My wife and I are leaving in the wee hours tomorrow to go to a birthday party in North Carolina for Jesus, so this will be my last post until we get back.
Jesus has told us that He will not be there physically unless it just works out for Him to come, but He will attend in Spirit.
He has gone to prepare a place for us, so that where He is, there we can be also. He has been working on it for a little over two thousand years, so I imagine it will be spectacular. I can't wait...
I want to wish all of you a Merry Christmas. If you celebrate something besides Jesus' Birthday this time of year, then have a Merry Whatever you celebrate. My sincere wish is for everyone to be happy and joyful for the next week, and to be content and successful throughout the upcoming year.
May Santa Clause bring you everything on your list, and may you make everybody happy with whatever you did for them.
When you are opening your gifts, feasting and celebrating, don't forget to remember the gift that Jesus gave to the world, and if you have not yet recieved this gift, please know that He intended for you to have it, and that He died trying to give it to you.
So Happy Birthday, Jesus!!
And Merry Christmas everybody else!!
See you next year!!
Friday, December 23, 2005
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
The Jesus Post...
Over the last couple of weeks there has been an ongoing debate that has overflowed from ER's blog, to Mark's, to mine, and back again.
It concerns Jesus' political affiliation.
ER has asserted repeatedly that Jesus was a Liberal, and in His day, I guess that he probably was considered to be liberal. He was a pacifist, (not an appeaser, a pacifist...)He was clearly anti-establishment. He talked against the government, and the religious leaders of His day.
But that is where the similarities between Jesus and the modern Liberal movement end, as far as I can tell.
Some say that Jesus commanded us to help the poor, and the disadvantaged, and that using their vote to elect people who will use tax money to help these people is doing The Lord's Work.
I have done a pretty extensive search of the New Testament (because I want to get this right...), and I can find only one instance where Jesus told anyone to give to the poor.
"Matthew 19:21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."
The same story appears in Mark 10:21.
In this instance, Jesus told the "Rich Young Ruler", (as I have heard him called all my life) not necessarily to help the poor. That was a by-product.
What Jesus told the young man to do was get rid of his idol. To rid himself of the thing that was most important to him. The thing that would come between him and God.
Helping the poor was just an easy way to get rid of it.
Now Jesus did encourage general kindness and benevolence between us, His people.
Luke 3:11"He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise."
Matthew 25:35-36 "For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me."
Matthew 25:40 "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
But he never advocated putting Government in charge of anything, least of all, our Christian charity. Not that I can find. (He said to pay your taxes, (Matthew 22:21), but that's the only reference to anything dealing with Government that I have found.)
He encouraged industriousness and productivity, and discouraged sloth and inefficiency.
Matthew 25:27-29 "Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath."
Jesus fed 5000 hungry people at one time, but he never fed anyone twice in a row.
He never gave money to a beggar.
He did not want the political power that came with being a provider. He actively ran from it.
He cured the sick, healed the lame, made the blind to see. But in every case, he witnessed to their Soul in the process. His focus was on the Kingdom of Heaven, not the politics of the world, or the needs of the disadvantaged. He preached the Gospel everywhere He went, constantly. (Even if He happened to be in a Government Building.)
And in every case, He made the people whom he helped able to provide for themselves. He never did anything for them that could lead to any type of dependancy on government, or the Charity of others.
So where did Jesus weigh in on the "Left - Right" debate?
Matthew 25:41 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." (Sorry. That one is grossly out of context. It was just too perfect to pass up...)
Jesus was NOT a Liberal, not in the modern context.
Nor was He a Conservative.
HE WAS THE SON OF GOD.
For me to beat on my chest and say "Jesus agrees with ME!!" would be blasphemous. I am nothing.
He is God incarnate, sent to save Mankind from the Bondage of Sin, not to help me prop up my own insignificant political arguements.
Or you with yours...
(All references from the King James Version of the Holy Bible, Courtesy of BibleGateway.com)
It concerns Jesus' political affiliation.
