Since the rest of the world has been doing nothing but paying attention to the life and death of one Michael Jackson, I figured I would bring everyone up to speed on the things that actually impact our lives (let the hate mail begin).
Saturday is Independence Day, which we celebrate on July the 4th. As much as I love and appreciate the military protecting our freedom, please remember exactly what we are celebrating. Save all of those e-mails about our bold and courageous soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq with little American Flag icons for the rest of the year. This is NOT Veterans Day nor is it Memorial Day (by the way Memorial Day is not to honor all of those who have served, but who DIED serving our country). July 4th is the day we declared our Independence from the tyranny of the King by signing the Declaration of Independence. Honorable defectors like Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson risked hanging for treason to escape unfair taxation, trade restrictions, hey…this is starting to sound a little familiar. Anyway, I love our military, but please honor all of those who have served and died serving by not displaying blatant ignorance to our national holidays. It is absolutely embarrassing that school kids are taught to memorize Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream,” (albeit a great worthwhile history lesson) but have no clue about the Declaration of Independence, its significance or when it was signed. I suppose the Average American ignoramus doesn’t know either for that matter. Go ahead and read it. Most Americans have never done so. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_zoom_2.html
Folks, Socialism is just around the corner. Don’t think so? It seems as though many Americans wouldn’t mind Socialism. A recent Rasmussen poll found that only 53 percent of Americans believe capitalism is better than socialism. I am not sure if this is comforting, but I am willing to bet that many of the ignorant survey participants thought that socialism was hanging out with your pals and having some cocktails. So sad. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism
North Korea says that the U.S. is preparing for a preemptive nuclear strike. Of course, any nuclear arms they produce from this point forward will be for self defense…right? Looks like old Kim Jong II is crazy like a fox. Just imagine the look on President Obama’s face when he hears these words: “Mr. President, you have one minute to make a decision sir.” A career of community activism and two years in Congress does not prepare you for this stuff. Good thing we have the U.N. to help out with such a complicated matter (puke).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529348,00.html?test=latestnews
Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has advised the U.S. to stay out of their recent political unrest after President Obama expressed “deep concern” about the situation. Wow….”deep concern.” It sure doesn’t get any stronger than that folks! Then he followed Hillary Clinton’s counsel and expressed that he was “appalled and outraged.” Okay, that is a little better. I am certainly not suggesting that we do anything about Iran’s unrest. I just found it humorous. I wonder if the next President will apologize for all of this harsh language.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/01/clinton-urged-obama-to-talk-tougher-on-iran/?feat=home_top5_shared
After months of trying to figure out how to keep Vice President Biden under control, the Obama Administration has finally unveiled the perfect plan; make Joe the “high point of contact” in the political reconciliation efforts in Iraq.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/obama-gives-biden-iraq-assignment.html
Of course, this is the same guy that said 26 months ago our troop surge was doomed to fail. He also disagreed with the strategy of government under which he will now serve as the “high point of contact.” At the time, then Senator Joe Biden said, "You separate the parties, giving them breathing room within a defined central government," Biden said. "That's the only thing that's going to work." Well, folks that’s not what happened, but do you think anyone in the Liberal media will bring it up?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/AR2007041101633.html
Cap and Trade – I don’t even know where to start on this one, but it is the biggest boondoggle since the invention of federal income withholding. This is being billed as an energy policy, but it is nothing more than a capitalism crusher. I heard President Obama refer to this the other day as a “jobs bill.” Are you kidding me? It is too bad no one could figure out a way for alternative energy to financially pass muster. So now the government will make it so unaffordable to use traditional energy sources that people will have no choice but to use expensive alternative energy.
Get ready folks. President Obama and the Socialist Congress of the United States of America are coming after employer provided health insurance. The average ignoramus American will think the government is taxing the businesses so it doesn’t have an impact on them. So sad. By the way, don’t think for a minute they are not trying to take out the “competition.” Don’t sign up for those nasty employer provided benefits, the government plan is way better!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD991DTCG0
Federal Appeals Judge Sotomayor just had one of her recent opinions overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Does the name sound familiar? Yep, that’s her. It seems as though she just can’t put herself in the shoes of those Gringos who were discriminated against after scoring the highest on the test for a Firefighter promotion. The good news here is (unlike Judge Sotomayor) we don’t have to listen about their difficult upbringing and how hard they had to fight to reach their station in life. Ha…”station”….I crack myself up.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SCOTUS/story?id=7782103&page=1
The Anti gun crowd is up in arms out in Arizona after the state legislature progressed on a bill that would allow law bidding gun owners with a carry permit to pack their heat in a bar. One provision would allow the establishment to post a sign prohibiting anyone from entering with a firearm (even concealed). You know, it seems to me that if I were a criminal, I would go around looking for those signs so I could rob some place where I knew I wouldn’t get shot…but that’s just me.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20090628/US.Guns.in.Bars/
A New Jersey man says that a black bear mugged him for a sandwich. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529888,00.html I have no proof, but I strongly suspect this is the same black bear I reported on in an earlier blog. The free buffet line to prosperity has become rather long so that cute little black bear is resorting to other methods.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Honest Abe; A Bigger Hero with Each Passing Year
For those of you who may not have thought about it yesterday, not only was it Easter, it was also the anniversary of the first shot fired in the only “civil war” in the history of the United States of America. On April 12, 1861, the Confederate States of America attacked Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina after the command at the federally occupied facility refused to hand the fort over to the newly established Confederate government. Since so much about The War Between the States (aka Civil War) is misreported, misunderstood, and twisted more and more each year in American society, I figured it would be a grand opportunity to list some facts that most Americans were not taught in Government schools.
This war should have never been called a “civil” war. A civil war is when two different groups are fighting for control of the same government. In this case, the southern states simply seceded from the Union of states, leaving the former government intact. Since terms like “The War for Southern Independence” and “The War of Northern Aggression” are sure to attract looks of perplexity, I figure that “The War Between the States” is sufficiently accurate and acceptable.
When President Lincoln took the oath of office on March 4th, 1861, he repeated these words that he had previously spoken several times in other speeches; “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” It is public record folks…go find it. (As a side note, this was also the same year that Congress passed the very first federal income tax in the history of our nation so they could finance The War Between the States…….way to go Abe!!!)
In June 1861, despite their acceptance of slavery, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri did not join the Confederacy and remained in the Union….along with their slaves.
On January 27th, 1862, Lincoln ordered an aggressive attack on the Confederacy. General McClellan ignored the order. He was removed from command 2 months later.
Over the next year was The Battle of Shiloh, Union occupation of New Orleans, battles at Yorktown and Williamsburg, Stonewall Jackson’s victory in Shenandoah Valley, The Battle of Seven Pines, The Seven Days’ Battles, battles at Harper’s Ferry, Antietam, and Fredericksburg (just to hit some high points).
On January 1st, 1863, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
What, you say?? President Lincoln freed the slaves a full year and nine months after the first shot was fired in The War Between the States??? Well, that just doesn’t make sense because The War Between the States was about slavery, right? But, why didn’t Lincoln free the slaves when he took office? Oh yeah, I almost forgot; he stated then that he had no intention to interfere with the “institution of slavery” (geez, he even recognized it as an “institution” rather than an immoral act). Could it be that “Honest Abe” wasn’t so honest after all? I mean, he didn’t have a beef with the four slave states that belonged to the Union. Hey, let’s not forget that he didn’t free ALL slaves anyway. The Emancipation Proclamation only declared that all slaves in areas still in the rebellion were, in the eyes of the federal government, free. In fact, earlier in 1861, Congress had passed an act stating that all slaves employed against the Union were to be considered free. In 1862, another act stated that all slaves of men who supported the Confederacy were to be considered free.
Here’s the deal folks. Slavery is arguably the most ghastly and embarrassing part of the history of a country that lays claim to a remarkable track record of human rights. Of course, the Federal Government’s extermination of hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of Native Americans could come close, right? Nothing says “I’m Sorry” like casinos, duty free liquor and cigarettes. Unfortunately, the Union states did not give a rip about slavery until Lincoln determined it was how the Federal Government would end the rebellion. He freed the slaves in the South and created a war of morality that would be remembered in the history books as such. He was a smart man; you have to hand it to him. One is left to wonder how he really felt about slavery despite many of his published memoirs. All of these years later, he is considered to be a pillar of human rights. And yet, he really doesn’t deserve the title.
This war should have never been called a “civil” war. A civil war is when two different groups are fighting for control of the same government. In this case, the southern states simply seceded from the Union of states, leaving the former government intact. Since terms like “The War for Southern Independence” and “The War of Northern Aggression” are sure to attract looks of perplexity, I figure that “The War Between the States” is sufficiently accurate and acceptable.
When President Lincoln took the oath of office on March 4th, 1861, he repeated these words that he had previously spoken several times in other speeches; “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” It is public record folks…go find it. (As a side note, this was also the same year that Congress passed the very first federal income tax in the history of our nation so they could finance The War Between the States…….way to go Abe!!!)
In June 1861, despite their acceptance of slavery, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri did not join the Confederacy and remained in the Union….along with their slaves.
On January 27th, 1862, Lincoln ordered an aggressive attack on the Confederacy. General McClellan ignored the order. He was removed from command 2 months later.
Over the next year was The Battle of Shiloh, Union occupation of New Orleans, battles at Yorktown and Williamsburg, Stonewall Jackson’s victory in Shenandoah Valley, The Battle of Seven Pines, The Seven Days’ Battles, battles at Harper’s Ferry, Antietam, and Fredericksburg (just to hit some high points).
On January 1st, 1863, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
What, you say?? President Lincoln freed the slaves a full year and nine months after the first shot was fired in The War Between the States??? Well, that just doesn’t make sense because The War Between the States was about slavery, right? But, why didn’t Lincoln free the slaves when he took office? Oh yeah, I almost forgot; he stated then that he had no intention to interfere with the “institution of slavery” (geez, he even recognized it as an “institution” rather than an immoral act). Could it be that “Honest Abe” wasn’t so honest after all? I mean, he didn’t have a beef with the four slave states that belonged to the Union. Hey, let’s not forget that he didn’t free ALL slaves anyway. The Emancipation Proclamation only declared that all slaves in areas still in the rebellion were, in the eyes of the federal government, free. In fact, earlier in 1861, Congress had passed an act stating that all slaves employed against the Union were to be considered free. In 1862, another act stated that all slaves of men who supported the Confederacy were to be considered free.
Here’s the deal folks. Slavery is arguably the most ghastly and embarrassing part of the history of a country that lays claim to a remarkable track record of human rights. Of course, the Federal Government’s extermination of hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of Native Americans could come close, right? Nothing says “I’m Sorry” like casinos, duty free liquor and cigarettes. Unfortunately, the Union states did not give a rip about slavery until Lincoln determined it was how the Federal Government would end the rebellion. He freed the slaves in the South and created a war of morality that would be remembered in the history books as such. He was a smart man; you have to hand it to him. One is left to wonder how he really felt about slavery despite many of his published memoirs. All of these years later, he is considered to be a pillar of human rights. And yet, he really doesn’t deserve the title.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Arrogance or Onions?
Arrogance or Onions?
Folks, the North Korean missile test is a BIG DEAL (don’t confuse this with the New Deal…that will be later in Obama’s Presidency) and America is more interested in the songs that the President loaded onto an IPod before giving it to the Queen…or the fact that the First Lady actually touched the Queen and did not curtsey…GASP!!! (oh, puke…that kind of junk, along with taxes is the reason we fought those folks for our independence. Yeah, I know…it is a matter of respect; take note Aretha Franklin).
President Obama calls North Korea’s missile launch a “provocative action.” Do ya think? Don’t worry North Korea; our president does not have the onions to do anything about it. Besides, he would not want to come off as an arrogant American after issuing an apology to Europe for the Bush Administration’s behavior. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5100338/Barack-Obama-arrogant-US-has-been-dismissive-to-allies.html
"With this provocative act,” he says, “North Korea has ignored its international obligations, rejected unequivocal calls for restraint, and further isolated itself from the community of nations. We will immediately consult with our allies in the region, including Japan and (South Korea), and members of the U.N. Security Council to bring this matter before the Council," Obama added. "I urge North Korea to abide fully by the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council and to refrain from further provocative actions." http://us.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/05/us.nkorea.reaction/index.html
Oooohh Dang. I bet North Korea will just hang their head in shame for what they have done. Now they will be in trouble with the U.N. Security Council; the same Council that allowed Saddam Hussein to block U.N. access to weapons inspections. Rarely will you hear anyone talk about the fact that by allowing U.N. weapons inspectors unfettered access to those cute little baby formula factories, Saddam Hussein could have avoided the war altogether! This is because there were no weapons of mass destruction…right all you liberals? Yep, instead, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had to produce all of those bogus photos of mobile chemical labs as evidence to launch an unjust war for oil…right? Folks, all Iraq had to do is open the door for the U.N. weapons inspectors and Saddam might still be in power today wearing his beret in those film clips with everyone kissing his butt for fear they will be executed. My point is this: the United Nations did not lift a finger when Saddam Hussein did not allow weapons inspections and they will not do a thing to North Korea for launching a test missile. Go ahead and meet with everyone Mr. President, but if anyone is going to do a thing about it, it will have to be YOU! Truthfully, I have always thought that President Obama is arrogant. I just don’t think he has any onions.
Human Rights Progress in Afghanistan
There is a new law in the peaceful, loving, Muslim country of Afghanistan that allows a husband to legally rape his wife. And to think the United States is responsible for creating an environment where the women are now permitted to show those sexy ankles. Somehow, I feel responsible…well, not really…it is George Bush’s fault just like everything else. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97AFVQ00&show_article=1
One of the most controversial articles stipulates the wife "is bound to preen for her husband as and when he desires."
"As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night," Article 132 of the law says. "Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband."
By the way, I am looking for investors to back my migraine headache medication store in Kabul.
Get Ready for More Anti-Gun Stuff
In the last week or so, there has been an uptick in high profile shootings where someone has lost a job or suffered financial hardship during our 8%-9% unemployment. Aside from the fact that these things did not happen when unemployment was 25% during the Great Depression, or even in 1981 when unemployment was just shy of 10%, the Liberals will use these shootings as evidence that the time is now to further attack the 2nd Amendment.
Question: when was the last time you heard of a gunman attacking a police station, gun shop, or NRA meeting? Why do you think these nut jobs attack Churches, Schools, Hospitals, job sites, etc.? Because they know that no one there will be armed and able to shoot back before they take a lot of lives.
Another Florida Congressmen giving Corrine Brown a Run for Her Money for the Throne of Embarrassment in the State of Florida
Carve out 8 minutes and watch this supreme example of Liberalism in action. Neil Cavuto rips into Democrat Congressman Grayson who is sponsoring a bill against “excessive” compensation to ALL employees of government subsidized companies regardless of their pay scale or job function. Neil rips into him for refusing to define “excessive.” Hold onto your extra $10 a week in that paycheck Joe Sixpack….the Government is coming after you if your company takes tax dollars. Yeah, I know….with the tax hike on cigarettes, you didn’t have anything to spend it on anyway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITq19ezj_Xg&feature=player_embedded
"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others." - Ayn Rand
Folks, the North Korean missile test is a BIG DEAL (don’t confuse this with the New Deal…that will be later in Obama’s Presidency) and America is more interested in the songs that the President loaded onto an IPod before giving it to the Queen…or the fact that the First Lady actually touched the Queen and did not curtsey…GASP!!! (oh, puke…that kind of junk, along with taxes is the reason we fought those folks for our independence. Yeah, I know…it is a matter of respect; take note Aretha Franklin).
