•In 2007 Massachusetts had the highest rate of confirmed cases of child abuse and neglect in the country. The rate was twice the national average. ~ U.S Department of Health and Human Services

Keep in mind this is happening while our wonderful governor is opposing Jessica's law. As if you need another reason not to vote for Barney Frank or Deval Patrick, I have one here.

"Conveniently eight days before one of the most historic elections in modern day America, Barney Frank, in all his pomp and circumstance, will deliver with grandeur a $2M stimulus check to Gov. Deval Patrick for more "shovel ready" jobs."

Last week, President Obama reluctantly told the New York Times, "there's no such thing as shovel-ready projects."

"Here in Massachusetts we're just as tired of Barney Frank as you are and we're tired of him campaigning on giving us YOUR money"

In conclusion, it's now up to each of us, the voters. We have to decide if we want to continue voting for a letter rather than a candidate. Is voting for Barney Frank and the Deval worth it just to remain loyal to the Democratic Party? I know there are a lot of Democrats who don't like the Deval, many of them also know that Sean Bielat is clearly a better candidate then Barney Frank. The race between Sean and Barney wouldn't be so close if there weren't a good chunk of Democrats giving Sean a serious look.

I have stated many times that I didn't vote for John McCain or President Obama in 2008. I'm owned by a set of conservative principles, not a political party. If my party doesn't represent those principles, then I don't represent that party. Perhaps this final quote will reflect something that a lot of Democrats might want to think about.

"I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me" - Ronald Reagan

I've made my case, we won't get another chance to change anything for 2 more years. It's time for you to determine where you stand and make a choice. If you think I'm wrong then by all means re-elect Barney Frank and the Deval, just make sure you ask yourself why they deserve your vote. As for me, the only thing scarier than Michael Myers this Halloween is the possibility of the progressive left maintaining total control of our government after this election.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent With Lawyers Turned Politicians

2010-10-16T19:05:00.010-04:00

Here we are in the home stretch of the campaign cycle leading up to the election on November 2. I often wonder about how people that aren't tuned in to politics and history really see elections. After all, if you don't pay much attention, either due to anger or frustration, or due simply to a lack of interest, how are you supposed to make the best guess as to who's best for the job?

You get a handful of ads with each candidate either bashing their opponents record, or propping up their own record, (often misleading more than a little bit). This is going to regard the current story about the Chamber Of Commerce and the funding of political ads.

You only get a few chances to truly change the future of our country, good or bad. It's pretty much always been true that most people don't like politicians. That's perhaps never been more true than it is today. Let's start on the Chamber of Commerce story.

You know the charge, the Chamber of Commerce is supposedly funding Republican campaign ads in an attempt to defeat the Democrats, (even though some of the Chamber's ads are in fact for "Blue Dog" conservative Democrats but never mind that). They have no proof but you've probably seen some of the ads, especially this one.

The most fascinating part of all this is that they have no evidence, they just need a topic to run on because the over-regulation, high-tax progressive way of doing things is having the exact results Conservatives have been expecting and warning against. I have a question for the Democrats though...

Where was the outrage and the campaign ads from the DNC for Chinagate during the Clinton presidency?

"Twenty-two people were eventually convicted of fraud or for funneling Asian funds into the United States elections, and others fled U.S. jurisdiction. Several of these were associates of Bill Clinton or Al Gore."

The key word there is "convicted". That means that there was actual proof, (unlike the current charges against the Chamber of Commerce by the Obama administration). Are you starting to see why they hope you stay uninformed when it comes to history? If you don't follow these things then you are easier to fool with a nice little campaign ad. It's a last minute desperate ploy to save the Democrats from what is looking more and more like it's going to be a landslide defeat for the left, we'll have to wait and see.

The Obama administration wants the Chamber of Commerce to disclose all of their donors, (which they have no legal obligation to do). However, it's no secret that the Obama administration has the support of the unions who do things like this. The Chamber of Commerce doesn't want to disclose it's donors because thug union groups out to socialize and destroy this country will send people to the homes of the donors to intimidate them, (which is illegal if you are literally on the doorstep of a private residence).

Need more proof about the unions intentions, you don't have to look any farther than the 10-2-10 rally in D.C. which was organized by the labor unions and CPUSA, (Communist Party USA).

Given what we've seen in the past from the labor unions it's pretty reasonable to keep your donors secret. If Obama has proof then he needs to provide it, if not then he should apologize. He's a lawyer, I thought they believed in innocent until proven guilty? I guess that only applies when the accusations are against the Liberals in the eyes of the left.

Defeat The Deval

2010-10-07T22:00:00.000-04:00

Last time I took on Barney Frank, now it's time to make a case against Deval Patrick here in Mass. As usual I'm going to use some history in this one. I won't be going back that far though since I won't need to but I'd like to remind you of a few things that I've been thinking about regarding this election cycle for Mass.

The RGA, (Republican Governors Association), has been wasting too much time and money attacking Tim Cahill. Cahill's job is to syphon off enough votes from Charlie Baker to hand the Deval a victory since Deval is in far more trouble than he'd ever admit. I talk to, more like debate, a lot of Liberal Democrats here in Mass. I sometimes have trouble finding Democrats that really like and are enthusiastic about the Deval.

That's very telling and it explains why Tim Cahill is really in this race as an independent, he hopes that Democrats who don't really like the Deval will vote for him rather than Charlie Baker. There's about a 3 to 1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans here as well as the nearly 50% of registered voters who claim to be independents, (many are actually leaning left Democrats who don't wish to be identified by a party label). That makes the math of Massachusetts politics typically work in favor for the Liberals.

When a Democrat falls below 50% here as Deval and Barney Frank have it causes panic for them. This is why President Obama has been here campaigning for the Deval and former President Clinton was here trying to help Barney Frank.

Before we get into the campaign ads there's something you should keep in mind, it's extremely relevant to the Deval's campaign ads....psychology. You'll notice that in every ad by the Deval he always uses this really soft tone. If you happened to catch the debates he does this as well. The tone is not an accident, he's hoping that by talking really soft and sweet it will make him like able and therefore you'll be more willing to fall for anything he sells you.

Deval ran on the catchphrase of "let's get started". Let's take a look at this ad from the Deval's original run for governor. The ad claims to want to challenge the "Big Dig culture on Beacon Hill". Yet all he brought with him was the corrupt windy city, (Chicago), culture to Massachusetts.

In that regard, Massachusetts has already been living with a smaller, though almost identical, version of Barack Obama since the election of '06. It's not shocking to me that these policies aren't working. They didn't work in Chicago, they haven't worked for Massachusetts, and now they aren't working for the rest of the country.

Let's look at a more current ad regarding this years election. Remember, listen to the tone he uses here. So the Deval has received enough federal bail out money to fund the unions, while being against better performing charter schools.

The Deval likes to talk about how Massachusetts is going to come out of this recession better than any other state. He talks about how Massachusetts is a great state for business. I'd like to show you something.

This is from the Chief Executive magazine. Here's the story. You'll notice that Massachusetts gets an abysmal 47th place out of 51, (51 due to D.C.). Now who do you think is more accurate about the business friendliness of Massachusetts? Do you trust actual business leaders or the Deval?

At least Deval cares about his constituents right? Let me remind you of something else from awhile back on this blog. I went to a town hall meeting with Deval in the summer of '09. He didn't pick me for a question, (lucky him as it would've turned into a debate and I probably would have won), but I did get to submit a YouTube question directly with one of his staffers after the event. I asked about taxes and used this quote from JFK:

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is between two kinds of deficits, a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, produce revenues, and achieve a future budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness, the second reflects an investment in the future" - JFK

I wanted an answer as to why he keeps raising taxes and thus reducing revenues as JFK seemed to know would happen. The first e-mail I received back was this:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with Governor Patrick. The Governor values your opinions and enjoys hearing from people across the Commonwealth. Please know that your views are always welcome in this administration.

The Governor and his staff strive to review every piece of correspondence in a timely manner. If appropriate, we will forward your message to the appropriate staff member, department or the state agency that can best address your concerns.

If you need an immediate response, please call the Governor's Office at 617-725-4005 to speak with a Constituent Services Aide. Again, thank you for taking the time to share your ideas with Governor Patrick. Stay involved and engaged...this is your government!