ER has asserted repeatedly that Jesus was a Liberal, and in His day, I guess that he probably was considered to be liberal. He was a pacifist, (not an appeaser, a pacifist...)He was clearly anti-establishment. He talked against the government, and the religious leaders of His day.
But that is where the similarities between Jesus and the modern Liberal movement end, as far as I can tell.
Some say that Jesus commanded us to help the poor, and the disadvantaged, and that using their vote to elect people who will use tax money to help these people is doing The Lord's Work.
I have done a pretty extensive search of the New Testament (because I want to get this right...), and I can find only one instance where Jesus told anyone to give to the poor.
"Matthew 19:21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."
The same story appears in Mark 10:21.
In this instance, Jesus told the "Rich Young Ruler", (as I have heard him called all my life) not necessarily to help the poor. That was a by-product.
What Jesus told the young man to do was get rid of his idol. To rid himself of the thing that was most important to him. The thing that would come between him and God.
Helping the poor was just an easy way to get rid of it.
Now Jesus did encourage general kindness and benevolence between us, His people.
Luke 3:11"He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise."
Matthew 25:35-36 "For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me."
Matthew 25:40 "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
But he never advocated putting Government in charge of anything, least of all, our Christian charity. Not that I can find. (He said to pay your taxes, (Matthew 22:21), but that's the only reference to anything dealing with Government that I have found.)
He encouraged industriousness and productivity, and discouraged sloth and inefficiency.
Matthew 25:27-29 "Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath."
Jesus fed 5000 hungry people at one time, but he never fed anyone twice in a row.
He never gave money to a beggar.
He did not want the political power that came with being a provider. He actively ran from it.
He cured the sick, healed the lame, made the blind to see. But in every case, he witnessed to their Soul in the process. His focus was on the Kingdom of Heaven, not the politics of the world, or the needs of the disadvantaged. He preached the Gospel everywhere He went, constantly. (Even if He happened to be in a Government Building.)
And in every case, He made the people whom he helped able to provide for themselves. He never did anything for them that could lead to any type of dependancy on government, or the Charity of others.
So where did Jesus weigh in on the "Left - Right" debate?
Matthew 25:41 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." (Sorry. That one is grossly out of context. It was just too perfect to pass up...)
Jesus was NOT a Liberal, not in the modern context.
Nor was He a Conservative.
HE WAS THE SON OF GOD.
For me to beat on my chest and say "Jesus agrees with ME!!" would be blasphemous. I am nothing.
He is God incarnate, sent to save Mankind from the Bondage of Sin, not to help me prop up my own insignificant political arguements.
Or you with yours...
(All references from the King James Version of the Holy Bible, Courtesy of BibleGateway.com)
Let's Bash The President...
Not Bush...
Clinton.
Just for fun, I am issuing a challenge.
Name any problem, any bad thing going on anywhere in the world that affects Americans, and I will blame it on Bill Clinton within three steps. (And probably find a document to prove my point.)
Yee-ha!!
Clinton.
Just for fun, I am issuing a challenge.
Name any problem, any bad thing going on anywhere in the world that affects Americans, and I will blame it on Bill Clinton within three steps. (And probably find a document to prove my point.)
Yee-ha!!
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Republicans, Lets Rock!!
Turn up your speakers.
You should be hearing a song by a band called "The Right Brothers," called "Bush Was Right."
The song is going to be used in an Ad sponsored by Rightmarch.com on the Fox Network. Click the link to view the Ad.
I love it. It is a happy, celebratory list of all the things that The President and Conservatives have been right about, set to music.
And we have reason to celebrate. In spite of a constant barrage of opposition and negativity from the Party of Losers, we are winning.
The Economy is booming, Unemployment is at an historic low, Inflation is low, The elections in Iraq have been successful and thanks to President Bush and his commitment to spreading Freedom and Self Governance to the people of the Middle East, Iraqis are well on their way to Independance, and our Troops can soon begin to come home as victorious Heroes.
So turn it up, and enjoy.
I would ask that if you like the song, or if you are a proud Republican who has 99 cents, go here, and buy it.