President Obama calls North Korea’s missile launch a “provocative action.” Do ya think? Don’t worry North Korea; our president does not have the onions to do anything about it. Besides, he would not want to come off as an arrogant American after issuing an apology to Europe for the Bush Administration’s behavior. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5100338/Barack-Obama-arrogant-US-has-been-dismissive-to-allies.html
"With this provocative act,” he says, “North Korea has ignored its international obligations, rejected unequivocal calls for restraint, and further isolated itself from the community of nations. We will immediately consult with our allies in the region, including Japan and (South Korea), and members of the U.N. Security Council to bring this matter before the Council," Obama added. "I urge North Korea to abide fully by the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council and to refrain from further provocative actions." http://us.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/05/us.nkorea.reaction/index.html
Oooohh Dang. I bet North Korea will just hang their head in shame for what they have done. Now they will be in trouble with the U.N. Security Council; the same Council that allowed Saddam Hussein to block U.N. access to weapons inspections. Rarely will you hear anyone talk about the fact that by allowing U.N. weapons inspectors unfettered access to those cute little baby formula factories, Saddam Hussein could have avoided the war altogether! This is because there were no weapons of mass destruction…right all you liberals? Yep, instead, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had to produce all of those bogus photos of mobile chemical labs as evidence to launch an unjust war for oil…right? Folks, all Iraq had to do is open the door for the U.N. weapons inspectors and Saddam might still be in power today wearing his beret in those film clips with everyone kissing his butt for fear they will be executed. My point is this: the United Nations did not lift a finger when Saddam Hussein did not allow weapons inspections and they will not do a thing to North Korea for launching a test missile. Go ahead and meet with everyone Mr. President, but if anyone is going to do a thing about it, it will have to be YOU! Truthfully, I have always thought that President Obama is arrogant. I just don’t think he has any onions.
Human Rights Progress in Afghanistan
There is a new law in the peaceful, loving, Muslim country of Afghanistan that allows a husband to legally rape his wife. And to think the United States is responsible for creating an environment where the women are now permitted to show those sexy ankles. Somehow, I feel responsible…well, not really…it is George Bush’s fault just like everything else. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97AFVQ00&show_article=1
One of the most controversial articles stipulates the wife "is bound to preen for her husband as and when he desires."
"As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night," Article 132 of the law says. "Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband."
By the way, I am looking for investors to back my migraine headache medication store in Kabul.
Get Ready for More Anti-Gun Stuff
In the last week or so, there has been an uptick in high profile shootings where someone has lost a job or suffered financial hardship during our 8%-9% unemployment. Aside from the fact that these things did not happen when unemployment was 25% during the Great Depression, or even in 1981 when unemployment was just shy of 10%, the Liberals will use these shootings as evidence that the time is now to further attack the 2nd Amendment.
Question: when was the last time you heard of a gunman attacking a police station, gun shop, or NRA meeting? Why do you think these nut jobs attack Churches, Schools, Hospitals, job sites, etc.? Because they know that no one there will be armed and able to shoot back before they take a lot of lives.
Another Florida Congressmen giving Corrine Brown a Run for Her Money for the Throne of Embarrassment in the State of Florida
Carve out 8 minutes and watch this supreme example of Liberalism in action. Neil Cavuto rips into Democrat Congressman Grayson who is sponsoring a bill against “excessive” compensation to ALL employees of government subsidized companies regardless of their pay scale or job function. Neil rips into him for refusing to define “excessive.” Hold onto your extra $10 a week in that paycheck Joe Sixpack….the Government is coming after you if your company takes tax dollars. Yeah, I know….with the tax hike on cigarettes, you didn’t have anything to spend it on anyway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITq19ezj_Xg&feature=player_embedded
"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others." - Ayn Rand
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Are You Worn Out on the AIG Bonus Issue?
Evil Executive Bonuses from Tax Payer Money
Is it me, or is it hard to get overly passionate about the AIG Executive bonuses? Maybe it is because it is no surprise. No surprise that those big, bad, evil, greedy, executives ran a company into the ground and then padded their wallets with taxpayer money…you ask? Nope…that’s not it at all. It is no surprise that the Federal Government made a rookie error in their foray into the bank acquisition business. Understanding outstanding and forward looking contractual commitments is acquisition 101 folks. At first, I figured it was typical Federal Government incompetence. I mean, how many of these buffoons have ever run a business? We now know that it was typical Washington bureaucratic wheeling and dealing that added the language to the bailout bill that specifically allowed the bonuses in the first place. No mistake…it was intentional. By the way, let’s not forget that some of this bonus money was also paid out to front line employees like “Joe” the Customer Service Rep (I just made him up, but he doesn’t look or sound anything like Joe the Plumber). Too bad he is employed overseas and I can’t understand a darn word he is saying. If we passed the Fair Tax and trashed our ridiculous and unfair progressive income tax, maybe American overseas investments will come back home.
In addition to all of the other “no surprise” issues in the AIG debacle is the revelation of Washington Liberals admitting that taxes are not a means of revenue, but none other than punishment. "Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money," declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in a threat delivered on the Senate floor. "If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you," echoed Chuck Schumer of New York. Bham!!! There you have it folks. In your face admission that taxes are weapons, not revenue. Oh, I know…conservatives have been cranking out sin taxes for years so they are not immune. Oh, I was also very impressed in which the speed that Senator Chris Dodd indicated they could pass a law that would tax virtually all of the AIG Bonuses. Dodd says this is something that "could happen fast. We could write this tomorrow." Wow, now that is impressive! As Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, it took Senator Dodd several years to oversee the most significant financial disaster in modern history. Now, he can whip out a punishment tax and have it approved in just 24 hours (yeah…I know..”punishment tax” is a bit redundant).
My advice for the Washington Liberals? Stay out of the banking business. You failed miserably in the most basic of acquisition rules and then tried to cover it up with your “outrage.” Just stick to what you do best; taxing the evil rich as punishment for individual achievement. Then redistribute the ill-gotten booty to the masses so that you can continue to allow people to “vote themselves money” and keep you in office.
Other stuff
Here is an awesome clip of my idol and economic genius Milton Friedman handing socialist Phil Donahue his buttocks. It is an old clip, but even more relevant today. Thanks to Jack Mitchell, my good friend and fellow Libertarian, for digging it up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
Where’s the teleprompter?
If you watch the news, you may be aware of the President’s little visit to the Tonight Show last week. Of course, you need to watch Fox News to become aware of his little joke comparing his bowling abilities to that of someone in the Special Olympics. Yeah, that is pretty insulting in more ways than one. The worst slam is that the folks in the Special Olympics totally smoke his score. Sorry Mr. President…you couldn’t qualify.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/20/special-olympics-bowler-offers-obama-bowling-tips/
Is it me, or is it hard to get overly passionate about the AIG Executive bonuses? Maybe it is because it is no surprise. No surprise that those big, bad, evil, greedy, executives ran a company into the ground and then padded their wallets with taxpayer money…you ask? Nope…that’s not it at all. It is no surprise that the Federal Government made a rookie error in their foray into the bank acquisition business. Understanding outstanding and forward looking contractual commitments is acquisition 101 folks. At first, I figured it was typical Federal Government incompetence. I mean, how many of these buffoons have ever run a business? We now know that it was typical Washington bureaucratic wheeling and dealing that added the language to the bailout bill that specifically allowed the bonuses in the first place. No mistake…it was intentional. By the way, let’s not forget that some of this bonus money was also paid out to front line employees like “Joe” the Customer Service Rep (I just made him up, but he doesn’t look or sound anything like Joe the Plumber). Too bad he is employed overseas and I can’t understand a darn word he is saying. If we passed the Fair Tax and trashed our ridiculous and unfair progressive income tax, maybe American overseas investments will come back home.
In addition to all of the other “no surprise” issues in the AIG debacle is the revelation of Washington Liberals admitting that taxes are not a means of revenue, but none other than punishment. "Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money," declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in a threat delivered on the Senate floor. "If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you," echoed Chuck Schumer of New York. Bham!!! There you have it folks. In your face admission that taxes are weapons, not revenue. Oh, I know…conservatives have been cranking out sin taxes for years so they are not immune. Oh, I was also very impressed in which the speed that Senator Chris Dodd indicated they could pass a law that would tax virtually all of the AIG Bonuses. Dodd says this is something that "could happen fast. We could write this tomorrow." Wow, now that is impressive! As Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, it took Senator Dodd several years to oversee the most significant financial disaster in modern history. Now, he can whip out a punishment tax and have it approved in just 24 hours (yeah…I know..”punishment tax” is a bit redundant).
My advice for the Washington Liberals? Stay out of the banking business. You failed miserably in the most basic of acquisition rules and then tried to cover it up with your “outrage.” Just stick to what you do best; taxing the evil rich as punishment for individual achievement. Then redistribute the ill-gotten booty to the masses so that you can continue to allow people to “vote themselves money” and keep you in office.
Other stuff
Here is an awesome clip of my idol and economic genius Milton Friedman handing socialist Phil Donahue his buttocks. It is an old clip, but even more relevant today. Thanks to Jack Mitchell, my good friend and fellow Libertarian, for digging it up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
Where’s the teleprompter?
If you watch the news, you may be aware of the President’s little visit to the Tonight Show last week. Of course, you need to watch Fox News to become aware of his little joke comparing his bowling abilities to that of someone in the Special Olympics. Yeah, that is pretty insulting in more ways than one. The worst slam is that the folks in the Special Olympics totally smoke his score. Sorry Mr. President…you couldn’t qualify.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/20/special-olympics-bowler-offers-obama-bowling-tips/
Friday, November 7, 2008
Turning Over a New Leaf....yeah, RIGHT!
I have decided to stop being so negative and cynical about everything. It is therapeutic to force oneself to have happy and positive thoughts. Accordingly, I decided to make a list of all of the good things that will come out of the Obama administration and the Democrat controlled Congress. Are you ready?
Here we go:
1.
Alright, well…..this is going to be harder than I thought.
The potheads are smoggin it out up in Massachusetts right now. They voted to decriminalize weed for possession under 1 ounce. Funny thing is that most of the potheads are saying that weed is now “legal” in Massachusetts. Not so fast Cheech. Possessing any weed at all is still a ticket with a $100 fine. Oh yeah, the Pigs still confiscate your stash. Sorry to kill your buzz dudes. Maybe if you weren’t so stoned you wouldn’t have thought the new law meant it was legal in the first place.
Yesterday morning, I gassed up my SUV with 21 gallons at $2.09 per gallon! Saweeet! You could hear that 5.3 L – V8 just sucking the gas under that hood when I put my foot in the floor! Man…oh man. OPEC is just beside themselves. $60 per barrel!! Remember when light crude was on the way to $200 a barrel and our good friends in Saudi Arabia did not see a need to increase output? Now it is $60 a barrel and they are cutting output to no avail. Man, are these guys going to be in trouble if we ever figure out a way to be energy independent. Never mind that if a bunch of American companies formed a pact to control the output of anything they would go to jail for price fixing.
Apparently, there were reports of violence in Los Angeles and San Francisco during Gay protests to the passage of Proposition 8 (ban on gay marriage). Nope, it didn’t come from homophobe counter demonstrations or Bible thumpers. It was the gays themselves. Man, and to think a lot of folks were worried about racial tension when the election results were evident. As it turns out, not much racial tension……but is this what you would call “sexual tension?” It looks like we are in for a bunch more parades.
Last month, the board of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District voted 14-1 to construct suicide nets around the famous bridge for a cost of $50 million. Apparently, 19 jumpers have ended their life so far this year off of the span. According to my calculations, that is an average of 2.11 jumpers per month. At a construction cost of $50 million, that’s just under $2 million per jumper in the first year. I have always struggled with the morality of placing a dollar amount on a human life, but insurance companies do it. I am thinking a john boat and a big fishing gaff would be much more cost efficient.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-goldengate11-2008oct11,0,6335235.story
Here is a guy that destroyed his home while trying to clean out the cobwebs with a blowtorch. Apparently, he was not harmed. Looks like natural selection did not win out this time.
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/fayette/stories/2008/11/06/blowtorch_coweta.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13
Our friend Cherish sent the following photo and some of the commentary. Thanks Cherish!
The photo below captures a disturbing trend that is beginning to affect wildlife in the US . Since the Obama victory, animals that were formerly self-sufficient are now showing signs of belonging to the Democratic Party... as they have apparently learned to just sit and wait for the government to step in and provide for their care and sustenance.
This photo is of a Democrat black bear in Montana nicknamed 'Bearack', who has a seat front and center at the table of wealth redistribution. I never knew a liberal could be so cute. Of course, just wait and see how long he stays this cute if his redistributed wealth doesn’t show up. Is that a FEMA trailer in the background?
That’s all for now folks. See, it wasn’t that bad was it? I feel happier already.
Here we go:
1.
Alright, well…..this is going to be harder than I thought.
The potheads are smoggin it out up in Massachusetts right now. They voted to decriminalize weed for possession under 1 ounce. Funny thing is that most of the potheads are saying that weed is now “legal” in Massachusetts. Not so fast Cheech. Possessing any weed at all is still a ticket with a $100 fine. Oh yeah, the Pigs still confiscate your stash. Sorry to kill your buzz dudes. Maybe if you weren’t so stoned you wouldn’t have thought the new law meant it was legal in the first place.
Yesterday morning, I gassed up my SUV with 21 gallons at $2.09 per gallon! Saweeet! You could hear that 5.3 L – V8 just sucking the gas under that hood when I put my foot in the floor! Man…oh man. OPEC is just beside themselves. $60 per barrel!! Remember when light crude was on the way to $200 a barrel and our good friends in Saudi Arabia did not see a need to increase output? Now it is $60 a barrel and they are cutting output to no avail. Man, are these guys going to be in trouble if we ever figure out a way to be energy independent. Never mind that if a bunch of American companies formed a pact to control the output of anything they would go to jail for price fixing.
Apparently, there were reports of violence in Los Angeles and San Francisco during Gay protests to the passage of Proposition 8 (ban on gay marriage). Nope, it didn’t come from homophobe counter demonstrations or Bible thumpers. It was the gays themselves. Man, and to think a lot of folks were worried about racial tension when the election results were evident. As it turns out, not much racial tension……but is this what you would call “sexual tension?” It looks like we are in for a bunch more parades.
Last month, the board of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District voted 14-1 to construct suicide nets around the famous bridge for a cost of $50 million. Apparently, 19 jumpers have ended their life so far this year off of the span. According to my calculations, that is an average of 2.11 jumpers per month. At a construction cost of $50 million, that’s just under $2 million per jumper in the first year. I have always struggled with the morality of placing a dollar amount on a human life, but insurance companies do it. I am thinking a john boat and a big fishing gaff would be much more cost efficient.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-goldengate11-2008oct11,0,6335235.story
Here is a guy that destroyed his home while trying to clean out the cobwebs with a blowtorch. Apparently, he was not harmed. Looks like natural selection did not win out this time.
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/fayette/stories/2008/11/06/blowtorch_coweta.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13
Our friend Cherish sent the following photo and some of the commentary. Thanks Cherish!
The photo below captures a disturbing trend that is beginning to affect wildlife in the US . Since the Obama victory, animals that were formerly self-sufficient are now showing signs of belonging to the Democratic Party... as they have apparently learned to just sit and wait for the government to step in and provide for their care and sustenance.
This photo is of a Democrat black bear in Montana nicknamed 'Bearack', who has a seat front and center at the table of wealth redistribution. I never knew a liberal could be so cute. Of course, just wait and see how long he stays this cute if his redistributed wealth doesn’t show up. Is that a FEMA trailer in the background?That’s all for now folks. See, it wasn’t that bad was it? I feel happier already.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Happy Super Tuesday; Long Live the Republic!