I gave him another week, then e-mailed for an answer again, that's when I got this answer from the Deval:

Dear Brandon,

On behalf of Governor Deval Patrick, thank you for your recent email regarding your YouTube question from the Town Hall meeting. We are currently experiencing technical difficulties. As soon as we have those issues fixed, we'll get the answers posted as soon as possible. Please feel free to contact our office in the future with any further questions or concerns; your comments are always welcome in this administration.

Best regards,
Constituent Services Aide
617-725-4005
www.mass.gov/governor/contact

Technical difficulties, so....you can e-mail me an answer that blames "technical difficulties, but you can't e-mail me an actual answer to my question!! I never got my answer and this was from almost a year and a half ago. Here are the 2 stories that I posted on this blog at the time.

The first one.

The second one.

They can blame Charlie Baker for the Big Dig all they want. The lying Liberal group Bay State Future has ads out attacking Charlie for the Big Dig. Read the history of the big dig and you tell me that the 4 years in the later 90's that Charlie Baker was in charge of some financing qualifies the Big Dig disaster for being his fault.

"After years of extensive lobbying for federal dollars, a 1987 public works bill appropriating funding for the Big Dig was passed by U.S. Congress, but it was subsequently vetoed by President Ronald Reagan as being too expensive. When Congress overrode his veto, the project had its green light and ground was first broken in 1991."

So the Democrats in Congress overrode President Reagan's veto to fund the Big Dig, now that's interesting since Deval Patrick blames it all on Charlie Baker. I don't think there's much else to say since the history of the Big Dig proves that it was the Democrats, not Charlie Baker, who approved of the disaster known as the Big Dig. As usual the Liberals and the Deval's success depends entirely on Massachusetts voters being ignorant on the facts of history.

Unfortunately for the Deval, I'm not one of those people. Every election cycle we must never forget what Democrat Zell Miller said at the 2004 Republican National Convention.

"Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are, how you vote tells people who you really are deep down inside." - Zell Miller

It's time to make a choice Massachusetts. Do you trust the Deval's campaign talk? Or do you look at the results of the Deval's policies?

Remember, it was Deval Patrick who changed the law that the Democrats originally changed back when Mitt Romney was governor. They were afraid that if Kerry won the election of '04 then Romney would be allowed to appoint a Republican in Kerry's place, so the Democratic controlled Massachusetts legislature changed the law so we'd have to vote on it. Kerry lost so it didn't become an issue.

However, then the Deval became the governor and Ted Kennedy died before the Senate got a vote on Obamacare. In one of the most corrupt things ever to occur in politics the Democrats then voted to change back the law THEY ORIGINALLY CHANGED in order to allow the Deval to appoint a replacement for Ted Kennedy.

WITHOUT THE VOTE OF MASSACHUSETTS VOTERS DEVAL APPOINTED PAUL KIRK, (GOOD FRIEND OF TED KENNEDY), KIRK GAVE THE SENATE DEMOCRATS THE 60TH VOTE THEY NEEDED AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

We voiced our anger over Obamacare when we then voted for Scott Brown. The House of Representatives then voted to pass the law as is because they knew if they changed the law in any way Scott Brown would've denied the 60th vote to the Democrats and the health care bill wouldn't have become law.

It doesn't get much more corrupt than that. Remember Massachusetts, Obamacare, which continues to become less and less popular wouldn't have been realized without Deval Patrick. That makes Mass most responsible for the passage of Obamacare.

Let's right a wrong here. Let's forget about being a blue state and show we are a red, white, and blue state. Spread the word, remind people of what you've seen here. Let's defeat the Deval.

Barney vs. Reaganomics and Sean Bielat

2010-09-28T22:02:00.001-04:00

It's no secret that I live in Massachusetts. Even worse, I live in Barney Franks district. Let me apologize first for the fact that my district has repeatedly voted for Barney even when he was so obviously wrong on just about every issue.

Now, I know firsthand what Barney Frank's policies have led to. Higher crime, higher poverty, higher government dependency, and a housing crisis he helped cause through government intrusion into the housing market.

"We've got to restore the American dream. No one in the house has done more for that American Dream than Barney Frank." - Bill Clinton

Here's some info on Barney Frank's career history. There's plenty of things I could point out from here but let's just tackle a few.

"However, in 1982, redistricting forced him to run against Republican Margaret Heckler, who represented a district centered on the South Coast, including Fall River and New Bedford. Although the newly configured district retained Frank's district number — the 4th — it was geographically more Heckler's district. Frank focused on Heckler's initial support for President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts, and won by twenty percentage points. He has not faced credible opposition since, and has been reelected thirteen times."

That's right everybody, he was elected opposing the Reagan tax cuts which led to a boom in the economy. Some liberal Reagan critics say that Reagan actually raised taxes, that is partly true but in typical liberal fashion they leave out many facts.

For example, it's true that Ronald Reagan raised the gasoline tax by 5 cents a gallon in the early 80's. The extra money raised with the gas tax was supposed to go only to rebuilding roads etc.

Another fact the Liberals ignore is that the tax was only supposed to be in effect for 1 year, which is why Reagan supported it. After a year Reagan kept his word and proposed repealing the 5 cent gas tax as agreed to the Democrat controlled congress. The Democrats didn't keep their word and refused to repeal the tax. This has helped fuel the misguided liberal attacks on Reagan as a supporter of tax increases.

Liberal propagandists at media matters paint Reagan as a tax increaser in stories like this in an effort to paint conservatives like me as liars.

Historian Larry Schweikart describes the spending and tax cuts during this period in A Patriots History:

"The tax cuts started to have their effect. Production, employment, job creation, and entrepreneurship all surged, soon achieving near-record levels. And, true to the supply-side promise, government revenues soared, increasing by more than one third during Reagan's eight years.

Yet despite ocean's of new money and Reagan's constant foot on the brake, government continued to spend more than it took in, increasing outlays by 40% in the same period. To restrain spending, Reagan cut a deal with Congress in which the Democrats agreed to hold spending down in return for closing tax loopholes (which really involved raising taxes again, but only in specific industries, such as yachts and pleasure boats). No sooner had Congress closed the deal than it passed new higher spending, generating sizable, but not record, deficits."

Notice the bold print as the left will cleverly leave all of those pesky little details out. Now back to Barney and Bielat.

MoveOn.org is helping Barney Frank by sending out this message from him:

Dear Friends,

Thank you for your past support and for fighting for the values we share.

As you may know, I am under attack by a well-financed, right-wing effort to defeat me in November because of my positions on progressive issues. I voted against the war in Iraq; I support bringing the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan; I am leading efforts to fight for the civil rights of LGBT Americans; I strongly supported a public option in the health care bill; I am a leader in the fight to cut excessive and wasteful military spending and subsidies for the defense of wealthy allies; and I am opposed to extending tax cuts for multi-millionaires.

The extreme right has focused its anger on me in part because I have dared to stand up to them. Last year, when Senators and Congressmen supporting the health care bill were publicly vilified by anti-health care activists, I stood up for what is right and denounced the particularly outrageous claim that President Obama is in some ways a modern-day Adolf Hitler. My willingness to fight back - in what is now known as the 'dining room table incident' -- inspired others and began to turn the tide.

I take the right-wing attacks very seriously, and I fully expect to see a heavily-financed media blitz in coming weeks that will demonize me just as they have demonized the President. Let us not underestimate the power of these lies - we have learned in the past, from the Willie Horton ads, from the 'swift-boating' of John Kerry, and many other examples that inherently implausible attacks are not self-refuting. When the right tells its lies, we must actively oppose them.

Many of you have already volunteered for or generously donated to my campaign. I deeply appreciate your support. If you have not yet joined the campaign, I welcome both the donation of your financial resources and your time. There is strength in numbers.

If you would like to join me in battling the right-wing and its deep-pocketed supporters, please sign up to help at my web site: www.barney2010.com.

Thank you for joining me in this fight.

BARNEY FRANK
www.barney2010.com

This points out that many of Barney's progressive views are on the opposite side of most Americans. Even my hometown voted overwhelmingly for Scott Brown over Martha Coakley in order to oppose Obamacare. However, Barney Frank still supports it, going even further by claiming, "I strongly supported a public option in the health care bill". This puts him against a majority even here in Mass, (do you remember why Scott Brown won? Obamacare).