I have been a member of a struggling band, so I encourage everyone to support up-and-coming musicians, and I don't think that these guys are going to get much support from the Music Industry.
BUSH WAS RIGHT!! (Tug Bangs Head...)
NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAAAH NYAAH!!!
You should be hearing a song by a band called "The Right Brothers," called "Bush Was Right."
The song is going to be used in an Ad sponsored by Rightmarch.com on the Fox Network. Click the link to view the Ad.
I love it. It is a happy, celebratory list of all the things that The President and Conservatives have been right about, set to music.
And we have reason to celebrate. In spite of a constant barrage of opposition and negativity from the Party of Losers, we are winning.
The Economy is booming, Unemployment is at an historic low, Inflation is low, The elections in Iraq have been successful and thanks to President Bush and his commitment to spreading Freedom and Self Governance to the people of the Middle East, Iraqis are well on their way to Independance, and our Troops can soon begin to come home as victorious Heroes.
So turn it up, and enjoy.
I would ask that if you like the song, or if you are a proud Republican who has 99 cents, go here, and buy it.
I have been a member of a struggling band, so I encourage everyone to support up-and-coming musicians, and I don't think that these guys are going to get much support from the Music Industry.
BUSH WAS RIGHT!! (Tug Bangs Head...)
NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAAAH NYAAH!!!
Friday, December 16, 2005
The Empire Strikes Back...
Over the past couple of weeks the Republicans have been on the offensive concerning the War on Terrorism, and more specifically, Iraq.
The President has made four speeches at various locations around the country, talking about his strategy for victory, (something the Democrats have yet to offer...) and he has published a 35 page document outlining his Iraq plan.
He even admitted that some of the intellegence that the war in Iraq was based upon was faulty, and accepted responsibility for going to War based on this intelligence, diffusing the "Bush will never admit to making a mistake" arguement, without providing a soundbite that could be used against Republicans in future elections. Then he continued on to say that he still did the right thing, which is the truth. (Ask any Iraqi citizen.) (Insurgent Suicide Bombers don't count.)
Things have been looking good for Republicans and the President.
Until today.
(You didn't expect the Democrats to take all of this lying down, did you?)
Today an article was published in the New York Times (Al-Jazeera America...) saying that the President secretly lifted some restrictions on spying on Americans in the weeks and months following 9/11.
Well, DUH...
If he hadn't, it would have been an impeachable offense.
A couple of things that the article in the Al-Jazeera America Times fails to mention are that it has been OVER FOUR YEARS since we have had a Terrorist attack on U.S. Soil, and that is just over the amount of time that the Patriot Act has been in force, and that the author of the article has a book coming out in ten days, and that this allegation is a chapter in that book.
This article in part led to this atrocity.
The Democrats in the Senate today filibustered an attempt to make 16 key provisions of the Patriot Act permanent. The final vote was 52 to 47, which means that the measure would have passed, had it not had to pass the filibuster attempt. (Note: The American Voters put enough Republican Senators in the Senate to pass this measure. The Democrats with the help of a handfull of Maverick Moderate Republicans have again usurped power from the American People by using the filibuster rule.) (Aren't you glad you live in a Democracy?)
Bill Frist changed his vote at the last moment, choosing to vote with the prevailing side so that he could then call for a re-vote at any time. The Press called this a "Proceedural Maneuver."
So Senator Frist voting with the prevailing side in order to re-present the issue is portrayed as a "Dirty Trick" by the Media, while the de-railing of the will of the representatives of the Majority of the American People is portrayed as "a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders." Hooray for those courageous Democrats!!
Nope. No media Bias here...
These are litterally the type of people who would burn down the house to get rid of a mouse. They must NEVER be returned to power.
So now, if nothing is done to re-instate these provisions of the Patriot Act, the Clinton Era "Gorelick Wall of Separation" is back in place, and we are again vulnerable to Terrorists operating on U.S. Soil (with the full protection afforded American Citizens by our Constitution), free to plan and carry out attacks against U.S. citizens trying to live their every-day lives, and those who would protect us from these Terrorists have their hands tied with Red Tape.
Let me ask you a question...