Okay folks. I can’t take it anymore. I have not done much Obama bashing until recently, but how much can a guy take? I could blog a list of contradictions and downright lies Obama has publicly pontificated from here to….well….someplace where Socialist leaders hang out and sip their ill gotten wine. As for Joe Biden, well he is just downright ridiculous. Man, peppering your pal with shotgun pellets ain’t nothing compared to what this guy is capable of doing. Yeah….I called Obama a “Socialist.” Call me what you want. If it is accurate, I will accept it. If it is not, I will refute it and ask for examples.
My favorite Joe Biden quote as of late that you will NOT see or read more than once in the drive by media (except on FOX News) is as follows: “We are going to have a international crisis….A generated crisis…to test the mettle of this guy.” What? Are you kidding me? Okay, so let’s elect a guy that terrorist sponsoring countries know is weak and they will soon (within 6 months according to Joe) challenge him with an international crisis. I have a better idea. Let’s elect someone that the terrorist dirt bags won’t mess with in the first place and we can all sleep at night! I am only 39, but unlike most of my 11 year old counterparts on January 20th, 1981, I took a keen interest is watching the news coverage of the Iran hostages being released within minutes of Ronald Reagan taking his oath of office (yes, I know…at an early age my parents knew I wasn’t normal). I recall my Mother explaining to me about the hostages and how they had been held in captivity for so long despite the efforts of our President to negotiate their release. Quite frankly, I did not quite understand all of it, but I later learned how incredibly pathetic the entire situation truly was and that Jimmy Carter’s desire to negotiate with terrorists was way off base. I do recall specifically, however, my Mother explaining in no uncertain terms that the hostages being released was because they knew better than to challenge the man who was just sworn in as President. You might say they didn’t want to test his mettle…..you think?
I don’t know about you, but looking at this picture gives me a feeling of warmth and security.
Now just imagine this scene with The Chosen One. How safe do you feel now?
Basically, Joe Biden is telling us that Obama being sworn in will have the opposite effect of Ronald Reagan. Start circling the wagons all you foes of the once great United States of America. Your time has arrived!
My favorite issue to thump on Obama about is his pathetic, shady, and downright dishonest public position on the 2nd Amendment. The other day, The Washington Post published an article about the sudden spike in background checks for the purchase of firearms. Admittedly, they vaguely alluded to the possibility that it could be because of Obama’s position on gun control, but that was about it. The rest of the article went on to talk about how crime goes up during a poor economy and people just want to arm themselves against desperate victims of a recession who lose all ethical and moral judgment because they are in need. Never mind that there is absolutely no tangible or credible study that links high crime to a poor economy. Oh yes, there are lot’s of credible studies of crime in poor neighborhoods, but that is completely different than a poor economy. There will always be poor neighborhoods because “poor” is a relative term (but that is another topic for another day). Anyway, The Washington Post continued: “Obama has said he believes in an individual’s right to bear arms but that he also supports 'common-sense safety measures.’” Sure, you know, like trigger locks and gun cabinets. Who can argue with that right? Let’s make sure we protect kids….etc…. Certainly, all of this is easy to find common ground with anyone, but let’s throw out some quotes that you will not read in the liberal, left wing media.
“I’ll continue to be in favor of handgun law registration requirements and licensing requirements for training.” – Chicago Defender, July 5, 2001
Of course he is in favor, that way the Federal Government knows where to find law abiding citizens who own guns so they can take them. It has been done before folks in other countries; don’t think it can’t happen here.
Here is another Obama quote you won’t find many places: “…just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right….” – 2008 Philadelphia primary debate
Uuuuhhh, mmmmkay……uh, yes it does mean they cannot constrain that right!!! That is what the 10th Amendment is for in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court disagreed with him by only 1 vote earlier this year, but that will change after he appoints a few of his own liberal Justices. I am not sure if he actually believes the stuff he says, or is just lying. Either way, it’s not good folks. Regardless, it will all be over on Wednesday morning. It’s a darn shame. I really hoped that our first black president would be someone good for our country, rather than someone who is going to destroy it. Well, I guess I can always stand on my argument that he is no more black than he is white.
Okay, just a few other brief rants, and I will be done with my pre-election Obama bashing. The next 4 years will provide ample supply, but unfortunately it will be as he works together with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to dismantle our Republic (yes, this is a Republic and not a Democracy….again, for another day). Alright….enough…back to rants:
"John McCain voted with George Bush 95% of the time" – Hey moron…..George Bush doesn’t vote! Why don’t you get that? The President does NOT VOTE! And yet, millions of ignorant Americans do not understand that George Bush has not voted in 8 years (or before that either because Governors do not vote as well).
I remember in the 1980’s when George 41 was running for President. I knew these Union guys that loved to say, “the rich get richer and poor get poorer.” I have not heard this one in a while, but I haven’t been hanging out with Union guys lately either. Here is a new one I think I will start using…”the rich get busted down to middle class and the poor stay poor because that is where The Man wants you to stay!” Ha…I said “The Man”…..don’t you just love it?
Here is a funny, yet true clip you just have to watch. Thanks John for sending it to me. You made my day with this one pal!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvc0tYG_YpA
Happy Super Tuesday! Long live the Republic!
My favorite Joe Biden quote as of late that you will NOT see or read more than once in the drive by media (except on FOX News) is as follows: “We are going to have a international crisis….A generated crisis…to test the mettle of this guy.” What? Are you kidding me? Okay, so let’s elect a guy that terrorist sponsoring countries know is weak and they will soon (within 6 months according to Joe) challenge him with an international crisis. I have a better idea. Let’s elect someone that the terrorist dirt bags won’t mess with in the first place and we can all sleep at night! I am only 39, but unlike most of my 11 year old counterparts on January 20th, 1981, I took a keen interest is watching the news coverage of the Iran hostages being released within minutes of Ronald Reagan taking his oath of office (yes, I know…at an early age my parents knew I wasn’t normal). I recall my Mother explaining to me about the hostages and how they had been held in captivity for so long despite the efforts of our President to negotiate their release. Quite frankly, I did not quite understand all of it, but I later learned how incredibly pathetic the entire situation truly was and that Jimmy Carter’s desire to negotiate with terrorists was way off base. I do recall specifically, however, my Mother explaining in no uncertain terms that the hostages being released was because they knew better than to challenge the man who was just sworn in as President. You might say they didn’t want to test his mettle…..you think?
I don’t know about you, but looking at this picture gives me a feeling of warmth and security.
Now just imagine this scene with The Chosen One. How safe do you feel now?Basically, Joe Biden is telling us that Obama being sworn in will have the opposite effect of Ronald Reagan. Start circling the wagons all you foes of the once great United States of America. Your time has arrived!
My favorite issue to thump on Obama about is his pathetic, shady, and downright dishonest public position on the 2nd Amendment. The other day, The Washington Post published an article about the sudden spike in background checks for the purchase of firearms. Admittedly, they vaguely alluded to the possibility that it could be because of Obama’s position on gun control, but that was about it. The rest of the article went on to talk about how crime goes up during a poor economy and people just want to arm themselves against desperate victims of a recession who lose all ethical and moral judgment because they are in need. Never mind that there is absolutely no tangible or credible study that links high crime to a poor economy. Oh yes, there are lot’s of credible studies of crime in poor neighborhoods, but that is completely different than a poor economy. There will always be poor neighborhoods because “poor” is a relative term (but that is another topic for another day). Anyway, The Washington Post continued: “Obama has said he believes in an individual’s right to bear arms but that he also supports 'common-sense safety measures.’” Sure, you know, like trigger locks and gun cabinets. Who can argue with that right? Let’s make sure we protect kids….etc…. Certainly, all of this is easy to find common ground with anyone, but let’s throw out some quotes that you will not read in the liberal, left wing media.
“I’ll continue to be in favor of handgun law registration requirements and licensing requirements for training.” – Chicago Defender, July 5, 2001
Of course he is in favor, that way the Federal Government knows where to find law abiding citizens who own guns so they can take them. It has been done before folks in other countries; don’t think it can’t happen here.
Here is another Obama quote you won’t find many places: “…just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right….” – 2008 Philadelphia primary debate
Uuuuhhh, mmmmkay……uh, yes it does mean they cannot constrain that right!!! That is what the 10th Amendment is for in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court disagreed with him by only 1 vote earlier this year, but that will change after he appoints a few of his own liberal Justices. I am not sure if he actually believes the stuff he says, or is just lying. Either way, it’s not good folks. Regardless, it will all be over on Wednesday morning. It’s a darn shame. I really hoped that our first black president would be someone good for our country, rather than someone who is going to destroy it. Well, I guess I can always stand on my argument that he is no more black than he is white.
Okay, just a few other brief rants, and I will be done with my pre-election Obama bashing. The next 4 years will provide ample supply, but unfortunately it will be as he works together with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to dismantle our Republic (yes, this is a Republic and not a Democracy….again, for another day). Alright….enough…back to rants:
"John McCain voted with George Bush 95% of the time" – Hey moron…..George Bush doesn’t vote! Why don’t you get that? The President does NOT VOTE! And yet, millions of ignorant Americans do not understand that George Bush has not voted in 8 years (or before that either because Governors do not vote as well).
I remember in the 1980’s when George 41 was running for President. I knew these Union guys that loved to say, “the rich get richer and poor get poorer.” I have not heard this one in a while, but I haven’t been hanging out with Union guys lately either. Here is a new one I think I will start using…”the rich get busted down to middle class and the poor stay poor because that is where The Man wants you to stay!” Ha…I said “The Man”…..don’t you just love it?
Here is a funny, yet true clip you just have to watch. Thanks John for sending it to me. You made my day with this one pal!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvc0tYG_YpA
Happy Super Tuesday! Long live the Republic!
Friday, October 31, 2008
A Must See Halloween Horror Movie Called….”The Chosen One”
Here is a little about the movie. Every American is about to decide if they want to see it (actually, not only Americans, but illegal aliens, bums, kids, the starting line up for the Dallas Cowboys, just to name a few more).
A community activist gets elected to the United States Senate and very soon after launches a campaign to become President of the United States. The liberal, left wing media instantly falls in love with the good looking and charismatic speaker, who has brilliant speech writers. He never provides details to his plans to “change” America, but simply pitches “change” itself. The American people become mesmerized and do not question anything about the Presidential hopeful. Because of their blind fascination with the rock star type icon, they completely ignore his close and personal associations with a known terrorist who bombed the Pentagon, as well as a “spiritual advisor” who screams racism and hate from the pulpit. They ignore his past interest in Marxism and his belief that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” He prey’s on the American people’s disdain for ineffective government and their inability to decipher the difference between America and the government that controls America. Soon, he has come to be known as “The Chosen One.”
Are you scared yet? Oh by the way, no matter how scary this gets, you can’t leave the theater. Oh sure, there are other movies playing at other theaters, but they are even worse. You have to sit this one out.
Not only does The Chosen One get elected as President, his political party gains 9 spots in the United States Senate for a total of 60 needed seats to block a filibuster from the opposing party. Now, the left wing liberals control everything. Now unopposed and uncontested, the liberals launch more social give away programs in the history of the nation, further securing their plan to grow their voting base by allowing people to vote themselves money from the wealthy. They kill their nemesis and only consistent, historical conservative communication conduit called “talk radio” by passing the so called “Fairness Doctrine.” To further crush political opposition, the President appoints the key Commissioner for the FCC so his party will control ALL communication in America, not just radio. During the course of his Presidency, he has the opportunity to appoint THREE very liberal Justices to the Supreme Court. Of course, they sail through the confirmation process since their party controls the proceedings. Now, the liberals control absolutely everything!!!! They control the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government! Everything!!! They begin to seize wealth and even property for redistribution to the masses. No one can rise up against this oppressive regime because the liberal controlled Supreme Court previously re-interpreted the 2nd Amendment and no law abiding citizens were allowed to have guns any longer.
Go ahead and scream!! Just try…..try harder! Nothing comes out! You are trying to scream, but nothing comes out and no one can hear you!!!!!
This movie has not yet been rated, but is not recommended for wussies, bed wetters, liberals, or anyone without a spine, guts, or resolve. If you fall into the 40% of Americans that do not pay Federal Income taxes anyway, you still need to see this movie because they will come after your income after the resources from the evil rich have been depleted and they choose to stop earning income to redistribute to everyone else.
It is coming. When you wake up and open your eyes on November 5th, The Chosen One will be there watching you!
A community activist gets elected to the United States Senate and very soon after launches a campaign to become President of the United States. The liberal, left wing media instantly falls in love with the good looking and charismatic speaker, who has brilliant speech writers. He never provides details to his plans to “change” America, but simply pitches “change” itself. The American people become mesmerized and do not question anything about the Presidential hopeful. Because of their blind fascination with the rock star type icon, they completely ignore his close and personal associations with a known terrorist who bombed the Pentagon, as well as a “spiritual advisor” who screams racism and hate from the pulpit. They ignore his past interest in Marxism and his belief that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” He prey’s on the American people’s disdain for ineffective government and their inability to decipher the difference between America and the government that controls America. Soon, he has come to be known as “The Chosen One.”
Are you scared yet? Oh by the way, no matter how scary this gets, you can’t leave the theater. Oh sure, there are other movies playing at other theaters, but they are even worse. You have to sit this one out.
Not only does The Chosen One get elected as President, his political party gains 9 spots in the United States Senate for a total of 60 needed seats to block a filibuster from the opposing party. Now, the left wing liberals control everything. Now unopposed and uncontested, the liberals launch more social give away programs in the history of the nation, further securing their plan to grow their voting base by allowing people to vote themselves money from the wealthy. They kill their nemesis and only consistent, historical conservative communication conduit called “talk radio” by passing the so called “Fairness Doctrine.” To further crush political opposition, the President appoints the key Commissioner for the FCC so his party will control ALL communication in America, not just radio. During the course of his Presidency, he has the opportunity to appoint THREE very liberal Justices to the Supreme Court. Of course, they sail through the confirmation process since their party controls the proceedings. Now, the liberals control absolutely everything!!!! They control the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government! Everything!!! They begin to seize wealth and even property for redistribution to the masses. No one can rise up against this oppressive regime because the liberal controlled Supreme Court previously re-interpreted the 2nd Amendment and no law abiding citizens were allowed to have guns any longer.
Go ahead and scream!! Just try…..try harder! Nothing comes out! You are trying to scream, but nothing comes out and no one can hear you!!!!!
This movie has not yet been rated, but is not recommended for wussies, bed wetters, liberals, or anyone without a spine, guts, or resolve. If you fall into the 40% of Americans that do not pay Federal Income taxes anyway, you still need to see this movie because they will come after your income after the resources from the evil rich have been depleted and they choose to stop earning income to redistribute to everyone else.
It is coming. When you wake up and open your eyes on November 5th, The Chosen One will be there watching you!
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Feedback on My Last Post
Please allow me to pass along some thoughts from Jack Mitchell. Jack is probably the most brilliant person I know who allows me to call him a friend. I met him over 16 years ago at the church that we both still attend. As you will see from his commentary, Jack is a very clear thinker and effectively dissects the dilemma that we face with regard to our responsibility to our brothers and sisters in need.
Jack writes:
The guy who conducted the interview of Sen. Harry Reid regarding taxes being voluntary does a great job. He doesn't allow himself to become angry or agitated. Instead, he just keeps coming back to Reid's claim that America has a voluntary tax system and asking straightforward questions that clearly show the absurdity of Reid's position.
I wish all Americans would take the time and effort to think through issues like this.
The fundamental question is this: Where do I (and where does the government) get the moral right to forcibly take the property of one neighbor, who in my opinion has too much, in order to give it to another neighbor, who in my opinion does not have enough? Note the importance of the phrase "in my opinion" as the sole justification.
Unfortunately, many Christians support the confiscation of private property on the grounds that it shows love and compassion and that it results in social justice.