Sean Bielat is an ex-Democrat gone Republican, just like Reagan. He's also a Marine. Take a few minutes to see his views for yourself here. His official website is here. I believe this is the best chance we've ever had to finally retire Barney Frank for good.

The key is an informed public though. November will be very telling in my district. One of two things will happen, either the people here will wake up and realize that this is one congressman who deserves to be defeated more than most others...or we'll fall for the Liberal charm of Bill Clinton and stick to the bleeding heart lies about how much Barney Frank cares about the poor and the children.

I for one will continue to speak out, refusing to speak out because of political correctness or fear of critics guarantees that they win. I'll stand up to a tidal wave of liberal opposition, I'm used to it. These issues and both our own and our children's future is too important to stay quiet. I'll be taking on Deval Patrick full force very soon but for now bye bye Barney will have to do.

Economics You Can Relate To

2010-09-18T19:53:00.004-04:00

I'm going to explain something about tax policy that liberals like Obama don't seem to get. I'm going to use some examples that each of us deal with on a regular basis. Now, liberal Obama supporters may want to read this slowly or at least take notes because it's extremely complicated. Let's begin.

First, keep these complicated math problems in mind because they will make economic sense soon enough.

70 x 1,000 = 70,000

25 x 10,000 = 250,000

Now, everyone should be able to agree that those 2 multiplication problems are correct. I'm sure we all know that 250,000 > 70,000. Keep that in mind as we continue.

Ok, most of us don't work for congress so we don't have the ability to just vote ourselves a pay raise the way they do. When times get tough for most of us there are basically only 2 options. Get a second job, (which many of us can't do, or find for that matter), or cut back our own spending on non-essentials. Our government obviously doesn't even think of the less spending option. In fact many of them think the answer lies in more spending.

Let's use a scenario we all face regularly, like grocery shopping. When you go food shopping there are decisions we have to make regarding our purchases based on the money we have to spend. If you're like most of us you have to stay within a certain budget in order to get the most food for the least money.

How do you do it? Sale items and other specials, coupons, store brand instead of national brand, etc. You have to plan shopping in a way that gives you the most bang for your buck. This can apply to pretty much anything you buy.

This can apply to many other things as well, like back to school shopping. Younger kids will be getting the "hand me downs" from older siblings to limit how much you have to buy. In order to relate these situations to economics the question to be thought of is: What makes more money for a business and at the same time saves the consumer money for the purchase?

Let's use the back to school scenario again for a second. Remember the math problems above from earlier? I will continue to use the numbers 70 and 25 to keep those numbers in the front of your mind for when we tie all of this together.

You go clothes shopping for back to school. You need a new pair of shoes for your child. There is a $70 pair and a $25 pair. There may be a picture of Spongebob or Dora The Explorer on the $70 pair but which one are you most likely to buy?

Let's say the ratio of sales is that for every 1 pair of $70 shoes sold you sell 4 pairs of the $25 shoes, considering the current economic climate I think I'm actually being generous toward the $70 pair but it doesn't matter because the point remains the same.

You sell 1 pair of $70 shoes in the same time frame that sells you 4 pairs of the $25 shoes. That means for every $70 you make with the more expensive shoes you make $100 off the cheaper shoes. Even though each consumer spends less individually, you make more money in the end off the cheaper shoes.

Now let's take the supermarket as I'll bet most of us have to buy food pretty often. Those of us with kids and larger families, have to be even wiser about our shopping than most others.

Well, what do you look for? Sale items, generic brands (as opposed to the national ones), items with coupons etc. Most of us are in there looking for the best deal for our money and that requires paying a little bit of attention to what we are buying.

Supermarket's know this as well. They know that they will sell far more sale and generic items than the other stuff. How do they make any money? The answer again lies in volume. For example (again using the numbers 70 and 25 as a base to make a point): you're buying yogurt, there's a .70 yogurt and a .25 yogurt, which are you going to most likely buy?

The .25 product is going to sell 10 times as much as the .70, it's the entire logic behind having sales in the first place. So the store will make $2.50 with the cheaper for every .70 made with the other products.

Why do you think WalMart is the #1 retailer in the world? How can they make the most money when they tend to have the lower prices? Well, now you understand how. Now for the fun part. Here's where we tie this into tax policy and destroy the logic of the high tax progressive liberals.

Taxes, politicians don't like paying them, but they love raising them. Business owners, especially small business owners, pay the tax rate at the personal income rate the same way you do. For a small business owner to make $200,000 + is really not all that much. If you are too anti-business and go after the businesses they'll just pass the increased costs down in other ways, (like lay-offs). It's that business owners profits that are used to expand the business and keep all of us collecting paychecks when we work for them.

Lower taxes boost revenues and make more money for the government for the same reason that the lower priced items make more money for the retailers. Lower taxes boost revenues because it gives more money to businesses for investment in jobs. Private job growth leads to more tax revenue.

It costs money to create jobs, just look at how much money all of these government jobs from stimulus are costing us. Google "stimulus jobs cost" and you'll see plenty of stories related to what I mean.

25% tax rate causes business revenues to rise, this leads to more expansion and investment and therefore more jobs. A 70% tax rate cuts business revenues to the point where there is far less money left in a business to invest and expand, the result, less jobs.

Less jobs means more people taking money from the government, (unemployment, food stamps, welfare, etc.) Less jobs means less revenue for the government, (less people paying taxes from their paychecks). This makes the unemployed a double dip against the revenues of the government.

Government jobs, (which every single stimulus job is), are also a drain on the revenues of the government. The government pays you with money it has to take from the private sector, (or print which in excess just leads to inflation down the road). The private sector keeps shrinking and the government bogus jobs keep growing, why do you think the debt is exploding?

Politicians, who in many cases make as much or more than the business leaders they love to bash, generate no revenue for the government. Workers in this country have to lose money out of every paycheck to create the paychecks for politicians. Also, unlike them, none of us can vote for a pay increase to ourselves. Increased pay is usually a reward for good work, can you think of many in Washington D.C. currently who qualify? Yet they do vote themselves raises while they have the audacity to vote against a social security increase for our seniors.

The increased taxes of Deval Patrick haven't worked out so well for Massachusetts. He inherited a surplus from Mitt Romney and after raising taxes and spending we are now in deep deficit with less jobs. A millionaires tax hasn't worked out so well either.

"The number of millionaire tax returns fell sharply to 5,529 from 7,898 in 2007, a 30% tumble. The taxes paid by rich filers fell by 22%, and instead of their payments increasing by $106 million, they fell by some $257 million" - WSJ

Now, at the state level, it's as simple as millionaires moving out of state to avoid a particular states soak the rich tax policies. The left may try to counter by saying that at the federal level every state's millionaires tax will hit regardless of state. There's more to it than that.

A state millionaires tax affects millionaires as individuals. At the federal level it will affect wealthy business leaders. The end result, no private sector job growth and therefore reduced federal revenues as opposed to increased revenues.

Without job creation you can take 70% away from the wealthy but there won't be enough of them. Lower taxes will spurn more private job growth and less people will have to be paid by the government. Non-government job creation sparked by lower tax rates creates more of a taxpayer base and therefore far more people to tax at the lower rate.

The end result is higher revenues with lower taxes, that is the results of the Laffer Curve. The other aspect is cutting spending, you have to do it during a recession, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO IT AT ALL TIMES, recession or not. Sometimes the key to making more money is simply spending less. If you can't vote yourself a raise and you want to save money the only thing you can do is spend less.

Taking $1.00 from a thousand people makes $1,000. Taking .25 from 10,000 people is $2,500. Therefore, when it comes to tax policy and spending it's true that bigger isn't better. Just as this country's government was founded on the same principle. When it comes to government's role in our lives, bigger isn't better. Don't expect progressive liberals like Obama to understand that though.

Extending That Which Does Not Exist

2010-09-17T15:51:00.008-04:00

You can't help but laugh as you see Liberals falling all over themselves over the extension of the Bush tax cuts, especially for the middle class. The funniest part of all of this is that these are the same people who spent 8 years trying to convince us that the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich. Even some Republicans bought into that here in Mass.

How many times did we hear that only the rich got tax cuts? By pushing to extend the tax cuts for people making under $250,000 they are admitting that for 8 years during the Bush administration they lied to us, (big surprise), about the fact that we even got a tax cut in the first place. In more and more cases Democrats are pushing for an extension of all Bush tax cuts including the "tax cuts for the rich".