How has the Patriot Act affected you? (Not "How COULD it affect you", not "How could it affect your neighbor", not "How could it be mis-used by future Administrations", How HAS it affected YOU?")
Do you really care if anyone is keeping track of what books you are reading? (If so, then buy your books with cash, and don't check them out of a Library...)
Is there anything incriminating in your e-mails or phone calls? (If so, then you are a criminal, and deserve to be caught, and punished.)
Is it really so bad, and is it really an infringement on your Civil Rights if the FBI, CIA and NSA (No Such Agency) share their information amongst each other in the name of our National Security?
I'll tell you how the Patriot Act has affected you.
It has prevented another "9/11" for over FOUR YEARS.
If we are attacked again because we have taken these tools away from those who would protect us, we know who to blame.
What do you think the next target will be?
Will it be worth it to the Democrats?
The President has made four speeches at various locations around the country, talking about his strategy for victory, (something the Democrats have yet to offer...) and he has published a 35 page document outlining his Iraq plan.
He even admitted that some of the intellegence that the war in Iraq was based upon was faulty, and accepted responsibility for going to War based on this intelligence, diffusing the "Bush will never admit to making a mistake" arguement, without providing a soundbite that could be used against Republicans in future elections. Then he continued on to say that he still did the right thing, which is the truth. (Ask any Iraqi citizen.) (Insurgent Suicide Bombers don't count.)
Things have been looking good for Republicans and the President.
Until today.
(You didn't expect the Democrats to take all of this lying down, did you?)
Today an article was published in the New York Times (Al-Jazeera America...) saying that the President secretly lifted some restrictions on spying on Americans in the weeks and months following 9/11.
Well, DUH...
If he hadn't, it would have been an impeachable offense.
A couple of things that the article in the Al-Jazeera America Times fails to mention are that it has been OVER FOUR YEARS since we have had a Terrorist attack on U.S. Soil, and that is just over the amount of time that the Patriot Act has been in force, and that the author of the article has a book coming out in ten days, and that this allegation is a chapter in that book.
This article in part led to this atrocity.
The Democrats in the Senate today filibustered an attempt to make 16 key provisions of the Patriot Act permanent. The final vote was 52 to 47, which means that the measure would have passed, had it not had to pass the filibuster attempt. (Note: The American Voters put enough Republican Senators in the Senate to pass this measure. The Democrats with the help of a handfull of Maverick Moderate Republicans have again usurped power from the American People by using the filibuster rule.) (Aren't you glad you live in a Democracy?)
Bill Frist changed his vote at the last moment, choosing to vote with the prevailing side so that he could then call for a re-vote at any time. The Press called this a "Proceedural Maneuver."
So Senator Frist voting with the prevailing side in order to re-present the issue is portrayed as a "Dirty Trick" by the Media, while the de-railing of the will of the representatives of the Majority of the American People is portrayed as "a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders." Hooray for those courageous Democrats!!
Nope. No media Bias here...
These are litterally the type of people who would burn down the house to get rid of a mouse. They must NEVER be returned to power.
So now, if nothing is done to re-instate these provisions of the Patriot Act, the Clinton Era "Gorelick Wall of Separation" is back in place, and we are again vulnerable to Terrorists operating on U.S. Soil (with the full protection afforded American Citizens by our Constitution), free to plan and carry out attacks against U.S. citizens trying to live their every-day lives, and those who would protect us from these Terrorists have their hands tied with Red Tape.
Let me ask you a question...
How has the Patriot Act affected you? (Not "How COULD it affect you", not "How could it affect your neighbor", not "How could it be mis-used by future Administrations", How HAS it affected YOU?")
Do you really care if anyone is keeping track of what books you are reading? (If so, then buy your books with cash, and don't check them out of a Library...)
Is there anything incriminating in your e-mails or phone calls? (If so, then you are a criminal, and deserve to be caught, and punished.)
Is it really so bad, and is it really an infringement on your Civil Rights if the FBI, CIA and NSA (No Such Agency) share their information amongst each other in the name of our National Security?