But the eighth commandment given by God to Moses says: "You shall not steal" Exodus 20:15). Webster's Universal Collegiate Dictionary defines "steal" as "to take the property of another or others without their permission." This seems rather clear. If God meant to endorse modern socialism, he could have modified the eighth commandment to" "You shall not steal, except when you intend to give the stolen property to someone in need." But that is not what God instructed.
When you debate this issue with liberals, they will ultimately argue that government has the right to forcibly take property from some and redistribute it to others because the legislative system has bestowed that right through the process of law and that the public has affirmed it through the electoral process. Two points need to be made in response to this argument. First, we need to concede that government has the legal right to forcibly take property from its citizens, as this has indeed been conferred by our legislative branch and upheld in various court decisions. But there is a major distinction between legal right and moral right; the two are not synonymous. Many things are legal but not necessarily moral. So the fact that the government has the legal right to confiscate property from its citizens does not answer the question about the source of the moral right.
Second, and equally important, no citizen has the moral right to forcibly take property from another citizen, no matter the purpose to which the confiscated property is to be put. Now, if I do not have this moral right, how can I possibly convey the moral right to the government through my vote? I cannot give something that I do not myself possess. Government derives its powers from the people, and the only just powers possessed by government are those first possessed by the people and conferred upon the government (see the Declaration of Independence). So the liberal argument that the moral right for wealth redistribution comes from a vote of the people does not stand up to scrutiny.
Bottom line, both arguments offered by liberals fail to answer the question about moral authority.
The Bible clearly teaches that we are to help the needy. But over and over again, help for the needy is presented as a voluntary act. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), the Samaritan voluntarily comes to the aid of the injured man. He does not flag down a passing caravan and forcibly take some of their property in order to render aid. The beauty of this story is the selfless act of the Samaritan, who used his own resources to assist a person in need who lay outside his normal social circle.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says, "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets...But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing so that your giving may be in secret." (Matthew 6:2-4). This clearly seems to portray helping others as a voluntary act and one that should be done without fanfare.
Leviticus 19:18 tells us to "love your neighbor as yourself." Again, this seems to portray an individual obligation whereby one uses his own resources to provide for his neighbor. It in no way confers the right to take from one neighbor in order to give to another.
In Romans 13:9-10, Paul writes, "The commandments, 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandments there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor."
The concept of putting a gun to a neighbor's head in order to forcibly take property that I will then give to another neighbor does not seem consistent with Paul's views. Substituting government force for a gun does not solve this problem.
Jack
John "Jack" A. Mitchell III
Jack writes:
The guy who conducted the interview of Sen. Harry Reid regarding taxes being voluntary does a great job. He doesn't allow himself to become angry or agitated. Instead, he just keeps coming back to Reid's claim that America has a voluntary tax system and asking straightforward questions that clearly show the absurdity of Reid's position.
I wish all Americans would take the time and effort to think through issues like this.
The fundamental question is this: Where do I (and where does the government) get the moral right to forcibly take the property of one neighbor, who in my opinion has too much, in order to give it to another neighbor, who in my opinion does not have enough? Note the importance of the phrase "in my opinion" as the sole justification.
Unfortunately, many Christians support the confiscation of private property on the grounds that it shows love and compassion and that it results in social justice.
But the eighth commandment given by God to Moses says: "You shall not steal" Exodus 20:15). Webster's Universal Collegiate Dictionary defines "steal" as "to take the property of another or others without their permission." This seems rather clear. If God meant to endorse modern socialism, he could have modified the eighth commandment to" "You shall not steal, except when you intend to give the stolen property to someone in need." But that is not what God instructed.
When you debate this issue with liberals, they will ultimately argue that government has the right to forcibly take property from some and redistribute it to others because the legislative system has bestowed that right through the process of law and that the public has affirmed it through the electoral process. Two points need to be made in response to this argument. First, we need to concede that government has the legal right to forcibly take property from its citizens, as this has indeed been conferred by our legislative branch and upheld in various court decisions. But there is a major distinction between legal right and moral right; the two are not synonymous. Many things are legal but not necessarily moral. So the fact that the government has the legal right to confiscate property from its citizens does not answer the question about the source of the moral right.
Second, and equally important, no citizen has the moral right to forcibly take property from another citizen, no matter the purpose to which the confiscated property is to be put. Now, if I do not have this moral right, how can I possibly convey the moral right to the government through my vote? I cannot give something that I do not myself possess. Government derives its powers from the people, and the only just powers possessed by government are those first possessed by the people and conferred upon the government (see the Declaration of Independence). So the liberal argument that the moral right for wealth redistribution comes from a vote of the people does not stand up to scrutiny.
Bottom line, both arguments offered by liberals fail to answer the question about moral authority.
The Bible clearly teaches that we are to help the needy. But over and over again, help for the needy is presented as a voluntary act. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), the Samaritan voluntarily comes to the aid of the injured man. He does not flag down a passing caravan and forcibly take some of their property in order to render aid. The beauty of this story is the selfless act of the Samaritan, who used his own resources to assist a person in need who lay outside his normal social circle.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says, "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets...But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing so that your giving may be in secret." (Matthew 6:2-4). This clearly seems to portray helping others as a voluntary act and one that should be done without fanfare.
Leviticus 19:18 tells us to "love your neighbor as yourself." Again, this seems to portray an individual obligation whereby one uses his own resources to provide for his neighbor. It in no way confers the right to take from one neighbor in order to give to another.
In Romans 13:9-10, Paul writes, "The commandments, 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandments there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor."
The concept of putting a gun to a neighbor's head in order to forcibly take property that I will then give to another neighbor does not seem consistent with Paul's views. Substituting government force for a gun does not solve this problem.
Jack
John "Jack" A. Mitchell III
Saturday, October 11, 2008
My First and ONLY Public Thoughts on Sub-Prime
Alright folks, I have been notably silent over the last few weeks. Quite frankly, all of this global economic instability, combined with our pathetic and downright disastrous choices for President, have effectively stepped on my quan and curbed my narcissistic inspiration. What a shame.
Click here for the urban dictionary if you are not sure about my "quan."
I am also employed at the present and the feeling of hope always has a way of interfering with cynicism. You might say that I have been biting my tongue! Here’s why. Whenever the topic of our current economic situation is discussed, a subsequent unleashing of the history of subprime mortgages quickly ensues. Well, as you may know, I used to be one of those big, evil, predatory lenders that would concoct ways of extorting signatures from ignorant Americans. Sort of like ACORN, except those folks will later receive money from the government that they are not expected to re-pay so long as they are successful in touching the right name on the voting screen. By the way, I predict the next step is to have a color picture of the candidate on the screen just so no one is confused about the guy that looks different from those guys on the U.S. currency. That should prove helpful for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys when they show up in Vegas to vote. Ooops. Got off track there on another rant….maybe my quan is back after all. Until now, I have chosen to not rant or publish my thoughts on the subprime issue. There are several reasons for my rare and oft-ignored flash of wisdom. First of all, I am far from unbiased. Second, everyone in America has already become an expert on something they don’t even understand so why would they listen to me? Lastly, and most important, I am immeasurably worn out on the topic. Just for perspective, I would rather be subjected to the continuous loop of that film clip of Britney Spears on a stretcher getting her happy butt rolled to an ambulance over a 30 second clip of some idiot pontificating about the subprime issue. This includes, but is not limited to Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Chris Dodd (I have a humorous clip of Harry Reid to share once I am done with this rant). In this post, I will offer just a few, shallow, biased, and mildly tame thoughts. Afterwards, I will be done for good and back to watching that Britney Spears clip.
Anyway, I stumbled across an article from the New York Times published in 1999 that is quite interesting. I will leave it at that and you can cast your own opinion. I will only add that the New York Times is not exactly known for its’ conservative viewpoints. In fact, this almost reads like a victory dance for Liberals in the article that is called “Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending.” Keep in mind folks, this is not a true and blue business that competes with other businesses in the free marketplace. During the Clinton administration, Fannie and Freddie were granted permission to hold only 2.5% of capital to back their investments. Of course, banks were still required to hold 10%, but what the heck. When you are backed by taxpayer money, who cares?
Here are the first three paragraphs of the article:
(click here for the entire article)
“In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”
See folks, once upon a time, mortgage companies and banks did not lend money to people who they thought might not pay it back. Unfortunately, minorities comprised a disproportionate piece of this denial pool. As is usually the case, the government ignored the fact that most mortgage applications are taken over the phone and that credit reports do not show a person's race. Instead, they concluded that minorities are entitled to the dream of home ownership (not the opportunity at home ownership) and mandated…yes mandated that lenders provide loans to individuals with a track record of not paying bills. Unfortunately, this also forced lenders to give the same opportunity to non-minorities that did not pay their bills also. Numerically, this is a far larger population pool than minorities with bad credit. This started the ball rolling. The rest of this historical disaster is a discussion about the evolution of collateralized mortgage obligations, special purpose entities, bond rating agencies, and good old fashioned greed (Liberals only can talk about the greed part since they believe it is synonymous with capitalism…a concept they want to destroy). Go ahead and do your research on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) during the Carter administration and also how it was greatly expanded during the Clinton administration. During this time, if lenders did not give enough money to people with bad credit, they were penalized. Once the money started flowing, the government accused them of being “Predatory Lenders.” That’s the government folks! You can’t win for losing.
The very regulations that are allegedly aimed at protecting people from their own stupidity actually serve to confuse them. Don’t believe me? Apply for a mortgage loan and see what shows up in the mail about 4 days later. Read through that 1-2 inch thick set of Federal and State required regulatory disclosures. If you are sharp, you will be able to glean out your loan amount, interest rate (if you can understand the difference between interest rate and APR), and maybe your payment and loan term. The layers of Government intervention that the real estate and mortgage industry faces even at the local level is what creates the complicated process that confuses most consumers and drives up fees. Plan on buying a home in Louisville, Kentucky? You better make sure the home has upgraded smoke detectors (not those with a 9 volt battery). If you don’t sign the affidavit swearing to it, you don’t get the home. Don’t know if the home has the right smoke detectors? You better be sure or you will pay a fine. Okay, maybe this is not the best example, but for some reason it just burns me up :-) Yeah, that was bad wasn’t it?
Now for some real fun. Speaking of painful video clips and Senator Harry Reid; Just watch this interview with Harry (a.k.a. “Dirty Harry”) trying to say that paying taxes is voluntary. Folks….this man is the Senate Majority Leader. Oh, by the way, the Liberal media won’t tell you that Dirty Harry is Mormon, which is somehow a headline story if you are a Republican and want to run for President. Truthfully, I am thankful this idiot is a Mormon and not Baptist. Jimmy Carter is embarrassment enough.
Click here to see Dirty Harry in action
By the way, I cannot stand behind anything on the website that published this interview. I have never heard of them. At a glance, they appear to be an offshoot of some Libertarians, but way more nutty.
Click here for the urban dictionary if you are not sure about my "quan."
I am also employed at the present and the feeling of hope always has a way of interfering with cynicism. You might say that I have been biting my tongue! Here’s why. Whenever the topic of our current economic situation is discussed, a subsequent unleashing of the history of subprime mortgages quickly ensues. Well, as you may know, I used to be one of those big, evil, predatory lenders that would concoct ways of extorting signatures from ignorant Americans. Sort of like ACORN, except those folks will later receive money from the government that they are not expected to re-pay so long as they are successful in touching the right name on the voting screen. By the way, I predict the next step is to have a color picture of the candidate on the screen just so no one is confused about the guy that looks different from those guys on the U.S. currency. That should prove helpful for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys when they show up in Vegas to vote. Ooops. Got off track there on another rant….maybe my quan is back after all. Until now, I have chosen to not rant or publish my thoughts on the subprime issue. There are several reasons for my rare and oft-ignored flash of wisdom. First of all, I am far from unbiased. Second, everyone in America has already become an expert on something they don’t even understand so why would they listen to me? Lastly, and most important, I am immeasurably worn out on the topic. Just for perspective, I would rather be subjected to the continuous loop of that film clip of Britney Spears on a stretcher getting her happy butt rolled to an ambulance over a 30 second clip of some idiot pontificating about the subprime issue. This includes, but is not limited to Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Chris Dodd (I have a humorous clip of Harry Reid to share once I am done with this rant). In this post, I will offer just a few, shallow, biased, and mildly tame thoughts. Afterwards, I will be done for good and back to watching that Britney Spears clip.
Anyway, I stumbled across an article from the New York Times published in 1999 that is quite interesting. I will leave it at that and you can cast your own opinion. I will only add that the New York Times is not exactly known for its’ conservative viewpoints. In fact, this almost reads like a victory dance for Liberals in the article that is called “Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending.” Keep in mind folks, this is not a true and blue business that competes with other businesses in the free marketplace. During the Clinton administration, Fannie and Freddie were granted permission to hold only 2.5% of capital to back their investments. Of course, banks were still required to hold 10%, but what the heck. When you are backed by taxpayer money, who cares?
Here are the first three paragraphs of the article:
(click here for the entire article)
“In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”
See folks, once upon a time, mortgage companies and banks did not lend money to people who they thought might not pay it back. Unfortunately, minorities comprised a disproportionate piece of this denial pool. As is usually the case, the government ignored the fact that most mortgage applications are taken over the phone and that credit reports do not show a person's race. Instead, they concluded that minorities are entitled to the dream of home ownership (not the opportunity at home ownership) and mandated…yes mandated that lenders provide loans to individuals with a track record of not paying bills. Unfortunately, this also forced lenders to give the same opportunity to non-minorities that did not pay their bills also. Numerically, this is a far larger population pool than minorities with bad credit. This started the ball rolling. The rest of this historical disaster is a discussion about the evolution of collateralized mortgage obligations, special purpose entities, bond rating agencies, and good old fashioned greed (Liberals only can talk about the greed part since they believe it is synonymous with capitalism…a concept they want to destroy). Go ahead and do your research on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) during the Carter administration and also how it was greatly expanded during the Clinton administration. During this time, if lenders did not give enough money to people with bad credit, they were penalized. Once the money started flowing, the government accused them of being “Predatory Lenders.” That’s the government folks! You can’t win for losing.
The very regulations that are allegedly aimed at protecting people from their own stupidity actually serve to confuse them. Don’t believe me? Apply for a mortgage loan and see what shows up in the mail about 4 days later. Read through that 1-2 inch thick set of Federal and State required regulatory disclosures. If you are sharp, you will be able to glean out your loan amount, interest rate (if you can understand the difference between interest rate and APR), and maybe your payment and loan term. The layers of Government intervention that the real estate and mortgage industry faces even at the local level is what creates the complicated process that confuses most consumers and drives up fees. Plan on buying a home in Louisville, Kentucky? You better make sure the home has upgraded smoke detectors (not those with a 9 volt battery). If you don’t sign the affidavit swearing to it, you don’t get the home. Don’t know if the home has the right smoke detectors? You better be sure or you will pay a fine. Okay, maybe this is not the best example, but for some reason it just burns me up :-) Yeah, that was bad wasn’t it?
Now for some real fun. Speaking of painful video clips and Senator Harry Reid; Just watch this interview with Harry (a.k.a. “Dirty Harry”) trying to say that paying taxes is voluntary. Folks….this man is the Senate Majority Leader. Oh, by the way, the Liberal media won’t tell you that Dirty Harry is Mormon, which is somehow a headline story if you are a Republican and want to run for President. Truthfully, I am thankful this idiot is a Mormon and not Baptist. Jimmy Carter is embarrassment enough.