That's quite a turnaround from the rhetoric we're usually hearing from Liberals. Obama is blaming the Republicans despite the fact that he can't even get enough Democrats to jump on board of his sinking ship.

"Democrats, though, have sought to expropriate Republican concerns about the deficit in their defense of allowing the tax cuts for wealthier Americans to expire. They say an extension would add $700 billion to the federal tab over the next decade."

We'll get into why that's not true in a minute but let's first imagine that to be true. $700 billion over 10 years is only $70 billion a year. That's nothing considering our current deficits and debt. Think about it. Bush's failed stimulus cost about $787 billion. Obama's cost even more, including billions in earmarks, "pork" as it's sometimes called. 50 billion here, 20 billion there, we talk about billions now as if it's nothing and that alone is scary.

Isn't it funny how president's often use timetables that go beyond their presidency. If Obama was to win a second term, (I'll pause while you finish laughing............), if Obama wins a second term he would only be president until Jan. of 2017. Yet he's talking about revenues 10 years in the future. If there's one thing we can see when comparing 2000 to today it's that a lot can change in 10 years. This is the same president who said the stimulus would work and whose economic team said unemployment wouldn't rise over 8% with that stimulus package. They were wrong then and they're wrong now.

Have you heard Obama's clever catchphrase someone else probably came up with for him?

"You want to go forward, what do you do? You put it in 'D.' When you go backward, what do you do? You put it in 'R.'" - President Obama

Well Mr. President it all depends on where you're parked. Your policies have now parked our country on the edge of a cliff. When you're on the edge of a cliff you don't shift into drive and head over the side. To be fair a quick little move in reverse won't necessarily make you safe either. Progressive Republicans can be just as dangerous to our country as progressive Liberals.

I was talking about politics the other day with someone and I was explaining tax policy like the Laffer Curve. I wanted to find a way to describe it that was so simple to understand even a progressive liberal would understand it. I'm going to use something we pretty much all do regularly. You engage in supply side economics and the philosophy of the Laffer Curve far more than you realize. I'll show you how very soon in my next post and it will explain why the government will make far less money than they are expecting. Until then keep enjoying the debate over letting you keep something they said you never had.

Remembering 9/11 Nine Years Later

2010-09-11T21:12:00.001-04:00

Here we are once again remembering that tragic day 9 years ago. I can't help but think about how much has changed. Not just in terms of what our country is going through but in terms of myself. I was 19 on 9/11/01 and I'll never forget that morning.

I was working the overnight shift at the time and had worked all night on 9/10. I went out to breakfast that morning and had just started to fall asleep when I was awoken by my mother. "A plane just crashed into the World Trade Center!".

I wasn't sure what to make of it at first so I just closed my eyes and tried to fall asleep. A few minutes later my mother burst into the room again, "another plane just crashed again America is under attack!". Needless to say that was the end of my trying to get any sleep that day.

As the tragedy continued to unfold I spent most of the rest of that day just like most everybody else, glued to the news. I remember the mix of emotions racing through me that day. Sadness, anger, helplessness, etc. Yet there are other things I remember from 9/11 that are inspiring.

I remember seeing the firefighters, police, and everyday average people doing all they could to help anyone they could. I remember that American heroes on United 93 made the decision to fight back and denied the terrorists another successful attack.

Then there's perhaps the thing that mattered most about that day. On that day and in the weeks and even months ahead we saw true unity in America. Left and right politics didn't matter. Liberal, Conservative, whatever the case, there was that brief moment where politics was pushed aside as we saw each other only as Americans.

The united attitude of the country was on a level I hadn't seen before 9/11 and haven't seen since. It was telling of the generosity and compassion that you see in America. Between the millions and millions of dollars raised to help the families of victims, to the surge in people enrolling in our military.

Those who didn't directly lose family members or friends in the attacks felt as if they had. The 9/11 victims families became our families, their sorrow was felt in each of our hearts. That is the America our soldiers fight to protect.

As Americans we often take much of what we have for granted. The lifestyle we have for so long known tends to make us forget that we are not in fact invincible. As we take this time to remember the victims and heroes of 9/11 we must also take a moment to think of our soldiers who continue to be heroes and victims in the ongoing struggle we've come to call "The War On Terror".

The years seem to go by faster and faster. It's hard to believe that next year will be a full decade since the attacks. I've grown and learned so much since then, I suspect we all have. Yet as life goes on, we must never forget why we take time to remember this day. We will never forget why we take a minute and pause when we notice the time on the clock reads 9:11. I had to pause a minute before I posted this because I was a little spooked.

By complete chance I finished this post at 9:11.

The Aftermath Of The 8/28 Rallies, Racial Politics Once Again

2010-09-03T18:05:00.000-04:00

The 8/28 rallies of Glenn Beck and Al Sharpton have now come and gone. I didn't bother to get into the debate before the events as I figured I'd first watch both rallies start to finish. I didn't want to get into the debate based on other people's opinions. I have now watched both of them and offer my thoughts.

If you haven't seen both rallies then I think you should before you finish this post. It's no small task but it's the only way to see for yourself firsthand what the rallies were actually like. Watching the rallies is no small task as combined they cover 6 hours and 8 minutes. Ignore the critics and make a judgement for yourselves.

Here's Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally.

Here's Al Sharpton's Reclaim The Dream rally.

I told myself when I started watching the rallies, especially Sharpton's, that I was going to keep an open mind. There were parts of Sharpton's rally that weren't that bad. I originally planned to provide you with the links to the rallies and pretty much just let you be the judge. You should definitely watch the rallies before you continue but it's up to you.

After 24 minutes of Sharpton's speech I saw something that I just couldn't ignore and it wasn't the campaign signs for some candidates for congress. I began to take some notes as I listened. There are some things that need to be addressed though and it begins to take off when TJ Williams starts talking at the 24 minute mark. In truth I felt bad for this man as well as many others who were there.

Ronald Reagan said it best:

"The problem with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

"When I was at Liberty University I remember being told by the staff of that institution and the staff of the Jessie Helms campaign that the Conservative Party worked against gay rights, is amiss with keeping the African American community distracted with gay marriage and hate crimes so that they can complete their real commission, which is to roll back the civil rights act of 1963. And this is precisely what they mean when they talk about limited government. This 21 century push for an expansion of states rights is a hope to resurrect Jim Crow laws." - TJ Williams

The saddest part of that quote full of lies is the fact that he learned that from a staff of teachers at Liberty University. Teachers should know better, (I suspect they know the truth but it stands against the agenda of the left wing so they choose to promote lies in order to maintain a Liberal base of misinformed students). Read the Reagan quote again.

Here's the voting breakdown for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was the Democrats that stood more unified against the Civil Rights Act, not the Republicans. I'm not going to go too much into the details of this issue since I already took care of it with the blog post I did about history and the black panthers. If you haven't already read that one then you need to.

Before I move on I'd like to point something else out. Have you noticed that throughout the Sharpton rally they seem to talk mostly about uniting blacks? That's not the message of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr:

"The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I thought of something else regarding the Reclaim the Dream rally, the name. To "reclaim the dream" suggests that it's been stolen. That is no doubt the belief of the speakers at the Sharpton rally. You can't steal Martin Luther King's dream. His dream was about equality for ALL people. It is for that reason that it's impossible for the dream to belong exclusively to blacks. It is a message for all of us.

Then we have John Boyd, President of the National Black Farmers Association who said this:

"Dr. King gave us a miracle in 2008, he gave us the first African American president in history and we outta let that be known today, we support our president." - John Boyd

Not much wrong with that quote but there's a question to be asked. When black Americans say we support our president is it because of his policies or simply because he is black? Let me ask you another question.

During the 2008 presidential campaign I heard from some people that if you didn't vote for Obama then you were a racist. It's scary that some people were foolish enough to believe that. If you only voted FOR Obama because he's black is that not also a racist vote?

Launching the racism charges against Republicans and Conservatives is nothing new. Let me share a few things with you once again using one of my favorites, Ronald Reagan. I'm going to show you 2 letters written by Ronald Reagan. Think of what's happening today with racial politics and you tell me what's changed. This is from Reagan: A Life In Letters.

Letter 1 - A response to Leonard Kirk, a black, unemployed Vietnam veteran. He supported Reagan's defense policy but called him "a worse president than tricky Dick Nixon" and "a closet racist and friend of the rich."