I'll tell you how the Patriot Act has affected you.
It has prevented another "9/11" for over FOUR YEARS.
If we are attacked again because we have taken these tools away from those who would protect us, we know who to blame.
What do you think the next target will be?
Will it be worth it to the Democrats?
Monday, December 12, 2005
Forget The Trap, Let's Build A Better Mouse...
From Breitbart.com, or as I like to call it, "News of the Weird..."
Mice Created With Human Brain Cells
"SAN FRANCISCO - Add another creation to the strange scientific menagerie where animal species are being mixed together in ever more exotic combinations. Scientists announced Monday that they had created mice with small amounts of human brain cells in an effort to make realistic models of neurological disorders such as Parkinson's disease."
GIVE MY CREATION...LIFE!!
(Huh huh.. heh heh... uhn humm...snort...)
WHY do we have to do things like this? Haven't we treated mice badly enough over the course of the years??
Now we want them to KNOW how bad they have it, apparently.
We coop them up in cages, drip shampoo in their eyes, make them smoke cigarettes, inject them with psychodelic drugs, give them cancer, (Everything we do to mice gives them cancer, evidently...) infect them with AIDS, (I never want to meet the guy who has THAT job...) and that isn't good enough for us.
We want them to be SMART enough to KNOW what we are doing to them.
"How does that feel, Mr. Mouse?"
"Well, it doesn't burn as bad as what you did yesterday, but it still sucks..."
"Thank you, Mr Mouse! You are really helping us to understand the effect of battery acid on open sores. Aren't you proud??"
What are these scientists going to do when they come to work one morning, and find a 6 foot mousetrap in the middle of the lab, with a pepperoni pizza on it?
My guess is that they will try to get the pizza...
Can we please stop these Frankensteinian experiments before we create a species that can kick our butts??
Now don't get me wrong. I don't oppose animal testing. A lot of good comes from it. A lot of human lives have been saved, not to mention the progress we have made in keeping old men sexually active, and helping them to retain their hair.
But implanting mice with human brain cells crosses the line.
It makes me nervous.
The last thing we need is a smarter mouse.
What kind of experiments will they perform on US when the tables are turned?
Mice Created With Human Brain Cells
"SAN FRANCISCO - Add another creation to the strange scientific menagerie where animal species are being mixed together in ever more exotic combinations. Scientists announced Monday that they had created mice with small amounts of human brain cells in an effort to make realistic models of neurological disorders such as Parkinson's disease."
GIVE MY CREATION...LIFE!!
(Huh huh.. heh heh... uhn humm...snort...)
WHY do we have to do things like this? Haven't we treated mice badly enough over the course of the years??
Now we want them to KNOW how bad they have it, apparently.
We coop them up in cages, drip shampoo in their eyes, make them smoke cigarettes, inject them with psychodelic drugs, give them cancer, (Everything we do to mice gives them cancer, evidently...) infect them with AIDS, (I never want to meet the guy who has THAT job...) and that isn't good enough for us.
We want them to be SMART enough to KNOW what we are doing to them.
"How does that feel, Mr. Mouse?"
"Well, it doesn't burn as bad as what you did yesterday, but it still sucks..."
"Thank you, Mr Mouse! You are really helping us to understand the effect of battery acid on open sores. Aren't you proud??"
What are these scientists going to do when they come to work one morning, and find a 6 foot mousetrap in the middle of the lab, with a pepperoni pizza on it?
My guess is that they will try to get the pizza...
Can we please stop these Frankensteinian experiments before we create a species that can kick our butts??
Now don't get me wrong. I don't oppose animal testing. A lot of good comes from it. A lot of human lives have been saved, not to mention the progress we have made in keeping old men sexually active, and helping them to retain their hair.
But implanting mice with human brain cells crosses the line.
It makes me nervous.
The last thing we need is a smarter mouse.
What kind of experiments will they perform on US when the tables are turned?
Saturday, December 10, 2005
"Out Of The Box" Christmas...
Have you guys heard about this?
Upside down Christmas Trees?
$599.95??