Click here to see Dirty Harry in action
By the way, I cannot stand behind anything on the website that published this interview. I have never heard of them. At a glance, they appear to be an offshoot of some Libertarians, but way more nutty.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
More Terms that Drive Me Nuts (part 4).....According to Your Paycheck, the Government Determines if you are Really "Working"
“Working class” – In order to strike another blow for cultural pandering, we can no longer allow anyone in the Middle Class feel as though they are average in the world of financial achievement. Now, we use the term “Working Class.” This, of course, completely ignores the possibility that someone in this group may not even work (I am not sure, but I may have been in the working class myself for most of this year). Perhaps some 54 year old is not interested in reaching the “upper class” and chooses to live off of a modest flow of interest income (don’t forget from my earlier rant that this individual does not “earn” anything according to the government, but yet has a “capital gain”). So there you have it, according to our social pandering country, you can be unemployed, not “earn” a dime according to the government, and be considered “working class.” Why? Simply to avoid telling Joe six pack that he is considered financially average or “middle.”
Actually, this may be a little more than social pandering and has roots to socialism, much like other recent trends in American history. I am really not sure exactly when this term started to become hip in American culture, but my first recollection of hearing it on a regular basis was around 4 or 5 years ago. I remember when we used terms like “middle class” and “upper class” when describing someone’s level of financial achievement. Lest we forget, by design, all of this terminology is an attempt by the government to lump the taxpayers into groups so we can identify with political candidates. Of course, this practice is as old as the “have’s” and the “have not’s.” Such terms have roots to Karl Marx who was a master at applying labels to people based upon their income, with the ultimate goal of his great classless society. Marx used the term “proletariat” to describe the working class who physically produced goods and services for the bourgeoisie, who owned the means of the production. Again, the notion here being that only those who swing a tool, dig a hole, move bricks, etc., actually “work”, while those who take great financial risk to provide the means of their work are not actually “working” at all.
What on earth would politicians do if we passed the Fair Tax (H.R. 25) and they had no clue how much money we earned? Who would they target for votes? How would they determine who to target for wealth redistribution so they could find people to vote themselves money (as I mentioned in another posting, Ben Franklin noted this practice would “herald the end of the Republic”). In the mortgage business, it is called “redlining” and is illegal. In politics, it is called “campaigning.”
In an ironic twist that is probably news to social panderers, referring to someone as a “proletariat” was a very derogatory expression in the days of Karl Marx. Remember that next time you refer to someone as “working class.” I am also trying to figure out what we are supposed to call the “upper class” nowadays. Maybe something like…..”Filthy, arrogant, capital gaining, rich people.” Ohhhh boy….brother Karl would sure be proud.
Actually, this may be a little more than social pandering and has roots to socialism, much like other recent trends in American history. I am really not sure exactly when this term started to become hip in American culture, but my first recollection of hearing it on a regular basis was around 4 or 5 years ago. I remember when we used terms like “middle class” and “upper class” when describing someone’s level of financial achievement. Lest we forget, by design, all of this terminology is an attempt by the government to lump the taxpayers into groups so we can identify with political candidates. Of course, this practice is as old as the “have’s” and the “have not’s.” Such terms have roots to Karl Marx who was a master at applying labels to people based upon their income, with the ultimate goal of his great classless society. Marx used the term “proletariat” to describe the working class who physically produced goods and services for the bourgeoisie, who owned the means of the production. Again, the notion here being that only those who swing a tool, dig a hole, move bricks, etc., actually “work”, while those who take great financial risk to provide the means of their work are not actually “working” at all.
What on earth would politicians do if we passed the Fair Tax (H.R. 25) and they had no clue how much money we earned? Who would they target for votes? How would they determine who to target for wealth redistribution so they could find people to vote themselves money (as I mentioned in another posting, Ben Franklin noted this practice would “herald the end of the Republic”). In the mortgage business, it is called “redlining” and is illegal. In politics, it is called “campaigning.”
In an ironic twist that is probably news to social panderers, referring to someone as a “proletariat” was a very derogatory expression in the days of Karl Marx. Remember that next time you refer to someone as “working class.” I am also trying to figure out what we are supposed to call the “upper class” nowadays. Maybe something like…..”Filthy, arrogant, capital gaining, rich people.” Ohhhh boy….brother Karl would sure be proud.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Put Your Hands on Your Head, and Step Away from the Buritto
In the latest example of government control over our daily lives, the Los Angeles City Council has unanimously approved a one year moratorium on the development or opening of fast food restaurants in the impoverished 32 square mile south Los Angeles community. It seems as though the local politicians are not satisfied to manipulate and control the daily lives of these people simply through subsidies, entitlements, social programs, tax breaks, and liberal bent substandard government run education. The city council substantiates their efforts with the fact that this community has the highest per capita concentration of fast food restaurants of anyplace in the United States. This, combined with horrendous health statistics, apparently calls for government intervention. The Los Angeles Times points out that the community in question also has a lower concentration of “eateries” than Hollywood. Duh? We are talking about the ghetto here folks! By the way, this community also has a lower concentration of good old fashioned grocery stores so the less expensive option of preparing a cheap meal at home is not an attractive undertaking (notice I said “OPTION”). Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you can get a whole shopping cart of Roman Noodles and Spam for about the same price as a carton of cigarettes. And yet Jan Perry, the Councilwoman who proposed the ordinance proclaims, “The people don’t want them [fast food restaurants], but when they don’t have any other options, they may gravitate to what’s there.” Oh yeah, I can see it now; the Crips and the Bloods sitting down at the little street corner café under the vine covered lattice, while sharing a fat free latte and fresh fruit.
Am I the only person who sees something seriously wrong with this? It has been proven time and time again that supply and demand prevails when left alone, which is the reason for the high concentration of fast food providers and the low concentration of grocery stores. The government does not provide options…..demand does! This is not about health nor is it about attracting nice restaurants (that no one will patronize anyway). This is about controlling people’s lives and crushing capitalism. Of course, none of these idiots have paused for a single second to consider the number of jobs these fast food restaurants provide to the community. I can see it now on the next episode of “Cops” in south L.A. as the officer is questioning a suspicious group of young men. “….you guys have any guns, knives, drugs, Big Macs, burittos, corndogs, anything like that I need to know about?” Of course, they answer “no” to the officer, but a subsequent search reveals a stash of fresh sausage biscuits under the passenger seat. “Those aren’t mine,” the driver proclaims. “I don’t know how those got there,” he says. The officer appears frustrated with his lies. Holding up the illegal food contraband, the officer says “do you know what this stuff is doing to the people in our community? What if a kid got a hold of this?” Of course, the next step would be to get the accused some help through Social Services to get them off the smack.
Not to miss their opportunity for tight control, in typical government fashion the City Council has worked hard to define the potential offenders as "any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers." Okay, I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that McDonald’s has a far more extensive menu than Ruth’s Chris Steak House. Wouldn’t you just love to see McDonald’s stick it to the City Council by opening a bunch of new restaurants with table service (higher prices of course), cook it to order nice and slow, and serve it on a regular plate? And to think McDonald’s turned down my application for Director of Public Relations. Of course, the government will be there in the lobby with a stop watch to ensure it was not served too quickly. Leave it to the government to drive up costs and promote mediocrity.
Get ready for the next big headline in the L.A. Times. “South L.A. Sting Nets Record Cache of Big Macs, Corn Dogs, Chicken Nuggets, and Burritos.” Then, at a televised press conference, the Sherriff will proclaim, “The city is a safer place today thanks to the efforts of the brave men and women of the Los Angeles Police Department.”
Time to go now. I am working on my plan to earn a living by smuggling trans fat cooking oil into New York City.
Am I the only person who sees something seriously wrong with this? It has been proven time and time again that supply and demand prevails when left alone, which is the reason for the high concentration of fast food providers and the low concentration of grocery stores. The government does not provide options…..demand does! This is not about health nor is it about attracting nice restaurants (that no one will patronize anyway). This is about controlling people’s lives and crushing capitalism. Of course, none of these idiots have paused for a single second to consider the number of jobs these fast food restaurants provide to the community. I can see it now on the next episode of “Cops” in south L.A. as the officer is questioning a suspicious group of young men. “….you guys have any guns, knives, drugs, Big Macs, burittos, corndogs, anything like that I need to know about?” Of course, they answer “no” to the officer, but a subsequent search reveals a stash of fresh sausage biscuits under the passenger seat. “Those aren’t mine,” the driver proclaims. “I don’t know how those got there,” he says. The officer appears frustrated with his lies. Holding up the illegal food contraband, the officer says “do you know what this stuff is doing to the people in our community? What if a kid got a hold of this?” Of course, the next step would be to get the accused some help through Social Services to get them off the smack.
Not to miss their opportunity for tight control, in typical government fashion the City Council has worked hard to define the potential offenders as "any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers." Okay, I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that McDonald’s has a far more extensive menu than Ruth’s Chris Steak House. Wouldn’t you just love to see McDonald’s stick it to the City Council by opening a bunch of new restaurants with table service (higher prices of course), cook it to order nice and slow, and serve it on a regular plate? And to think McDonald’s turned down my application for Director of Public Relations. Of course, the government will be there in the lobby with a stop watch to ensure it was not served too quickly. Leave it to the government to drive up costs and promote mediocrity.
Get ready for the next big headline in the L.A. Times. “South L.A. Sting Nets Record Cache of Big Macs, Corn Dogs, Chicken Nuggets, and Burritos.” Then, at a televised press conference, the Sherriff will proclaim, “The city is a safer place today thanks to the efforts of the brave men and women of the Los Angeles Police Department.”
Time to go now. I am working on my plan to earn a living by smuggling trans fat cooking oil into New York City.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Terms that Drive Me Nuts (Part 3) - Undocumented Immigrants
In a more recent effort of cultural pandering, Americans are no longer permitted to use the term “Illegal Alien” without being accused of insensitivity. Instead, we must use the term “Undocumented Immigrant.” Puke! I saw a sign recently that read “calling an ‘Illegal Alien’ an ‘Undocumented Immigrant’ is like calling a ‘Drug Dealer’ an ‘Unlicensed Pharmacist.’” Homerun!
What is so offensive about the term “Illegal Alien” anyway? Webster’s Dictionary defines the word “Illegal” as “Not according to or authorized by law.” Webster’s also defines “Alien” as “a person of another family, race, or nation: a foreign-born resident who has not been naturalized and is still a subject or citizen of a foreign country.” What on earth is so offensive about any of these words or definitions? Could it be because they are truthful and accurate? Who comes up with these pansy terms that are clearly intended to shroud the truth? In this case, I am willing to bet it was none other than an Illegal Alien! The earliest reference I can find to this pathetic display of cultural pandering goes back to March of 2006 when The National Association of Hispanic Journalists called on all Journalists to stop using this term. http://www.nahj.org/nahjnews/articles/2006/March/immigrationcoverage.shtml
Of course, the liberal media fell in line.
In keeping with this recent American tradition, I have decided that I no longer will tolerate being referred to as “overweight” or “obese.” That’s right. For now on, anyone meeting this description must be referred to as “Horizontally Challenged.” That’s it folks. The die has been cast. The use of any other term will be considered insensitive to my people (and there is a LOT of us).
Now go forth and pander.
What is so offensive about the term “Illegal Alien” anyway? Webster’s Dictionary defines the word “Illegal” as “Not according to or authorized by law.” Webster’s also defines “Alien” as “a person of another family, race, or nation: a foreign-born resident who has not been naturalized and is still a subject or citizen of a foreign country.” What on earth is so offensive about any of these words or definitions? Could it be because they are truthful and accurate? Who comes up with these pansy terms that are clearly intended to shroud the truth? In this case, I am willing to bet it was none other than an Illegal Alien! The earliest reference I can find to this pathetic display of cultural pandering goes back to March of 2006 when The National Association of Hispanic Journalists called on all Journalists to stop using this term. http://www.nahj.org/nahjnews/articles/2006/March/immigrationcoverage.shtml
Of course, the liberal media fell in line.
In keeping with this recent American tradition, I have decided that I no longer will tolerate being referred to as “overweight” or “obese.” That’s right. For now on, anyone meeting this description must be referred to as “Horizontally Challenged.” That’s it folks. The die has been cast. The use of any other term will be considered insensitive to my people (and there is a LOT of us).
Now go forth and pander.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
".....Comes Easy......Spends Easy"
Withholding
Required prerequisite reading – The Federal Government and Taxes – posted on June 11, 2008 on this blog.
This just may be the greatest stroke of evil genius the Federal Government has ever enacted. In the early years of the federal income tax, taxpayers received a bill at the end of the year and wrote a check. As a result, they quickly came to hate taxes far more than the average American does today. Why, you ask? Ahhhh….a wise person once said, “ignorance is bliss.” Here is a quiz. Quick, how much money did you pay in federal income tax last year? On the outside chance that you knew the answer, you are probably self employed, retired, or just some tax hating nut job like myself. In other words, if you know exactly how much you paid in federal income tax last year, chances are you are not one of the tax paying American’s forced into the system of withholding. Most American’s are not aware that the practice of federal withholding was illegal from 1917-1942. That’s right, four years after the first permanent federal income tax was passed, American’s protested the notion of withholding. Apparently, in those days, representatives in Washington actually listened to the voices of our citizens and passed a law prohibiting withholding taxes from paychecks. When World War II came along and the government desperately needed funding for the effort, they saw a perfect opportunity to rally the country behind withholding and begin to get their hands on our money before we even saw it. The Government even launched a public relations campaign and courted Disney to use Donald Duck as a pitch man.
One of the significant contributors to the technical aspect of the withholding structure was Economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006). Considered by most to be the single most important contributor to Monetary Theory in the post-Keynesian era, Milton later expressed regret over his involvement in developing a system of federal income tax withholding. In a 1995 interview, Mr. Friedman said, “I played a significant role, no question about it, in introducing withholding. I think it’s a great mistake for peacetime, but in 1941-43, all of us were concentrating on the war. I have no apologies for it, but I really wish we hadn’t found it necessary and I wish there were some way of abolishing withholding now.” In the same interview, Milton also described how one of the major opponents to the idea of withholding was none other than the IRS!
Withholding has become so ingrained in generations of Americans that most of us prefer withholding the exact tax amount of our tax liability over the course of a year. Of course, it is guesswork to hit the sweet spot, but many strive for it. Why? For some, it just makes it easier to stomach. For others, they just lack the basic discipline to set money aside and pay the balance at the end of the year. Leave it to the government to come up with a way to help us discipline ourselves. The same basic principle applies for contributing to a 401k. For those of you who contribute to a 401(k), how much money did you contribute last year? Now, don’t sit there and do the math on the percent that you know you contributed multiplied by your gross earnings! Chances are you simply do not remember the dollar amount you contributed. Out of sight…out of mind. That is just the way the government likes it for your income tax too. By the way, the federal government knows that if the tax code were easy, you could effortlessly determine the dollars you paid last year by running the same percentage calculation method you probably used to determine how much you contributed to your 401(k). Again, the government likes it complicated so the average American does not know what they pay. If you own a home with a mortgage, how much did you pay in property taxes and home owners insurance last year? If you do not escrow, then you know the answer! If you escrow, then I am willing to bet that you need to really sit and think to come up with the answer. Something about writing that fat check at the end of the year really sticks in the ole noggin.
Unless you are one of those evil rich people the liberals despise so much, you received a stimulus check recently. How did it feel to get your own money returned to you? Were you one of the many Americans who went out and purchased something (which is the point to a “stimulus” check)? I overheard a couple of average income earning guys talking about the mid sized flat screen T.V. they were going to purchase with their stimulus check. I couldn’t help but wonder if they would have purchased a flat screen had the government not originally garnished their wages and simply let them keep the money in the first place. Probably not (of course, this does not apply if you are one of the “working poor” in the country who paid virtually no income taxes to begin with after receiving a “refund”). It is amazing how the human mind works when it comes to finding your own money in the pocket of an old pair of pants. The federal government likes it this way.