March 23, 1983
Dear Mr. Kirk:

I appreciate very much your support of my defense policy. I believe I also can understand why you think me a "closet racist". Certainly there has been a constant drumbeat of propaganda to that effect ever since I took office. Some leaders of black organizations have joined in this whether to enhance their own stature by arousing the membership to anger or not I don't know.

You of course would have no way of knowing the truth about me. May I point out a few things in my own behalf?

I was raised from childhood by my parents who believed bigotry and prejudice were the worst things a person could be guilty of. My father once slept in his car during an Illinois blizzard rather than stay in a hotel that wouldn't allow Jews. He was Irish Catholic.

As a sports announcer broadcasting Big League baseball in the middle '30's I campaigned against the rule that prohibited blacks from playing in organized ball. As governor of California I appointed more blacks to executive and policy making positions than all the previous Governors of California put together. I too have a dream, a dream that one day whatever is done to or for someone will be done neither because of or in spite of their race. We are all equal in the sight of God-we should be equal in the sight of man. By the way I was raised in poverty.

Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan

I guess some things truly haven't changed, like Republicans and Conservatives being labeled racist through Liberal propaganda. Here's another.

November 23, 1983 - a letter to a man named Freddie Washington

Dear Mr. Washington:

I'm sorry to be so late in answering your letter but it takes a while for mail to get sorted and letters to arrive at my desk. I can't tell you how much your letter means to me. I've been frustrated and angered by the attempts to paint me as a racist and as lacking compassion for the poor. On the one subject I was raised by a mother and father who instilled in me and my brother a hatred for bigotry and prejudice long before there was such a thing as a civil rights movement. As for the poor, we were poor in an era when there were no government programs to turn to. I'm well aware of how lucky I've been since and how good the Lord has been to me.

Forgive me for telling you all this but I want you to know and understand how very moved I was by your kind letter. Again my heartfelt thanks.

Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan

It's a well known fact that the economic boom caused by the Reagan economic plan, often called "Reaganomics", lifted ALL income levels, vastly reduced poverty, and created millions of jobs. Unlike Obama, who so far has had the opposite effect. Just think, his tax increases don't really start to effect the economy until next year, I can't wait, how about you?

Obama's tanking poll numbers have nothing to do with his race, they have to do with things like this.

I could go on an on about problems with some of Sharpton's rally but I don't think it was all bad so don't get me wrong. There was a lot of talk about the necessity for education within the black community. However, there's one thing I can't seem to understand about the liberal philosophy.

They claim to support the education of the children etc. They claim to want to help the black communities. Why then is it that when a successful black conservative dares to disagree with the liberals they instantly turn to personal insults like "uncle tom", or "sell out"? The black conservatives are in the meantime thinking: Hey, I'm successful, have strong family values, am pretty well educated, and work hard, isn't that what all of you liberals wanted me to do?

Take this story and these amazing videos from the 8/28 rallies. The left is panicking because America is finally getting curious about it's own history. The Liberals fear that the black community will learn the truth about Liberal history through videos like this.

The problem with the progressive liberal ideology is that it's based on emotions rather than logic. For example, the average liberal, (not the politicians mind you), but the average liberal. The kind you run into at the supermarket etc. honestly believes in helping the poor and the children etc. They just don't seem to realize that the very programs they support keep more people down and in poverty.

The entire debate over illegal immigration, which I've covered in previous posts, is an attempt by the left to hijack and increase the Hispanic vote. Imagine if the left were to lose the 95% vote of the black American community. What if it was 95% for the conservatives, (notice I said conservatives, not republicans, there is a difference in many cases, like John McCain). The liberal left would never win an election again. That is why they use the education system and the teachers unions to teach revisionist history.

Take for example the issue of the death penalty. Liberals typically stand against the death penalty, yet they support abortion. That makes no sense to me. A criminal whose committed a very serious crime, been given a fair trial, and sentenced to the death penalty is given all the compassion and excuses in the world by the left. However, an unborn and unarguably innocent baby who through no fault of their own has been conceived isn't even given half of a thought by the pro-abortion left. That baby deserves a chance, even if that is an inconvenience to the parents, the right to a chance at life should supersede the right for your own convenience.

The pro-abortion, anti-death penalty mentality is just one example of the kind of thinking that Phil Valentine calls, "liberal logic" in his book, The Conservative's Handbook. He has created this music video that speaks to our founding principles and like the rise up video is about the truth behind the purpose of the tea party movement, global warming, and the emotions gripping a majority of concerned Americans at the present time. He describes liberalism and "liberal logic" as this:

"Another reason liberalism is doomed to failure is because it's based largely on emotion instead of facts. It's what I refer to as liberal logic."

"Liberal logic is a purely emotional approach to solving a problem. Liberal logic is, in essence, and oxymoron because it is completely devoid of logic." - Phil Valentine

Racial politics used by the left is a good example of liberal logic. The facts of history don't matter if you can convince enough black Americans that all Conservatives and Republicans are and always were the racists. If enough black Americans believe that then their emotions will lead them to vote for the Democratic party. To the Democrats that's all that matters. They are currently trying to use the immigration debate to stir up the same kinds of emotions with the Hispanics in order to lock in those votes for Democrats.

In closing you have to ask yourself, which movement do you most align with? Which rally would you have attended? Which rally do you believe truly embraced the message of Martin Luther King Jr?

One last little fact about charity. The Restoring Honor rally raised over $5 million for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. While Al Sharpton's National Action Network is giving six, that's 6, $500 scholarships out for a total of $3,000 that you have to win an essay contest in order to get. The SOWF grants full scholarships to the children of our heroes, Al Sharpton might cover your books. That's shameful for the National Action Network, but that's liberal logic.

How Can You Teach What You Don't Know?

2010-08-14T20:18:00.002-04:00

It's a pretty easy question. I ask this because of Christina Romer, (head of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers), and her recent announcement that she's resigning as of September 3. She's going to return to teaching economics at the University of California, Berkeley.

It's not surprising that California is doing so poorly. Imagine walking into economics class on your first day and seeing Mrs. Romer as the teacher. My first question would have to be:

"Excuse me Professor Romer, but while you served as the presidents chief economic advisor we lost millions of jobs and massively increased the federal debt. How can you teach us about responsible economic policies when your advice proved to be such a failure when put to the test in the real world?"

I'm sure her answer would be the typical blame Bush or the Republicans type answer we're all used to hearing by now. If that's not her answer then I'd love to hear what it would be. Meanwhile Obama says:

"Christy Romer has provided extraordinary service to me and our country during a time of economic crisis and recovery." - President Obama

You mean during a time of economic crisis period. More and more Americans are seeing that there is no "recovery summer". Try selling that point to these people.

You see those signs? I know it's hard for progressives to understand: "I want to work". Notice the signs didn't say, "I want more government handouts and welfare". We've had enough of your recovery BS. We're tired of seeing $10,000 signs saying how this project funded by the Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

If job growth was actually happening at the local, (instead of just the federal), level then revenue in the towns and states would increase. More workers means more taxpayers, more taxpayers means more revenue, more revenue means more funding for roads, schools, and police. It is done with less government, not more, it's pretty simple.

This brings me to the problem with unemployment benefits. I don't disagree with giving unemployment benefits to people in the short term to help with job loss. However, despite the lefts claims that they are caring for the people while the evil Republicans just want to throw people out into the streets to starve, the case surrounding unemployment benefits is quite different, and in fact simpler.

It's no big surprise that Obama Inc. is either not interested in creating jobs, or honestly doesn't have the slightest idea on how to actually do it. I contend it's a combination of the two.

The future extension of unemployment benefits, if it happens again, should be called the Pacifier Act. It's like the unemployed are a bunch of babies who are hungry and crying, big nanny government comes along and puts a pacifier (unemployment benefits) into the babies mouth. However, after that big nanny government doesn't feed the baby, nanny just keeps popping the pacifier in when it falls out.

The problem isn't being addressed, baby needs food, or in other words, the unemployed need jobs. Increasing unemployment benefits again and again to the point where people are spending well over a year collecting off the nanny government and not paying any revenue to the government, (in the form of payroll taxes), is an excuse for the economically ignorant politicians to try and continue to get away with not creating any jobs. As long as you have your pacifier they can get away with blaming others, rather than leading the way and getting you back to work.