How much did you spend on YOUR Christmas Tree? I spent about $50.00, (we already had some of the decorations and lights and whatnot...) and I thought that THAT was a ridiculous amount to spend on something I would have to kill a whole saturday putting up, enjoy for about three weeks, and then kill a whole Saturday taking back down.
But the upside down thing got me thinking. I love "out of the Box" ideas, so I thought about hanging mine from the ceiling. Kinda the same idea as those other people were paying $600.00 for, but with a Redneck twist.
But if you know any Rednecks, you understand that "just a little out of the box" just won't do.
So the idea struck me to hang it from the Ceiling Fan.
Made Decorating it a breeze! (Literally!!)
You just sit in your chair with a box of ornaments, put the little hooks on them one at a time, and then toss 'em at the tree. The one in the room who has the most to stay on the tree on the first throw WINS!!
The Garland and the lights, you just start them at the bottom, (the small end,) turn on the fan, and keep feeding the cord and moving up.
Easy as pie, and a lot of fun, as long as you are quick enough to feed the cord as fast as the fan is turning.
But as with almost all Redneck "out of the box" ideas, I encountered a problem.
I can't figure out how to keep the extention cord for the lights from winding itself around the fan, and unplugging the lights.
And the tree keeps slinging ornaments off at random, occaisionally hitting someone in the head.
(Ow! Dag Nabbit...Honey!?!, Will you turn the fan off until I finish my post?!...Thanks, Baby!!...)
(I love remote control...)
Anyway, I think I am going to put it back down on the floor, right side up.
And just glue all the presents to the ceiling.
Just so you know...Everybody that We are buying presents for this year is getting really light stuff from us...and if you aren't tall enough to reach it, We are keeping it.
Merry Christmas, everybody!!
Upside down Christmas Trees?
$599.95??
How much did you spend on YOUR Christmas Tree? I spent about $50.00, (we already had some of the decorations and lights and whatnot...) and I thought that THAT was a ridiculous amount to spend on something I would have to kill a whole saturday putting up, enjoy for about three weeks, and then kill a whole Saturday taking back down.
But the upside down thing got me thinking. I love "out of the Box" ideas, so I thought about hanging mine from the ceiling. Kinda the same idea as those other people were paying $600.00 for, but with a Redneck twist.
But if you know any Rednecks, you understand that "just a little out of the box" just won't do.
So the idea struck me to hang it from the Ceiling Fan.
Made Decorating it a breeze! (Literally!!)
You just sit in your chair with a box of ornaments, put the little hooks on them one at a time, and then toss 'em at the tree. The one in the room who has the most to stay on the tree on the first throw WINS!!
The Garland and the lights, you just start them at the bottom, (the small end,) turn on the fan, and keep feeding the cord and moving up.
Easy as pie, and a lot of fun, as long as you are quick enough to feed the cord as fast as the fan is turning.
But as with almost all Redneck "out of the box" ideas, I encountered a problem.
I can't figure out how to keep the extention cord for the lights from winding itself around the fan, and unplugging the lights.
And the tree keeps slinging ornaments off at random, occaisionally hitting someone in the head.
(Ow! Dag Nabbit...Honey!?!, Will you turn the fan off until I finish my post?!...Thanks, Baby!!...)
(I love remote control...)
Anyway, I think I am going to put it back down on the floor, right side up.
And just glue all the presents to the ceiling.
Just so you know...Everybody that We are buying presents for this year is getting really light stuff from us...and if you aren't tall enough to reach it, We are keeping it.
Merry Christmas, everybody!!
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Relocation, Relocation, Relocation...
From Breitbart.com via the Drudge report...
"Ahmadinejad says Israel should be moved to Europe...
"Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (the American Hostage Taking Former Terrorist... - TBC) said that if Germany and Austria feel responsible for massacring Jews during World War II, a state of Israel should be established on their soil. Ahmadinejad, who sparked an international outcry in October when he said Israel "must be wiped off the map", also repeated his view Thursday that the Jewish state was a "tumour".