It is no wonder the federal government is out of control spending our money. Sixty five years ago, we allowed them to create a way which makes it pathetically easy to take our wages before we even get our hands on it.
My grandfather had a saying about money; …”[if it] comes easy…..[it] spends easy.”
Required prerequisite reading – The Federal Government and Taxes – posted on June 11, 2008 on this blog.
This just may be the greatest stroke of evil genius the Federal Government has ever enacted. In the early years of the federal income tax, taxpayers received a bill at the end of the year and wrote a check. As a result, they quickly came to hate taxes far more than the average American does today. Why, you ask? Ahhhh….a wise person once said, “ignorance is bliss.” Here is a quiz. Quick, how much money did you pay in federal income tax last year? On the outside chance that you knew the answer, you are probably self employed, retired, or just some tax hating nut job like myself. In other words, if you know exactly how much you paid in federal income tax last year, chances are you are not one of the tax paying American’s forced into the system of withholding. Most American’s are not aware that the practice of federal withholding was illegal from 1917-1942. That’s right, four years after the first permanent federal income tax was passed, American’s protested the notion of withholding. Apparently, in those days, representatives in Washington actually listened to the voices of our citizens and passed a law prohibiting withholding taxes from paychecks. When World War II came along and the government desperately needed funding for the effort, they saw a perfect opportunity to rally the country behind withholding and begin to get their hands on our money before we even saw it. The Government even launched a public relations campaign and courted Disney to use Donald Duck as a pitch man.
One of the significant contributors to the technical aspect of the withholding structure was Economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006). Considered by most to be the single most important contributor to Monetary Theory in the post-Keynesian era, Milton later expressed regret over his involvement in developing a system of federal income tax withholding. In a 1995 interview, Mr. Friedman said, “I played a significant role, no question about it, in introducing withholding. I think it’s a great mistake for peacetime, but in 1941-43, all of us were concentrating on the war. I have no apologies for it, but I really wish we hadn’t found it necessary and I wish there were some way of abolishing withholding now.” In the same interview, Milton also described how one of the major opponents to the idea of withholding was none other than the IRS!
Withholding has become so ingrained in generations of Americans that most of us prefer withholding the exact tax amount of our tax liability over the course of a year. Of course, it is guesswork to hit the sweet spot, but many strive for it. Why? For some, it just makes it easier to stomach. For others, they just lack the basic discipline to set money aside and pay the balance at the end of the year. Leave it to the government to come up with a way to help us discipline ourselves. The same basic principle applies for contributing to a 401k. For those of you who contribute to a 401(k), how much money did you contribute last year? Now, don’t sit there and do the math on the percent that you know you contributed multiplied by your gross earnings! Chances are you simply do not remember the dollar amount you contributed. Out of sight…out of mind. That is just the way the government likes it for your income tax too. By the way, the federal government knows that if the tax code were easy, you could effortlessly determine the dollars you paid last year by running the same percentage calculation method you probably used to determine how much you contributed to your 401(k). Again, the government likes it complicated so the average American does not know what they pay. If you own a home with a mortgage, how much did you pay in property taxes and home owners insurance last year? If you do not escrow, then you know the answer! If you escrow, then I am willing to bet that you need to really sit and think to come up with the answer. Something about writing that fat check at the end of the year really sticks in the ole noggin.
Unless you are one of those evil rich people the liberals despise so much, you received a stimulus check recently. How did it feel to get your own money returned to you? Were you one of the many Americans who went out and purchased something (which is the point to a “stimulus” check)? I overheard a couple of average income earning guys talking about the mid sized flat screen T.V. they were going to purchase with their stimulus check. I couldn’t help but wonder if they would have purchased a flat screen had the government not originally garnished their wages and simply let them keep the money in the first place. Probably not (of course, this does not apply if you are one of the “working poor” in the country who paid virtually no income taxes to begin with after receiving a “refund”). It is amazing how the human mind works when it comes to finding your own money in the pocket of an old pair of pants. The federal government likes it this way.
It is no wonder the federal government is out of control spending our money. Sixty five years ago, we allowed them to create a way which makes it pathetically easy to take our wages before we even get our hands on it.
My grandfather had a saying about money; …”[if it] comes easy…..[it] spends easy.”
Thursday, July 24, 2008
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"
Although found nowhere in the national archives or known writings of Benjamin Franklin, it is widely accepted that he once said “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
According to the most recent data from the Congressional Budget Office, the bottom 50% of all income earners pay just 3.4% of the taxes collected! Conversely, the top 20% of income earners pay a whopping 85% of the taxes collected. In other words, 80% of income earners contribute a miserable 15% of the taxes collected! When you consider that this lower income bracket is totally dominated by politicians that overwhelmingly favor wealth redistribution, Americans are now able to “vote themselves money.” One is left to wonder if we have already begun to “herald the end of the republic.”
Let’s not forget plank number two in Karl Marx’s ten planks toward communism in his Communist Manifesto, which is “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” Years ago, I came across a great analogy to our system of taxes. The story has been printed and e-mailed many times in different formats, but the basic concept remains unchanged. Although the origins of the story are unknown, everyone agrees that the good ole federal government clearly provided the inspiration.
Here it is:
Every evening, the same 10 friends eat dinner together, family style, at the same restaurant. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They always pay it the way we pay taxes:
• The first four are poor and pay nothing.
• The fifth pays $1.
• The sixth pays $3.
• The seventh, $7
• The eighth, $12.
• The ninth, $18.
• The 10th, (the most well-to-do) pays $59.
One night the restaurant owner announces that because they're such good customers, he's dropping their group dinner bill to $80. Let's call that a tax cut. They want to continue paying their bill as we pay taxes. So the four poorest men still eat free. But if the other six split the $20 tax cut evenly, each would save $3.33. That means the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat. The restaurant owner works out a plan: The fifth man eats free; the sixth pays $2; the seventh, $5; the eighth, $9; the ninth, $12; and the 10th guy pays $52. All six are better off than before, and the four poor guys still eat for nothing. The trouble starts when they leave the restaurant and begin to compare what they reaped from the $20 cut. "I only got a dollar of it," says the sixth man, "but he (pointing at No. 10) got $7." The fifth guy, who also saved a dollar by getting his meal free, agrees that it's not fair for the richest to get seven times the savings as he. No. 7, grousing that the wealthy get all the breaks, points out that he only got two bucks. "Wait a minute," the first four poor guys yell in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men jump the 10th and administer a severe beating. The next night he doesn't come for dinner. They shrug it off and eat without him. The customary $80 bill comes. Surprise! They're $52 short.
Yes, those who pay the most taxes get the most back from tax reductions. But tax them too much — punish them for the wealth they may have — and they just might stop bringing their money to the table.
I guess this is why American businesses have about $10 trillion in offshore deposits. You can’t blame them. After all, they got tired of getting beat up to forfeit their “fair share.”
According to the most recent data from the Congressional Budget Office, the bottom 50% of all income earners pay just 3.4% of the taxes collected! Conversely, the top 20% of income earners pay a whopping 85% of the taxes collected. In other words, 80% of income earners contribute a miserable 15% of the taxes collected! When you consider that this lower income bracket is totally dominated by politicians that overwhelmingly favor wealth redistribution, Americans are now able to “vote themselves money.” One is left to wonder if we have already begun to “herald the end of the republic.”
Let’s not forget plank number two in Karl Marx’s ten planks toward communism in his Communist Manifesto, which is “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” Years ago, I came across a great analogy to our system of taxes. The story has been printed and e-mailed many times in different formats, but the basic concept remains unchanged. Although the origins of the story are unknown, everyone agrees that the good ole federal government clearly provided the inspiration.
Here it is:
Every evening, the same 10 friends eat dinner together, family style, at the same restaurant. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They always pay it the way we pay taxes:
• The first four are poor and pay nothing.
• The fifth pays $1.
• The sixth pays $3.
• The seventh, $7
• The eighth, $12.
• The ninth, $18.
• The 10th, (the most well-to-do) pays $59.
One night the restaurant owner announces that because they're such good customers, he's dropping their group dinner bill to $80. Let's call that a tax cut. They want to continue paying their bill as we pay taxes. So the four poorest men still eat free. But if the other six split the $20 tax cut evenly, each would save $3.33. That means the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat. The restaurant owner works out a plan: The fifth man eats free; the sixth pays $2; the seventh, $5; the eighth, $9; the ninth, $12; and the 10th guy pays $52. All six are better off than before, and the four poor guys still eat for nothing. The trouble starts when they leave the restaurant and begin to compare what they reaped from the $20 cut. "I only got a dollar of it," says the sixth man, "but he (pointing at No. 10) got $7." The fifth guy, who also saved a dollar by getting his meal free, agrees that it's not fair for the richest to get seven times the savings as he. No. 7, grousing that the wealthy get all the breaks, points out that he only got two bucks. "Wait a minute," the first four poor guys yell in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men jump the 10th and administer a severe beating. The next night he doesn't come for dinner. They shrug it off and eat without him. The customary $80 bill comes. Surprise! They're $52 short.
Yes, those who pay the most taxes get the most back from tax reductions. But tax them too much — punish them for the wealth they may have — and they just might stop bringing their money to the table.
I guess this is why American businesses have about $10 trillion in offshore deposits. You can’t blame them. After all, they got tired of getting beat up to forfeit their “fair share.”
Friday, July 18, 2008
Terms that Drive Me Nuts! (Part 2)
Climate Change – This term is a beautiful reinvention from the hip and cool term “Global Warming.” As it turns out, the meathead environmental nut jobs began having a hard time a few years ago when evidence from all sides proved the earth had actually cooled slightly in recent years. Never mind that humans are not causing a darn lick of any of it (hot or cold). This presented quite a dilemma for this anti-capitalistic scam of a movement called “global warming.” Accordingly, the term “climate change” was born. If you think about it, this is pretty smart on their part. They can never be wrong. Of course the climate is going to change! And yet, millions of Americans are drinking the climate change juice like it was Budweiser at a NASCAR race. The only fact here is that the earth is about 1 degree warmer than it was 100 years ago. That is it….no more facts beyond that other than a ridiculous documentary from Al Gore that is riddled with proven lies, falsehoods, and flat out fabrications. The rest is anecdotal at best. Yes, I know….so called “scientists” have theorized it is being caused by man, but there are many of those scientists that will openly admit they have no proof. Don’t forget, so called “scientists” are also strapping fart meters to the backs of cattle to figure out the level of greenhouse gasses they are pooting (not putting) into the atmosphere. You have GOT to be kidding me! Seriously! Check it out here.
I guess man caused that little thing called the Ice Age also right? Hey, maybe that theory about a meteor causing the Ice Age is wrong after all. It was probably caused by dinosaur farts! Although virtually ignored by the liberal media, there are scores of other scientists that will tell you that it is absolutely NOT being caused by man, but rather just one of many cycles that have occurred naturally in the earth for gazillions of years. In fact, there are over 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition debunking the theory of man made global warming. Click here for the list. Of course, you will not hear anyone in Hollywood or the liberal media talking about this list unless it is to try and discredit it (which is a badge of honor in my book).
Dr. William Grey is a well known tropical meteorological research expert for over 40 years who has dared to speak the truth about the global warning hoax as evidenced in this recent article (click here for the article). Granted, the entire Atlantic and Caribbean coastal communities hang on his every word just prior to hurricane season each year, but the liberal media does back flips to bury him when he speaks out against the global warming hoax. This esteemed and decorated scientist can predict within 50 miles where a hurricane is going to make landfall 72 hours before it hits, but he doesn’t know a thing about global warming?
Another key figure in calling out the global warming hoax is the founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman. Follow this link for a summary of his comments to the San Diego Chamber of Commerce late last year. This is a very good summary of his views, which are based upon FACTS.
Follow this link for a very thorough and in depth presentation of John Coleman’s educated and factual views, which are untouched by the liberal media.
Does anyone remember that load of bunk in the 80’s about the ozone layer deteriorating and we were all going to die? When was the last time you heard about the ozone layer? I guess since the government outlawed Freon and we all started using pump hairspray that big hole in the ozone built itself back up right? Give me a break. Don’t miss the fact that banning aerosol hairspray single handedly ushered in the death of 80’s big hair bands. It just isn’t the same watching a heavy metal band rock the house and head banging with a bald cranium. Oh well, just like the ozone hoax went away and came back reincarnated as global warming, maybe we can do the same with big hair. My beautiful wife kept her big hoop earrings just in case.
Leave it to me to look for the good in anything.
I guess man caused that little thing called the Ice Age also right? Hey, maybe that theory about a meteor causing the Ice Age is wrong after all. It was probably caused by dinosaur farts! Although virtually ignored by the liberal media, there are scores of other scientists that will tell you that it is absolutely NOT being caused by man, but rather just one of many cycles that have occurred naturally in the earth for gazillions of years. In fact, there are over 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition debunking the theory of man made global warming. Click here for the list. Of course, you will not hear anyone in Hollywood or the liberal media talking about this list unless it is to try and discredit it (which is a badge of honor in my book).
Dr. William Grey is a well known tropical meteorological research expert for over 40 years who has dared to speak the truth about the global warning hoax as evidenced in this recent article (click here for the article). Granted, the entire Atlantic and Caribbean coastal communities hang on his every word just prior to hurricane season each year, but the liberal media does back flips to bury him when he speaks out against the global warming hoax. This esteemed and decorated scientist can predict within 50 miles where a hurricane is going to make landfall 72 hours before it hits, but he doesn’t know a thing about global warming?
Another key figure in calling out the global warming hoax is the founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman. Follow this link for a summary of his comments to the San Diego Chamber of Commerce late last year. This is a very good summary of his views, which are based upon FACTS.
Follow this link for a very thorough and in depth presentation of John Coleman’s educated and factual views, which are untouched by the liberal media.
Does anyone remember that load of bunk in the 80’s about the ozone layer deteriorating and we were all going to die? When was the last time you heard about the ozone layer? I guess since the government outlawed Freon and we all started using pump hairspray that big hole in the ozone built itself back up right? Give me a break. Don’t miss the fact that banning aerosol hairspray single handedly ushered in the death of 80’s big hair bands. It just isn’t the same watching a heavy metal band rock the house and head banging with a bald cranium. Oh well, just like the ozone hoax went away and came back reincarnated as global warming, maybe we can do the same with big hair. My beautiful wife kept her big hoop earrings just in case.
Leave it to me to look for the good in anything.
Friday, July 11, 2008
This Story is Disturbing on soooo Many Different Levels
Oh yeah, you are going to love this one. This is a 7- year old kid that swiped his grandmother’s keys off the counter, stole her SUV, and went for a ride with a buddy. In the process, he hit several cars and wrecked the SUV before being apprehended by the Police. Yeah, he was pretty scared alright. You are just going to love the answer he gave when asked about his motive in stealing the car. I will give you 3 guesses. Oh come on…it will be fun.a) “I learned about the combustion engine in school and wanted to see how it compared to the hybrid.”
b) “I noticed my Dad left his lunch on the counter when he left for work and I just wanted to take it to him.”
c) “I just wanted to do hood rat things with my friend.”
Click this link for the answer along with the other disturbing observations to this story. When you are done watching the video, read on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jhs8hHvolM0
Did you get the answer to my quiz? Dang you’re good!