This has been Obama's economy for over a year and a half. His economic advisers are stepping down and running for dear life back to progressive safe havens, (leftist colleges). The typical political excuse keeps being used by advisers and politicians alike. Usually something like this:

"I'd like to spend more time with my family" blah, blah, blah. It's got nothing to do with my 10% approval rating and my lack of any chance of being reelected after 50 years in office. As if we're supposed to believe that Christina Romer didn't realize that Obama would be in office for 4 years. After only a year and a half your supposed to be dumb enough to think that she longs to return home?

As for President Obama he can keep talking about his "Recovery Summer" all he wants but all I see is a recovery bummer.

The Message We Should All Take A Few Minutes To Remember

2010-08-02T19:05:00.010-04:00

You know, critics of conservatism often try to make fun of and insult those of us who stick so closely to the messages and lessons learned from Ronald Reagan. They use insults because it replaces facts in the hollow falsehoods relied upon so heavily by the progressives.

We have fallen victim to the progressive sneak attack due to our blind following of a party label. We have forgotten, or been lied to, about our own history. I want you to take about 20 minutes to listen to a video. When you link to it I want you to turn off your monitor or keep your eyes closed, (hence you'll be listening to the video, not watching it).

The reason I want you to listen is because the video is from almost 30 years ago, I wasn't even born yet. I want you to listen to what is being said more than who is saying it. I'm going to show you some of the quotes from this video first. Ask yourself if some of this sounds relevant today.

As you listen to this think of what we face in the present. We allowed ourselves to be fooled by political charm, hopeful (but empty) rhetoric. We put our trust in a government full of people that didn't deserve it. They now mock us as stupid, racist, crazy, or whatever else these "elite" individuals decide.

College kids are taught what conservatism is by progressive liberals. It's not that shocking that so many don't understand it. At the same time progressive republicans forgot what conservatism is. This eliminated the balance of knowledge even further.

The letter next to a politicians name isn't what's important. That leads to blind, ignorant decisions such as: I'm going to vote for that person because they're a Democrat, or I'm going to vote for that person because they're a Republican.

Would replacing the progressive left congress with a progressive right congress controlled by progressive Republicans really be much different? They would lead to the same place, Socialist Progressivism, simply travelling at different speeds.

Here are the quotes you will hear in the upcoming video, ask yourself if these sound like a crazy conspiracy given what you see going on in today's America. I've put some in bold print and you'll know why when you read and then hear them.

"Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, human misery, and personal indignity"

"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future, for the temporary convenience of the present."

"We've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule."

Aren't you getting pretty damn tired of being called stupid by a bunch of Hollywood elites whose most famous films usually end up being naked in a sex tape, or in a courtroom facing charges?

"That government by an elite group, is superior to government of, by, and for the people"

Remember the golden rule of the elitist politicians. You're too much of a dumb ass to take care of yourself. Yet they don't even understand their own writing, (you know the multi-thousand page bills they admit to not reading). They're so smart they can't even pay their own taxes despite the fact that they make about 4 times the average family of 4, even more in many cases.

"If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"

Interesting question...I believe we call them Czars, and they are working out great aren't they? Do you have any idea what they even do? I've lost track of how many there even are, how about you?

"We hear much of special interest groups. Well our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected....they are in short, we the people"

Special interest groups...if it was a problem 30 years ago, it's an out of control catastrophe now.

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."

By now maybe you recognize who this is. The relevance of these quotes in today's society seems even more true than it was then. Listen to the speech here.

As for those who would criticize me as someone who clings to the past. Perhaps it's time for you to learn some of it. While you keep calling for change, don't forget that it can be good or bad. It's entirely possible to change for the worse.

Historical Race With A Blackkk Panther

2010-07-23T21:12:00.003-04:00

Before I start I'd like to ask you for a few things. First, take the time to go through this entire post, be warned, this is not a quick one. There is a ton of info here. It has taken weeks of research, and many hours to write. Click on every link in this story and read, (or watch), everything you are brought to in it's entirety. Secondly, spread the word. I'm not afraid of what I'm about to show you. Send this to everyone you can think of. Some of this is very important to know, for too many of us don't know enough of this stuff and it's proving devastating to our country. This is the first story I've ever done that was big enough to have not only an intro but acknowledgements at the end showing you the sources offline that gave me some of the info. Here we go.

It's always considered a controversial topic, race. There are few areas where liberal hypocrisy is more outrages than when the issue of racism is brought up. You'll notice that I've spelled black with 3 k's in the title above. I'll be continuing that just about every time I mention the Blackkk Panther Party in this post.

I'm going to show you some history and of course provide the resources and proof not only showing the similarities between the KKK and the Blackkk Panthers, but also exposing the accurate history of racial politics in our society. While everyone has made mistakes in the past, especially in the younger years, teenagers etc. Those mistakes teach us life lessons that make us into the adults we grow to be. Some learn from mistakes, others ignore them. It's time to start learning.

Before we begin I'd like to note that I will be using many links and quotes, (with sources of course). I will also be using a good deal of information from History.com and while at times I'll show highlights from topics I will also include a link for you to see the information for yourself. Some may call this post controversial, you'll have to decide that for yourselves. Perhaps I'll be criticized, perhaps not. Either way it's time to expose the Liberal lies for what they are, lies.

Let's start with the most obviously exploited topic of groups like the Blackkk Panthers and so called civil rights leaders, slavery. After that we'll talk about racism.

From History.com

"Although twenty Africans were sold to settlers in Virginia as early as 1619, throughout most of the seventeenth century white indentured servants were far more numerous in the English mainland colonies than African slaves."

In case anyone doesn't know what that means. This is saying that most slaves throughout the 1600's weren't African slaves sold through the slave trade to colonial whites. An indentured slave was someone, (in many cases white at the time), who owed a debt to another for whatever reason. If you couldn't pay off the debt then you worked off the debt as a slave. Encyclopedia Britannica describes it as this:

Indentured servant - a person who signs and is bound by indentures to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance.

Again via History.com

"Only after 1680, when the flow of indentured migrants from Europe diminished, did European servitude increasingly give way to African slavery. By the middle of the eighteenth century, slavery existed in all thirteen colonies and formed the heart of the agricultural labor system in the southern colonies."

We must keep in mind that before the Revolutionary War the colonies were an extension of England. England used the slave trade in the colonies and therefore the colonies all participated in the slave trade so all had slavery. George Washington had slaves but you should read more about his belief as to what would in time become of slavery here.

"George Washington's attitude toward slavery changed as he grew older. During the Revolution, as he and fellow patriots strove for liberty, Washington became increasingly conscious of the contradiction between this struggle and the system of slavery. By the time of his presidency, he seems to have believed that slavery was wrong and against the principles of the new nation."

Part of what made the slavery issue escalate from our founding up until the Civil War was the fact that the country had repeatedly avoided dealing with it. There were even 2 instances before we won the Revolutionary War that slavery could have been abolished.

1. When the 20 African slaves sold to Virginia in 1619, (mentioned above), first arrived the colonist could have emancipated them and didn't.

2. When Thomas Jefferson first drafted the Declaration of Independence with the "Committee of Five" he included the indictment of England's imposition of slavery on the colonies. Read about the Committee of Five first, then I'll explain.

Congress would not tolerate the Committee of Five s original language condemning Britain for introducing the slave trade to its American colonies as a "cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty."

What's interesting is that both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were members of the Committee of Five. While George Washington warned of political parties John Adams and Thomas Jefferson's disagreements with each other in time led to early establishment of political parties, although it wasn't at all quite like it is today.

This showed that both Republicans and Democrats as they are now known stood against slavery, (even though Jefferson owned slaves he knew it was wrong and also knew a time would come when it would end).

Remember now, "Congress would not tolerate the Committee of Fives original language". Objection from South Carolina, (the first southern state to succeed from the union after the election of President Abraham Lincoln in 1860), and other southern states who also objected to the committees language followed suit. It was through southern slave-state objection that the language regarding slavery was eliminated from the Declaration of Independence. This forced the addressing of slavery to the future yet again.

During the American Revolution there were African-Americans fighting with the American colonists. During the Revolution Congress blocked the proposals sent to it that wanted to free slaves who fought for the revolution, the southern states blocked these proposals.