"Now that you believe the Jews were oppressed, why should the Palestinian Muslims have to pay the price?" the hardline president asked in an interview with Iran's Arabic-language satellite channel, Al-Alam.
"Why did you come to give a piece of Islamic land and the territory of the Palestinian people to them?
"You oppressed them, so give a part of Europe to the Zionist regime so they can establish any government they want. We would support it," he said, according to a transcript of his original Farsi-language comments given to AFP. "
Wow. This is a novel idea...
Let's put aside for a moment the fact that Isrealis lived in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus and before, and by most historical accounts built the city in the first place, and the Palestinians lived...who knows where back then.
I think that this idea may have some merit, actually.
But I have a better one.
Let's give 'em France.
Think of the problems that this would solve for the U.S., the Middle East, and the World...
Wouldn't work though...
Muslims hate Jews, wherever they are. If we relocated the Jews to France, the Muslims would follow them to France, and blow themselves up to try to kill them there. By recent news accounts, Muslims pretty much own France now anyway, so we would have the same problem all over again.
Here's an even better idea.
Want to have peace in the Middle East?
Want to win the War on Terror?
Want to solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem once and for all?
Then let's relocate all Muslims to the Moon.
That's the best way I can think of, anyway...
"Ahmadinejad says Israel should be moved to Europe...
"Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (the American Hostage Taking Former Terrorist... - TBC) said that if Germany and Austria feel responsible for massacring Jews during World War II, a state of Israel should be established on their soil. Ahmadinejad, who sparked an international outcry in October when he said Israel "must be wiped off the map", also repeated his view Thursday that the Jewish state was a "tumour".
"Now that you believe the Jews were oppressed, why should the Palestinian Muslims have to pay the price?" the hardline president asked in an interview with Iran's Arabic-language satellite channel, Al-Alam.
"Why did you come to give a piece of Islamic land and the territory of the Palestinian people to them?
"You oppressed them, so give a part of Europe to the Zionist regime so they can establish any government they want. We would support it," he said, according to a transcript of his original Farsi-language comments given to AFP. "
Wow. This is a novel idea...
Let's put aside for a moment the fact that Isrealis lived in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus and before, and by most historical accounts built the city in the first place, and the Palestinians lived...who knows where back then.
I think that this idea may have some merit, actually.
But I have a better one.
Let's give 'em France.
Think of the problems that this would solve for the U.S., the Middle East, and the World...
Wouldn't work though...
Muslims hate Jews, wherever they are. If we relocated the Jews to France, the Muslims would follow them to France, and blow themselves up to try to kill them there. By recent news accounts, Muslims pretty much own France now anyway, so we would have the same problem all over again.
Here's an even better idea.
Want to have peace in the Middle East?
Want to win the War on Terror?
Want to solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem once and for all?
Then let's relocate all Muslims to the Moon.
That's the best way I can think of, anyway...
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Real American Heroes...
I have come to the realization that I have been wrong about Howard Dean and John F. Kerry.
These may be two of the finest, most brilliant, most patriotic men this country has ever seen.
I missed it all last year during the Presidential Campaign, which surprises me a little. I usually pick up on things like this.
But it is crystal clear now, and with every soundbite, every new quote, every new interview, it becomes even clearer.
These two men may, all by themselves, save America from the Democrat Party.
John F. Kerry was THE standard bearer for the Democrats during the last Election cycle. The very best they had to offer. A shining example of what Democrats are.
Howard Dean is the Chairman of the Democrat National Committee. The head fundraiser and spokesman for all things Democrat.
Who could have ever guessed that they both are Republican operatives.
How they gained their lofty positions within the Democrat Party is anyone's guess, but over the next few months, if they continue their present respective courses, they may prove to be the two most effective campaigners the Republican Party has ever had. Maybe even more effective than Michael Moore.
And the strategy is brilliant.
Over the weekend, Kerry, on behalf of all Democrats, accused the U.S. Military of committing acts of Terrorism against Iraqi women and children, and "kids" (baby goats?) and Dean announced that our soldiers were incapable of winning wars. (But they support the troops...)