So how many disturbing things hit you while watching the video? He was mad at his Mother so he swiped an SUV? I don’t blame him for being mad at his Mother. She gave custody of her son to her Mother who is too scared to spank a 7-year old for stealing her SUV and wrecking four other vehicles. Of course, Grandma gets extra stupid points for putting those sweet rims on a Dodge Durango. Now, I would really like to think that Mom forfeited custody as a practical matter while away at Harvard Law School, but the interview just doesn’t cover it. Regardless, the Cop goes on to speak to the boy in a similar tone as my 8 year old Daughter’s Sunday school teacher. Of course, we all know the Cop would have been fired if he had yelled at him. When the sissy speaking Cop informed him that his “Grandmother was going to have to pay for those cars,” Latarian responded, “Can my Mom help out?” In all seriousness, that is the heartbreaker. Out of everything in this story, however, my favorite part is the reporter wrapping up at the end. He explained that although Latarian is being charged, there is no juvenile facility that can accommodate a 7-year old. Okay, that part I understand, however, the reporter goes on to state, “the Police say they want to get him into the system so they can get him some type of help.” Perfect! That will straighten this kid out. The Government! How pathetic of a future does this poor kid have? His Mom is out of the picture, his Grandma is an idiot, and the Government is going to step in and “get him some help.”
UPDATE****UPDATE****UPDATE
You are probably not going to believe this, but after I wrote the comments above, I decided to do some Google searches on cute little Latarian to see if there may be some updates (the SUV incident occurred a few months ago). You know, since the Government was going to give him some help with his problems, I figured I would find him on the school website after receiving high honors for his project on global warming, gun control, oil company profits, or the need for a national heath care system. Unfortunately, that is not the case. A few weeks later, poor little misunderstood Latarian beat up his Grandma in the local Wal-Mart. Why? Because she wouldn’t buy him chicken wings! Okay, I know his Grandma is stupid, but the chicken wings at Wal-Mart are not all that great so I am pretty sure she didn’t deserve to get beat up by a 7-year old. Here is the news link: http://www.wpbf.com/news/16255951/detail.html?rss=wpb&psp=news
No conclusions here, other than disbelief and sadness. If we were to do a “Where Are They Now” T.V. special 20 years from now on children who made the news, what do you think the story on Latarian will look like? Do you think he will still be doing “hood rat things with his friend?”
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Terms that Drive Me Nuts! (Part I)
Like most people, there are a handful of popular terms, words, and phrases that strike me as odd. Of course, once that identification process takes place, I have to fight to not roll my eyes every time I hear or read them. This will be the first in a series until I get tired of writing about them.
Earned Income – What other kind of income is there? Do you have any income that you do not “earn?” I sure as heck don’t. Just so you know, if you risk your money and invest in a stock that actually increases in value and then you sell it for a profit, you did not “earn” anything according to the government. In this scenario, you actually “gained” something they like to call “capital,” which is a fancy word for money. Let’s get this straight: if you operate heavy equipment or go to the office and work for “the man,” it is actually income that is “earned,” but if you risk your money to invest in a stock and actually earn a profit, it is not to be considered as “earned.” Let’s face it, the reason the IRS distinguishes between the two is so the political influence of the most recent regime can tinker with one or the other (earned vs. capital gain). Of course, they do this in order to penalize or reward the have’s or the have not’s. The government also takes great pride in deciding if you actually “earned” your income, or if you “gained” it from evil, capitalistic means.
If we can implement the FairTax (H.R. 25), none of this matters (I am still not ready to rant about The FairTax, but take some initiative and read up on it yourself, will ya? I recommend you start with the book and also the actual Bill itself, which you can find online. It is H.R. 25, also called “The Fair Tax Act”).
Earned Income – What other kind of income is there? Do you have any income that you do not “earn?” I sure as heck don’t. Just so you know, if you risk your money and invest in a stock that actually increases in value and then you sell it for a profit, you did not “earn” anything according to the government. In this scenario, you actually “gained” something they like to call “capital,” which is a fancy word for money. Let’s get this straight: if you operate heavy equipment or go to the office and work for “the man,” it is actually income that is “earned,” but if you risk your money to invest in a stock and actually earn a profit, it is not to be considered as “earned.” Let’s face it, the reason the IRS distinguishes between the two is so the political influence of the most recent regime can tinker with one or the other (earned vs. capital gain). Of course, they do this in order to penalize or reward the have’s or the have not’s. The government also takes great pride in deciding if you actually “earned” your income, or if you “gained” it from evil, capitalistic means.
If we can implement the FairTax (H.R. 25), none of this matters (I am still not ready to rant about The FairTax, but take some initiative and read up on it yourself, will ya? I recommend you start with the book and also the actual Bill itself, which you can find online. It is H.R. 25, also called “The Fair Tax Act”).
Friday, June 27, 2008
The Second Amendment Survives.....BARELY!
The U.S. Supreme Court has rightfully ruled that the 32 year old ban on handguns in Washington D.C. is unconstitutional. Do you know why this is the very first time in the history of this great nation that the U.S. Supreme Court has officially interpreted the Second Amendment? The answer is in the wording of the Amendment itself. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What is to interpret here? Nothing….zilch….nada!!! Opponents of the Second Amendment have argued recently that the reference to a “well regulated Militia” is evidence that the intended purpose was for the military and not citizens to keep and bear arms. What are these people smoking? Apparently, Marion Barry passed that crack pipe around to more people in Washington D.C. than just the prostitute. How much more specific could these words have been authored? Do these people know anything about the history of this nation? The U.S. Constitution served as a blueprint of our government and was ratified four years prior to the Bill of Rights, but was sorely lacking in granting rights to the citizens of the 13 states. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was a driving force in the Bill of Rights, which was originally drafted by James Madison. When the Constitution was being crafted in 1787, Thomas Jefferson said, “[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.” The first ten amendments to the constitution were ratified in 1791 and form what was called “The Bill of Rights.” Every one of these amendments preserves rights to people, not the government!
Okay, so the argument against gun ownership is that a document which grants and preserves rights to citizens contains one single clause that for some reason pertains to the military? Ridiculous! The word “militia” is defined in Webster’s as “any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers.” Here is a hint; “professional soldiers” are people who work for the government and have guns. “Citizens” are people who do not work for the government and have guns. Every single word of the Bill of Rights is intended to grant rights to which “…the people are entitled to against every government on earth” (in the words of Thomas Jefferson). Not a single word of the Bill of Rights speaks to the rights of government; only the people.
The scary reality is that we have been placed in the position to rise up in violence and defend ourselves from an oppressive government should that time ever come. It is estimated that 40 million Americans own firearms. That’s one heck of an army folks. Even more insight into this concept is further revealed in The Declaration of Independence which states, “…it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” These people weren’t talking about an open election to decide if we want a Democrat or a Republican. This is part of The Declaration of Independence and touched off the violent, bloody, and costly war for American Independence. This is the stuff no one wants to think about, but it is reality. Additionally, some guy like me talking about it scares most people. Don’t worry folks, I have no plans to overthrow the government, nor am I some extreme right wing nut job that is building a bunker or on my way to rent the biggest Ryder Truck I can find.
Other opponents of the Second Amendment will tell you that it is outdated. Okay, if that is the case, then I would contend that the First Amendment is also outdated. Free Speech was a great right when all we had were newspapers and soapboxes, but the internet should give us pause, right? I just don’t think that those smart fellas had any idea that someone could exercise free speech on the world wide web and instantly make their voice known to millions in just a few seconds. Same with T.V. and Radio (although the so called “Fairness Doctrine” is trying to kill talk radio – that is a whole different rant all together). It is equally as scary as the thought of protecting ourselves from tyranny with guns….a notion that created this nation. The simple fact is that basic freedoms and liberties never become outdated.
Here is a little exercise. Take a few minutes and read The Declaration of Independence. Think about the words, the context, and the people of the time. Think about the tyranny and the oppression they lived under. As you read it, you can almost place yourself in that time and feel the finality in the words. These people had enough and were ready to die for their cause. At the signing of the Declaration, with a British fleet already anchored in New York Harbor, Ben Franklin noted, "Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately." They knew the risk, but they would rather be dead than continue to live under the King’s rule. Now, go and read the Bill of Rights. Every single “right” listed in the ten Amendments ties back to reasons for a Declaration of Independence. You can almost pair them down and check them off as you read it.
Link for The Declaration of Independence: http://www.constitution.org/us_doi.htm
Link for the Bill of Rights: http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm
The REAL scary thing in all of this is that 4 Supreme Court Justices just upheld the infringement on the Second Amendment by the District of Columbia. These are justices that feel their job goes beyond interpreting the constitution. It is mind boggling to think we are just 1 Supreme Court Justice away from kissing our Second Amendment right bye-bye. Oh by the way, about that 32 year old ban on handguns in D.C.. It didn’t work anyway. During that time, Washington D.C. firmly established itself as the murder capital of the nation for several years. By contrast, virtually every single one of the 33 states which passed laws issuing concealed firearms permits to law-abiding citizens experienced a drop in crime.
Here is my favorite quote from the AP after the ruling. Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, whose strict “gun control” laws now face a challenge said, “Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?” What a bonehead. The only people that have guns in your society right now are the criminals. Now, the law-abiding citizens can legally own one too!!! Oh yeah, and how is that crime rate in Chicago under those strict gun laws Mayor Daley? Ummmhm. I thought so.
Okay, so the argument against gun ownership is that a document which grants and preserves rights to citizens contains one single clause that for some reason pertains to the military? Ridiculous! The word “militia” is defined in Webster’s as “any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers.” Here is a hint; “professional soldiers” are people who work for the government and have guns. “Citizens” are people who do not work for the government and have guns. Every single word of the Bill of Rights is intended to grant rights to which “…the people are entitled to against every government on earth” (in the words of Thomas Jefferson). Not a single word of the Bill of Rights speaks to the rights of government; only the people.
The scary reality is that we have been placed in the position to rise up in violence and defend ourselves from an oppressive government should that time ever come. It is estimated that 40 million Americans own firearms. That’s one heck of an army folks. Even more insight into this concept is further revealed in The Declaration of Independence which states, “…it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” These people weren’t talking about an open election to decide if we want a Democrat or a Republican. This is part of The Declaration of Independence and touched off the violent, bloody, and costly war for American Independence. This is the stuff no one wants to think about, but it is reality. Additionally, some guy like me talking about it scares most people. Don’t worry folks, I have no plans to overthrow the government, nor am I some extreme right wing nut job that is building a bunker or on my way to rent the biggest Ryder Truck I can find.
Other opponents of the Second Amendment will tell you that it is outdated. Okay, if that is the case, then I would contend that the First Amendment is also outdated. Free Speech was a great right when all we had were newspapers and soapboxes, but the internet should give us pause, right? I just don’t think that those smart fellas had any idea that someone could exercise free speech on the world wide web and instantly make their voice known to millions in just a few seconds. Same with T.V. and Radio (although the so called “Fairness Doctrine” is trying to kill talk radio – that is a whole different rant all together). It is equally as scary as the thought of protecting ourselves from tyranny with guns….a notion that created this nation. The simple fact is that basic freedoms and liberties never become outdated.
Here is a little exercise. Take a few minutes and read The Declaration of Independence. Think about the words, the context, and the people of the time. Think about the tyranny and the oppression they lived under. As you read it, you can almost place yourself in that time and feel the finality in the words. These people had enough and were ready to die for their cause. At the signing of the Declaration, with a British fleet already anchored in New York Harbor, Ben Franklin noted, "Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately." They knew the risk, but they would rather be dead than continue to live under the King’s rule. Now, go and read the Bill of Rights. Every single “right” listed in the ten Amendments ties back to reasons for a Declaration of Independence. You can almost pair them down and check them off as you read it.
Link for The Declaration of Independence: http://www.constitution.org/us_doi.htm
Link for the Bill of Rights: http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm
The REAL scary thing in all of this is that 4 Supreme Court Justices just upheld the infringement on the Second Amendment by the District of Columbia. These are justices that feel their job goes beyond interpreting the constitution. It is mind boggling to think we are just 1 Supreme Court Justice away from kissing our Second Amendment right bye-bye. Oh by the way, about that 32 year old ban on handguns in D.C.. It didn’t work anyway. During that time, Washington D.C. firmly established itself as the murder capital of the nation for several years. By contrast, virtually every single one of the 33 states which passed laws issuing concealed firearms permits to law-abiding citizens experienced a drop in crime.
Here is my favorite quote from the AP after the ruling. Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, whose strict “gun control” laws now face a challenge said, “Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?” What a bonehead. The only people that have guns in your society right now are the criminals. Now, the law-abiding citizens can legally own one too!!! Oh yeah, and how is that crime rate in Chicago under those strict gun laws Mayor Daley? Ummmhm. I thought so.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
You Probably Think I am Making this up, but.....
Oh boy, just when you think you have seen everything. There is a woman in Los Angeles who is suing Victoria’s Secret for selling a faulty thong. According to The Smoking Gun, 52 year old Macrida Patterson was attempting to wear the thong and a decorative piece came loose and struck her in the eye causing damage to her cornea. She also missed several days of work. Okay, how much stress do you have to put a thong under for something to fly off and darn near poke your eye out? Was she using it correctly? Let me say this, I saw a picture of this woman and she had better been putting on a plus sized thong or this one will get thrown out of court.
Wow! The imagination just runs wild on this one. I hope the executives at Victoria’s Secret do not settle this one out of court. I hope this one goes to trial just for the comedic value alone. Where is Jackie Chiles when you need him? If you don’t remember, Jackie Chiles made several appearances on Seinfeld over the years as the fast talking, ambulance chasing lawyer, who struck an amazing resemblance to Johnny Cochran. I can hear Jackie in court now…. "Ms. Patterson, would you consider yourself to be a….generously proportioned woman?” Then Jackie turns to the bench, “Your Honor, the defense requests for Ms. Patterson to try on the thong.” The courtroom erupts as the judge attempts to restore order. I am no expert on thongs, but I have done my share of squeezing my fat butt into last summer’s swimsuits and you have got to be creating some real stress to send projectiles flying through the air. I am willing to bet this woman was squeezing her butt into a thong two sizes too small. Don’t believe me? When was the last time you heard of this happening to a stripper? Think about it. Thousands and thousands of strippers every single day, seven days a week, 52 weeks out the of year, getting in and out of thongs all day long and not a single thong related injury from flying decorative pieces. You know why? Because there are no fat Strippers! Fat strippers either don’t get hired or they don’t make enough tips to survive.
Man, oh man. Get ready folks. It will be a year or two from now, but the thong buying experience will never be the same. Dressing rooms everywhere will have signs posted that you should only be trying on and purchasing garments of the appropriate size or physical harm could result (Of course, some of us bystanders have been complaining about the mental impact to us personally for years). The signs will come complete with idiot proof drawings of fat people right next to a thong marked “small” with a big red X through it. The actual thongs will come with a myriad of warning labels and little pictures of how to properly place a thong over your fat behind with your head safely turned in the opposite direction. Oh yeah, no one should be standing nearby either; all of it on the warning label.
Of course, all of this will be brought to you courtesy of the government, whose purpose is to protect us from those big, bad, thong manufacturing capitalists just waiting to poke out our eyes.
The defense rests.
Wow! The imagination just runs wild on this one. I hope the executives at Victoria’s Secret do not settle this one out of court. I hope this one goes to trial just for the comedic value alone. Where is Jackie Chiles when you need him? If you don’t remember, Jackie Chiles made several appearances on Seinfeld over the years as the fast talking, ambulance chasing lawyer, who struck an amazing resemblance to Johnny Cochran. I can hear Jackie in court now…. "Ms. Patterson, would you consider yourself to be a….generously proportioned woman?” Then Jackie turns to the bench, “Your Honor, the defense requests for Ms. Patterson to try on the thong.” The courtroom erupts as the judge attempts to restore order. I am no expert on thongs, but I have done my share of squeezing my fat butt into last summer’s swimsuits and you have got to be creating some real stress to send projectiles flying through the air. I am willing to bet this woman was squeezing her butt into a thong two sizes too small. Don’t believe me? When was the last time you heard of this happening to a stripper? Think about it. Thousands and thousands of strippers every single day, seven days a week, 52 weeks out the of year, getting in and out of thongs all day long and not a single thong related injury from flying decorative pieces. You know why? Because there are no fat Strippers! Fat strippers either don’t get hired or they don’t make enough tips to survive.