Beyond the Declaration of Independence there was the Constitutional Compromise. Basically the northern free states, New England, wanted to count slaves toward taxes but not toward representation in the House of Representatives. The slave states of the south obviously objected to this.

The reached compromise counted slaves as 3/5 of a person. This move gave an advantage to the South because counting slaves as 3/5 of a person gave the south more seats in the House of Representatives due to the high population of slaves. While this did indeed make the Constitution imperfect on slavery, without the Compromise the foundation of this nation wouldn't have been realized.

Then you had the Missouri Compromise, and the Compromise of 1850, which continued to delay the inevitable. There could be no middle ground on slavery. You either supported it, or opposed it.

The modern day Republicans like to point out that it was the Republicans who fought to free the slaves and the Democrats who fought to maintain it. The Democrats try to dispute that by claiming that the parties somehow switched. As if one day all of the southern Democrats decided to become Republicans and vice verse. This of course is nonsense as nothing is quite that black and white.

Republicans of the 1860's were pretty much united against slavery, but the Democrats weren't united for it. The truth is that a majority of Americans were ready to abolish slavery, the south was simply too dependant on it economically to let it go. That's not to say racism wasn't an element of those who were for slavery, it's just that economic reasons played a far bigger role.

Another problem that liberals run into regarding the argument that Republicans became Democrats and Democrats became Republicans could be explained with Woodrow Wilson.

Woodrow Wilson was born in 1856 in Virginia. Wilson was a boy in Confederate Virginia. That means he was raised in the Democrat south. If the myth about the parties switching between then and now were true, wouldn't future progressive liberal president Woodrow Wilson have become a modern Republican?

Perhaps you've heard of the Jim Crow laws? These progressive laws segregated the south separating blacks and whites. Woodrow Wilson brought those laws to the white house.

What's interesting is that Woodrow Wilson's racism was no secret and is easily proven. Yet modern progressive liberals, (and liberal history professors) ignore the facts.

Progressive history professors have no problem painting Woodrow Wilson in a good light using the fact that he led us during World War 1, even though he ran for re-election on a vow to keep us out of the war.

At least Wilson was on the side of women, right? He did make mothers day an official holiday after all. On this he proved to be a failure once again.

"During the 1912 presidential campaign against Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson and his opponent agreed on many reform measures such as child-labor laws and pro-union legislation. They differed, however, on the subject of women’s suffrage, as Roosevelt was in favor of giving women the vote."

Two candidates, two parties (Republican Roosevelt and Democrat Wilson), two pro-union, anti-business progressive presidents. Maybe today's America isn't that different after all. Hmmmm......

How about Margaret Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League which would later become Planned Parenthood. Instead of telling you of Margaret Sanger's history myself, I'll let the African American group LEARN, (Life Education And Resource Network), tell you of her history.

Now that you know the history of Margaret Sanger and that she was a racist using eugenics and abortion as a means to destroy the black race what would you say if you were offered a reward in her name? Modern day Planned Parenthood gives out this award and Hillary Clinton was proud to receive it.

“It was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award,”

"The overarching mission of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the cause of reproductive freedom that you continue to advance today is as relevant in our world now as it was 100 years ago." - Hillary Clinton

Actually Hillary, Planned Parenthood began as a means to exterminate black babies through the belief in eugenics.

"The assumptions of eugenicists came under sharp criticism beginning in the 1930s and were discredited after the German Nazis used eugenics to support the extermination of Jews, blacks, and homosexuals."

Would it be a "great privilege" to receive the German Nazi eugenics award Hillary? You should be ashamed of yourself for getting the Margaret Sanger award. I wonder how many college professors consider Hillary Clinton "right-wing"? After all they call Nazi's right-wing all the time don't they? Hmmm.....

Let's get back to the issue of race now and talk about the two major racist groups in America, The Ku Klux Klan and the Blackkk Panther Party.

First the Klan. Founded by Confederate Democrats at the end of the Civil War. Another reason it's in the Progressive left's best interest to convince you that the parties switched.

Former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest was the KKK's first grand wizard; in 1869, he unsuccessfully tried to disband it after he grew critical of the Klan's excessive violence.

"Most prominent in counties where the races were relatively balanced, the KKK engaged in terrorist raids against African Americans and white Republicans at night, employing intimidation, destruction of property, assault, and murder to achieve its aims and influence upcoming elections."

The Klan was a huge group at one time but all hate groups are eventually discredited in the eyes of the majority. They just have to make the right mistake. Like the Birmingham Bombing of 1963.

"Outrage over the death of the four innocent girls helped build increased support behind the continuing struggle to end segregation--support that would help lead to the passage of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In that important sense, the bombings impact was exactly the opposite of what its perpetrators had intended."

Is the Klan still around? Of course. Do many people think they are relevant? No, unless you're trying to paint the Tea Party Movement as an extension of the Klan but we'll get back to that in a minute. Just remember that the Klan primarily hates blacks and Jews, remember that as we talk about the Blakkk Panthers.

The Blackkk Panther Party has been in the news a lot in recent days. There's something very telling about the founding of the Black Panther Party though that I haven't seen highlighted much.

"The Panthers eventually developed into a Marxist revolutionary group that called for the arming of all blacks, the exemption of blacks from the draft and from all sanctions of so-called white America, the release of all blacks from jail, and the payment of compensation to blacks for centuries of exploitation by white Americans."

Marxist, another name for Communist, named for Karl Marx, writer of the Communist Manifesto.

"Marx adopted the more extreme form of socialism known as communism, which called for a revolution by the working class that would tear down the capitalist world."

Maybe the next time you hear someone call the Nazi's "right-wing" you should correct them since the National Socialist Party represented right-wing communism, not right wing conservatism. How can the Nazi's, who believed in universal health care (for the supreme race of course) and total government control, not to mention eugenics, be a right-wing idea?

Malik Shabazz, head of the Black Panther party, has been on the news a lot lately trying to defend his organization against charges of racism. I want you to watch this interview he had with Geraldo. I'm going to point out something and tell you where to look for it.

At 3:48 of the video Malik Shabazz mentions Che Guevara as someone who was "seeking freedom before you sold them out". This is not a "right-wing conspiracy", you just heard him say it for yourself. I have just proven that the head of the New Black Panthers supports Che Guevara. Read about Che Guevara and you'll see why that's so disturbing.

"The overthrow of the Arbenz regime in 1954 in a coup supported by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency persuaded Guevara that the United States would always oppose progressive leftist governments. This conviction became the cornerstone of his plans to bring about socialism by means of a worldwide revolution."

So, progressive leftist governments are the cornerstone of bringing about socialism. I want you to think about that for a minute, literally. There is no doubt that Obama is a progressive leftist, we've seen what he's done with health care, regulation, etc. Yet he and his supporters reject the notion that he's a socialist. How much more proof do you need?

Go back to the interview with Malik Shabazz. At 4:47 he says, "you know we don't carry batons....psyche". What's interesting is that after he says the word batons you hear other black panthers saying, "that's right" in agreement. Then he says "psyche" and they seem to agree again. How is that possible?

We constantly see Republicans, especially conservatives, labeled as racists. Meanwhile the Democrats stand by Robert Byrd.

Republicans in West Virginia discovered a letter Sen. Byrd had written to the Imperial Wizard of the KKK three years after he says he abandoned the group. He wrote: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."

"The ex-Klansman later filibustered the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act -- supported by a majority of those "mean-spirited" Republicans -- for more than 14 hours. He also opposed the nominations of the Supreme Court's two black justices, liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas"

Bill Clinton defended Robert Byrd after his death.

"he spent the rest of his life making it up" - Bill Clinton

If Robert Byrd said some racist things when he was a teenager and that's all we had I could believe that. When I was a teenager I did a lot of stupid things, most of us did.

I've said and done plenty of stupid things when I was in my teens and I'm man enough to admit it here. I also saw my biological father, who was a druggie when I was a little kid, sent to prison when he tried to kill my mother. I've lived in poverty and prosperity. I smoked weed and took ecstasy in my late teens. To act like I've lived a perfect life would be beyond a huge lie.

The myth of the left that conservatives have all lived this rich elitist life is laughable. I'm not trying to throw myself a pitty party. That is all true, but I've grown up. My past and past mistakes have helped me to learn and I've become stronger for it. I have a great stepfather and I've focused on learning true history, for the truth will truly set you free.