Man, oh man. Get ready folks. It will be a year or two from now, but the thong buying experience will never be the same. Dressing rooms everywhere will have signs posted that you should only be trying on and purchasing garments of the appropriate size or physical harm could result (Of course, some of us bystanders have been complaining about the mental impact to us personally for years). The signs will come complete with idiot proof drawings of fat people right next to a thong marked “small” with a big red X through it. The actual thongs will come with a myriad of warning labels and little pictures of how to properly place a thong over your fat behind with your head safely turned in the opposite direction. Oh yeah, no one should be standing nearby either; all of it on the warning label.
Of course, all of this will be brought to you courtesy of the government, whose purpose is to protect us from those big, bad, thong manufacturing capitalists just waiting to poke out our eyes.
The defense rests.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Here are some things that many Conservatives get their panties in a wad about, but I couldn’t care less! And you thought I only picked on Liberals.
Gay marriage – This one is all over the news right now because of California’s recent decision to legally acknowledge same sex marriages. Can someone explain how this impacts me as a heterosexual? The truth is that it does not impact me whatsoever. Accordingly, I don’t give a rip. Do not confuse my apathy for tolerance! It is not that I am tolerant; I just don’t give a rip!
Since virtually half of all marriages in the U.S. (between opposite genders until now) end in divorce, maybe we can give the homosexuals a crack at it and see if they can do better. The simple truth is that many conservatives just wish that homosexuals would just go back inside the closet where they belong. That just isn’t happening. The way I figure it, this accommodation should eliminate at least a handful of Gay parades every year. Man, I never could understand why there always has to be a parade involved. Of course, all of this could give a big lift to that rainbow colored wedding dress and tuxedo business I have been thinking about.
Drugs – Yes, drugs are bad news and have ruined people’s lives, but why is it the role of the government to protect people from their own stupidity? I wore my seatbelt long before it became a law, but why is the government involved? The state of Florida rightfully decided a few years ago that forcing a motorcyclist to wear a helmet was not the role of government. About a year and a half ago, I calmly searched for a pulse on some Harley dude that had just splattered his head on the pavement in a hit and run accident. He was not wearing a helmet and there is no doubt that had he been wearing one he would have been able to remember his own name when they did a special about him on the local news about a month later. Poor guy….had only the government protected him and forced him to wear a helmet. It is all the government's fault. Okay, all sarcasm aside (for a change), I really feel sorry for this guy, but I still don’t believe it is the role of the government to protect him or any other adult from making bad decisions that directly impact only themselves. I feel the same way about people putting drugs in their body. It is just a guess, but I am willing to guess that most drug related deaths are from gang related shootings protecting drug turfs that would otherwise not exist if drugs were legal. So how is that big war on drugs going anyway? Did we win? Just like prohibition made Al Capone and many other gangsters, the war on drugs is doing the same thing to a whole new, albeit more diverse, group of thugs.
Burning the American Flag – First of all, don’t question my patriotism. I love this country. When I was in college, the flag burning issue was in the media big time. I developed a friendship with a classmate who fought in Vietnam and was going back to college. He gave me a t-shirt with a picture of the American Flag on the front with a caption below that said, “Try burning this one.” Fortunately, no one ever tried and I wore that shirt a lot. Of course, I was much bigger in the chest in those days, but there is always someone with more game. The simple truth is that Americans didn’t die for a flag. They died for the freedom that is symbolized by the flag. In fact, they died for someone else’s right to burn the flag. Don’t get me wrong. I think flag burners are punks, pinheads, and losers, which is why many conservatives want to outlaw flag burning. If I were a police officer and close by as a flag burner got beat to a bloody pulp, it would take me a few minutes to radio for backup and then I just might not be able to catch that assailant as he fled. “That guy sure was fast Sergeant. I tried my best…” as they are loading the flag burner in the ambulance. Gee – I sure hope he has insurance or the government will have to step up and care for this poor guy. Again, most conservatives would be the first in line to support an anti flag burning law. You can’t have it both ways folks. Never mind the technical definition of exactly what is defined as an American flag. What about those sexy little flag outfits those cute babes wear? It that a “flag?” I am sure the government would do a very good job at defining exactly what a flag is or isn’t. Take it easy folks, the constitution applies to everyone (even terrorists according to the U.S. Supreme Court – don’t get me going on that one).
Since virtually half of all marriages in the U.S. (between opposite genders until now) end in divorce, maybe we can give the homosexuals a crack at it and see if they can do better. The simple truth is that many conservatives just wish that homosexuals would just go back inside the closet where they belong. That just isn’t happening. The way I figure it, this accommodation should eliminate at least a handful of Gay parades every year. Man, I never could understand why there always has to be a parade involved. Of course, all of this could give a big lift to that rainbow colored wedding dress and tuxedo business I have been thinking about.
Drugs – Yes, drugs are bad news and have ruined people’s lives, but why is it the role of the government to protect people from their own stupidity? I wore my seatbelt long before it became a law, but why is the government involved? The state of Florida rightfully decided a few years ago that forcing a motorcyclist to wear a helmet was not the role of government. About a year and a half ago, I calmly searched for a pulse on some Harley dude that had just splattered his head on the pavement in a hit and run accident. He was not wearing a helmet and there is no doubt that had he been wearing one he would have been able to remember his own name when they did a special about him on the local news about a month later. Poor guy….had only the government protected him and forced him to wear a helmet. It is all the government's fault. Okay, all sarcasm aside (for a change), I really feel sorry for this guy, but I still don’t believe it is the role of the government to protect him or any other adult from making bad decisions that directly impact only themselves. I feel the same way about people putting drugs in their body. It is just a guess, but I am willing to guess that most drug related deaths are from gang related shootings protecting drug turfs that would otherwise not exist if drugs were legal. So how is that big war on drugs going anyway? Did we win? Just like prohibition made Al Capone and many other gangsters, the war on drugs is doing the same thing to a whole new, albeit more diverse, group of thugs.
Burning the American Flag – First of all, don’t question my patriotism. I love this country. When I was in college, the flag burning issue was in the media big time. I developed a friendship with a classmate who fought in Vietnam and was going back to college. He gave me a t-shirt with a picture of the American Flag on the front with a caption below that said, “Try burning this one.” Fortunately, no one ever tried and I wore that shirt a lot. Of course, I was much bigger in the chest in those days, but there is always someone with more game. The simple truth is that Americans didn’t die for a flag. They died for the freedom that is symbolized by the flag. In fact, they died for someone else’s right to burn the flag. Don’t get me wrong. I think flag burners are punks, pinheads, and losers, which is why many conservatives want to outlaw flag burning. If I were a police officer and close by as a flag burner got beat to a bloody pulp, it would take me a few minutes to radio for backup and then I just might not be able to catch that assailant as he fled. “That guy sure was fast Sergeant. I tried my best…” as they are loading the flag burner in the ambulance. Gee – I sure hope he has insurance or the government will have to step up and care for this poor guy. Again, most conservatives would be the first in line to support an anti flag burning law. You can’t have it both ways folks. Never mind the technical definition of exactly what is defined as an American flag. What about those sexy little flag outfits those cute babes wear? It that a “flag?” I am sure the government would do a very good job at defining exactly what a flag is or isn’t. Take it easy folks, the constitution applies to everyone (even terrorists according to the U.S. Supreme Court – don’t get me going on that one).
Friday, June 13, 2008
Don't Eat the Fish....and they want to run our healthcare?
It was reported earlier this week that the Senate Dining Room is the subject of criticism. For years, it has apparently been widely accepted in Washington D.C. that the food in the Senate Dining Room really sucks. In fact, many Senate staff members usually venture over to the House side to buy their meals. So what, you say? Some restaurants are better than others, right? You better believe it. Here is the best part. The Senate Dining Room is operated by the Government and has lost about $18 million since 1993. The restaurants on the House side, where staffers prefer to eat, are all privatized! Okay, let’s summarize: Government operated - millions of tax dollars lost, while producing an inferior product. Privatized operation - producing a superior product and earning a profit to boot. Don’t forget, this is the exact same government that wants to seize control of our healthcare by garnishing more of our wages and force us to go visit the Physician that is assigned to us (That was part of Hillary’s failed plan when her husband placed her in charge of national healthcare). They can’t even run a cafeteria for crying out loud!
Don’t worry; it has not eluded me that we are spending tax dollars to feed our elected officials and their staff members, while the rest of the working world brings a brown bag or chokes down a fat burger from across the street. That’s too easy of a target to write about and it is really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to wasting our tax dollars. I should also point out that Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California has been most vocal on this issue. It is painful for me to admit when a liberal says something that is right. Fortunately, it rarely happens so I have time to recover before the next one comes along.
Don’t worry; it has not eluded me that we are spending tax dollars to feed our elected officials and their staff members, while the rest of the working world brings a brown bag or chokes down a fat burger from across the street. That’s too easy of a target to write about and it is really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to wasting our tax dollars. I should also point out that Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California has been most vocal on this issue. It is painful for me to admit when a liberal says something that is right. Fortunately, it rarely happens so I have time to recover before the next one comes along.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
The Federal Government and Taxes
Ask your neighbor or coworker when the first Federal Income Tax was enacted. Was it in the Constitution when those really smart people crafted a document that would stymie all of the tyranny and oppression they experienced under the rule of the old country? Also ask them how much they paid in taxes last year. They will most likely not even consider Federal withholding, but instead say something like, “heck, I got a refund.” Most people have no clue how much they pay in Federal Income Taxes. For the first 90 or so years our Republic levied zero income taxes upon our citizens. The Federal Government operated solely from taxes levied on a small number of consumer items. They added luxury goods to the mix to help pay for the War of 1812. It seems as though Americans have always been willing to pay more money to defeat an even bigger threat than taxes. After the War of 1812, the Federal Government actually ended the taxation of these domestically sold consumer goods and only placed taxes on imports through tariffs. I will point out that the Republic still did not have a Federal Income Tax after the war of 1812. I will also point out that the role of the Federal Government in those days was nothing even closely resembling what it has become today. The taxes collected were to defend the borders. There was no system of wealth redistribution like we have today so expenditures were few. In short, the Federal Government did not require an enormous amount of money to operate - largely in part because they stuck to their original and constitutional purpose.
Then in 1861, the Union states needed financing to keep the Southern states from secession. Congress levied a 3 percent tax on everyone earning between $600 and $10,000 a year. Any earnings over $10,000 would be taxed at a higher rate of 5 percent. It is noteworthy to mention this was also progressive. I bet Karl Marx was doing back flips by the mere thought that someone way over here was subscribing to his Communist Manifesto that he wrote just 13 years prior. Since a progressive income tax is number 2 on his “10 Planks” toward Communism, Karl Marx must have been worried that we skipped number one. Don’t worry Karl, we have made significant headway on that through eminent domain, zoning, and radical environmentalism, just to name a few.
With the end of the war in 1865, the Union states continued to levy taxes on income for another 7 years. This ended in 1872 with mounting pressure from the people. Can you believe it? The Federal Government actually killed the income tax! Well, to be accurate, they really let it expire. You see, all of these income taxes passed by Congress contained expiration dates. They wised up later and fixed it to where we could never have one expire again. In fact, nowadays Congress only seems to have expiration dates on tax DECREASES. Anyway, the Feds went back to taxing a handful of consumer goods for the next 20 years until an economic downturn in 1893 gave Congress an excuse to implement another income tax to straighten everything out (we would probably call it a “recession” today). It seems as though war is not the only excuse that citizens will buy to accept an income tax. In 1894, the act was passed and levied a 2 percent tax on anyone earning more than $4,000 a year. Oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention that they added a nice little clause whereby all government officials were exempt from paying the tax. That’s right. And you thought that the politicians of today have brass.
Not too long after, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal income tax was unconstitutional. How many people in this country today do you think realize the very first peacetime federal income tax was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S Supreme Court? Not many I’ll bet. Well, Congress fixed this problem once and for all by calling for a constitutional amendment, which easily passed through the House and Senate. On February 12, 1913, the Amendment was ratified. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and the others had to be turning over in their graves. Karl Marx, who had been dead for 30 years, had to be jumping for joy. I should point out that the Federal Government did not get around to passing a constitutional amendment protecting the rights of all of our citizens equally until a full 51 years later with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The fact is that the working poor today spend a greater percentage of their income on complying with the tax code than the wealthy. Since a major reform in 1986, the tax code has been amended approximately 16,000 times. Currently, our complex tax code requires 67,500 pages of printed material and 526 different forms, depending upon your individual situation.
I should mention that I obtained many of my facts from Neal Boortz and John Linder’s book The Fair Tax Book as well as some of their sources in the footnotes and also various credible internet websites. I say “credible” because any idiot can post material on the internet as evidenced by my blog. I will not get into the FairTax on this posting, but it is just a matter of time before I get to it.
Then in 1861, the Union states needed financing to keep the Southern states from secession. Congress levied a 3 percent tax on everyone earning between $600 and $10,000 a year. Any earnings over $10,000 would be taxed at a higher rate of 5 percent. It is noteworthy to mention this was also progressive. I bet Karl Marx was doing back flips by the mere thought that someone way over here was subscribing to his Communist Manifesto that he wrote just 13 years prior. Since a progressive income tax is number 2 on his “10 Planks” toward Communism, Karl Marx must have been worried that we skipped number one. Don’t worry Karl, we have made significant headway on that through eminent domain, zoning, and radical environmentalism, just to name a few.
With the end of the war in 1865, the Union states continued to levy taxes on income for another 7 years. This ended in 1872 with mounting pressure from the people. Can you believe it? The Federal Government actually killed the income tax! Well, to be accurate, they really let it expire. You see, all of these income taxes passed by Congress contained expiration dates. They wised up later and fixed it to where we could never have one expire again. In fact, nowadays Congress only seems to have expiration dates on tax DECREASES. Anyway, the Feds went back to taxing a handful of consumer goods for the next 20 years until an economic downturn in 1893 gave Congress an excuse to implement another income tax to straighten everything out (we would probably call it a “recession” today). It seems as though war is not the only excuse that citizens will buy to accept an income tax. In 1894, the act was passed and levied a 2 percent tax on anyone earning more than $4,000 a year. Oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention that they added a nice little clause whereby all government officials were exempt from paying the tax. That’s right. And you thought that the politicians of today have brass.
Not too long after, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal income tax was unconstitutional. How many people in this country today do you think realize the very first peacetime federal income tax was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S Supreme Court? Not many I’ll bet. Well, Congress fixed this problem once and for all by calling for a constitutional amendment, which easily passed through the House and Senate. On February 12, 1913, the Amendment was ratified. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and the others had to be turning over in their graves. Karl Marx, who had been dead for 30 years, had to be jumping for joy. I should point out that the Federal Government did not get around to passing a constitutional amendment protecting the rights of all of our citizens equally until a full 51 years later with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The fact is that the working poor today spend a greater percentage of their income on complying with the tax code than the wealthy. Since a major reform in 1986, the tax code has been amended approximately 16,000 times. Currently, our complex tax code requires 67,500 pages of printed material and 526 different forms, depending upon your individual situation.
I should mention that I obtained many of my facts from Neal Boortz and John Linder’s book The Fair Tax Book as well as some of their sources in the footnotes and also various credible internet websites. I say “credible” because any idiot can post material on the internet as evidenced by my blog. I will not get into the FairTax on this posting, but it is just a matter of time before I get to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)