Robert Byrd, born on 11/20/1917, was 46 years old when he filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A bill Martin Luther King praised.

"If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been here in 1963, when the black people of Birmingham, Alabama, aroused the conscience of this nation, and brought into being the Civil Rights Bill" - Martin Luther King Jr. from his I've seen the promised land speech.

Aparently MLK Jr. wasn't praising Robert Byrd the way the shameful Liberals did recently, but remember it's those evil Republicans and crazy Tea Partiers who are against civil rights. As Malik Shabazz talks about in his recent interview. *note: video glitches around the 7 minute mark but you don't miss much.

"history has proven that in America it is very difficult or impossible for blacks and whites to exist in America on an equal basis."

Unfortunately, that will remain true for as long as the racist progressive left have a stranglehold on the African American vote. For the record Martin Luther King Jr.s father was a lifelong Republican.

"The black power convention, over 4 days which brought together many leaders; from the All Africans Revolutionary Party, the African People's SOCIALIST party"

Remember earlier? History.com showed us that: "The Panthers eventually developed into a Marxist revolutionary group that called for the arming of all blacks." Also, remember from earlier: "Marx adopted the more extreme form of socialism known as communism." So Malik Shabazz is holding conventions in an attempt to merge Marxist Communist and Black Socialist groups together.

He claims to stand against recent racist comments from a member. By the way, is the black former NAACP member who spoke out against The Black Panthers a racist? Malik Shabazz's Black Panthers were carrying Communist flags and asking gangs like the blood's and crypt's to rise up with the Black Panthers.

This is the same Malik Shabazz who was criticizing white people for arming themselves. He criticizes Jews (Zionists), and Whites. The KKK criticizes Blacks and Jews. You tell me, are the Blakkk Panthers and the KKK really all that different. Doesn't the saying go, 2 wrongs don't make a right?

Why the Jews? Have you ever thought about that. The Jews historically have suffered more persecution than the slaves, they were in fact slaves themselves. Isn't the bible full of that theme. So called civil rights leaders and the Blakkk Panthers think they are suffering and believe they deserve reparations because of slavery. The Holocaust is a hell of a lot more recent than slavery.

Martin Luther King Jr. disagreed with all hate groups. Here are 2 clips where, unlike The Black Panthers, Martin Luther King Jr. stands up for Israel: The first one, the second one.

Do you really think that Malik Shabazz is against these comments like he says he is? He's welcomed the speaker as still being a Blackkk Panther. Yet Malik Shabazz calls the Tea Parties Racist. The NAACP has also condemned the Tea Parties as racist as well.

"your enemy can not make you free, fool" - Samir Shabazz

Exactly, which is why most Americans do not support your call for racist socialism Samir. Also, how can you support President Obama Samir? His mother is white. Without that "dirty, white, cracker, whore", there would be no Obama. Why would you stand outside a polling place trying to intimidate voters in his favor?

MSNBC had to edit video in an attempt to show racist gun-toting Tea Party supporters. It took Glenn Beck and Fox News, whether you like them or not, to expose the truth. The shameful reporter of MSNBC actually dared to say:

"Here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waist."

Are you going to deny the proof there just because it was Fox News that had to prove MSNBC was lying?

"I didn't ask for whites to start buying guns at a record rate" - Malik Shabazz

So you support gangs like the bloods and crypts that aquire guns illegaly, but you don't support Americans of all races exercising their 2nd amendment rights and aquiring guns legally. Does that make sense to you who are reading this?

Look, most people, regardless of race, don't agree with the KKK. Most people, regardless of race, don't agree with the Blackkk Panthers. Knowing that maybe we should dismiss the constant claims by the left that there is some vast right wing conspiracy. Right wing conservatives could only dream of being that powerful. Most Americans just tend to turn on politicians who suck, regardless of party, end of story. (I've gone after "sell out Scott" Brown several times for voting against the good of the country recently). Obama's failing policies, not his race, are causing his falling in the polls.

There is far more evidence that the distortions of history is a vast left wing conspiracy. It makes sense given the amount of money the teachers unions give to Liberals.

Imagine if there was an NAAWP, National Association for the Advancement of White People. The cries of bigotry would be deafening. How about having a NAAAP, National Association for the Advancement of the American People. That one sounds pretty good.

Imagine if this had happened to a black Democrat.

Harry Reid uses racial remarks about Obama but it's cool because he's a Democrat. Liberals would have been calling for a Republicans head if they had said something even less racist.

You've seen some of the footage with Janeane Garofalo doing the typical liberal bashing of the tea-parties and Republicans in general. Armed with the information I've given you here, who seems crazier? Watch the entire interview. Notice it was on MSNBC which I've proven earlier lied about the gun at the tea party to claim false racism.

Janeane claims it's people like me who don't know history. People who know me and hear me regularly would say different. If by chance she sees this I'd welcome a debate with Janeane Garofalo any day of the week. Of course she'd have to take time away from making crappy movies to find the time for a debate. Remember when she bashed Robert Byrd for his racism?.....Of course you don't because she never did.

Remember this question at the youtube debates? The answer should be another question: Why do most blacks vote for liberals when liberals have historically been the most racist and done the most damage to the black community?

He gave a good response to the answers the Republican candidates gave here.

"A lot of blacks just don't trust the Republican Party and so they would rather vote Democrat and vote for a party that they don't necessarily agree with all the time than vote for a party they may agree with but don't really trust"

While many African-Americans may not trust Republicans, what has made the Democrats so deserving of that trust? You now know that teachers with a political agenda hide accurate history from all of us. Both parties have proven not to be worth the trust of the American people. No political ideology has a monopoly on corruption.

Maybe it's time for all of us to start looking at what's going on in this country not in terms of black and white or left and right. It's time to look at our problems in terms of right and wrong. I've said many times before on this website that it's not about left and right, it's about right and wrong.

Nobody is born a racist. It has to be taught or assumed. Everybody seems to want a scapegoat when it comes to our own failures. It's easy for a young white kid to assume the problems they have in life are because of blacks. It's also easy for a young black kid to believe that the reason they are being held back is because of the oppression of the rich white guy. Elitist politicians, not to mention gangs like the Panthers, Klan, or any of the other gangs, feed off of that victimhood mentality and they use it masterfully.

By making us think with our emotions, we tend to forget how to think with our brains. It comes down to each of us. Children don't see race differently unless they are taught too. I'll give you an example with a true story.

I went into the doctor's office with my daughter a few years ago, she was 4 at the time. In the waiting room was a pregnant women and her boyfriend/husband, both white. My daughter asked her if she had a baby in her belly. To which the woman replied that she had two. Then out of curiousity as only a child can, she asked if they were going to be brown. This drew a laugh out of the room. The question certainly had the shock effect, but it showed the innocence of a child.

You see, kids don't see a difference in people of different races. My daughter didn't think that it would be unusual for 2 white people to have black babies. Children have to be taught hate. That can come from parents, friends, teachers, or politicians. It's up to us to stand against it. Racist will show up at Tea Parties, but they will also show up at polling stations. It goes both ways.

In conclusion, this isn't about black and white. The future of our children is truly at stake. We got lazy, we got selfish. We were manipulated because we stopped paying attention to the truth. We stopped learning from history. Because of that we got the leadership we deserved. I will not be quiet because of a fear of critics. There is too much to lose. Our children's future is more important to me than political correctness. From here it's up to you, send this to anyone and everyone you can think of.

I've shown you as much as I could think of. I've spent a lot of time both researching and writing this. I'm not perfect. However, if we are to lose freedom I'm going to go down swinging. Perhaps we are destined to tell future stories to our children about a time when we were once a free country with free people.

If it comes to that my children will wonder and ask what I was doing while we were losing our freedoms. Writings such as this will be able to at least show that I was paying attention and involved in the struggles of our time. The question shifts now from me to you. Who do you believe. Do you believe these people? or these people, one, two, three? Will you sit there and hope for the best, or will you rise up?

Acknowledgements:

I'd like to thank everyone who has gone through this post and hope that it was worth your time. Also, my friends and family who put up with my constant political and historical rambling.

I'd also like to thank the following people and books, you should definately check these out. You'd be amazed with how much you don't know. There are plenty of others but this should get you started.

A Patriot's History Of The United States.

Liberal Fascism.

Bamboozled.

The Greatest American Speeches.

History.com