Yesterday Kerry called Rush Limbaugh a "Doughnut-Eating Draft Dodger" for the crime of playing a tape of Kerry's weekend comments.
Tommorrow he plans to call the President a "Poopy-Head", and then hold his breath until we bring the troops home, or until he turns blue and passes out, whichever comes first. (Or until someone gives him candy.)
This is a strategy worthy of the Evil Genius, Karl Rove.
Get two of the most recognizable democrats in America to go on television at every opportunity, and make the Democrat position so indefensible that no one in their right mind, (if they truly love their Country) could in good conscience vote for Democrats anymore.
Brilliant!
So I say three cheers for these two great Americans, along with their accomplices John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi, and may they be successful in their efforts.
May History remember them as Heroes.
These may be two of the finest, most brilliant, most patriotic men this country has ever seen.
I missed it all last year during the Presidential Campaign, which surprises me a little. I usually pick up on things like this.
But it is crystal clear now, and with every soundbite, every new quote, every new interview, it becomes even clearer.
These two men may, all by themselves, save America from the Democrat Party.
John F. Kerry was THE standard bearer for the Democrats during the last Election cycle. The very best they had to offer. A shining example of what Democrats are.
Howard Dean is the Chairman of the Democrat National Committee. The head fundraiser and spokesman for all things Democrat.
Who could have ever guessed that they both are Republican operatives.
How they gained their lofty positions within the Democrat Party is anyone's guess, but over the next few months, if they continue their present respective courses, they may prove to be the two most effective campaigners the Republican Party has ever had. Maybe even more effective than Michael Moore.
And the strategy is brilliant.
Over the weekend, Kerry, on behalf of all Democrats, accused the U.S. Military of committing acts of Terrorism against Iraqi women and children, and "kids" (baby goats?) and Dean announced that our soldiers were incapable of winning wars. (But they support the troops...)
Yesterday Kerry called Rush Limbaugh a "Doughnut-Eating Draft Dodger" for the crime of playing a tape of Kerry's weekend comments.
Tommorrow he plans to call the President a "Poopy-Head", and then hold his breath until we bring the troops home, or until he turns blue and passes out, whichever comes first. (Or until someone gives him candy.)
This is a strategy worthy of the Evil Genius, Karl Rove.
Get two of the most recognizable democrats in America to go on television at every opportunity, and make the Democrat position so indefensible that no one in their right mind, (if they truly love their Country) could in good conscience vote for Democrats anymore.
Brilliant!
So I say three cheers for these two great Americans, along with their accomplices John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi, and may they be successful in their efforts.
May History remember them as Heroes.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Down With Big Brother...
Have you ever read George Orwell's books, "1984", and "Animal Farm"?
I make a point to read each of them about once every couple of years. If you are willing to actually think about what these books contain, you realize that while Orwell's timing may have been off by a few years, he was truly a prophet.
"Animal Farm" is a microcosm of pure Communism and Socialism, and illustrates the final inevitable outcome of embracing these immoral and oppressive systems. (I know that there are differences between these two systems, but the basic premise of both is Social and Economic equality through redistribution of wealth from producers to non-producers by Government intervention, so I tend to lump them together.)
"1984" deals with the loss of personal Freedom and individuality that Socialism run amok creates. The Hero, Winston Smith, is indeed equal with everyone he knows. They are all equally miserable, hopeless, and powerless to improve their lives in any way. To even think of doing so is a crime punishable by not just death, but erasure, as if the person guilty of wanting to improve their lot in life were never there.
There are people in the story who are not destitute and miserable, but they are all in the upper levels of Government.
As I listen to the ongoing struggle in our government between those who would push our society gradually toward this circumstance, and those who resist that push (not nearly strongly enough, in my opinion) I am reminded more and more every day of phrases from this book.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Once again, Orwell is off a little bit, but only slightly, and only in the details.
When I hear the comments uttered by the Leaders of the Modern Democrat Party over the last few months, their words begin to all meld together until all I hear is this:
TRUTH IS LIES
DEFEAT IS VICTORY
VICTIMHOOD IS POWER
And when I listen to their supporters, read their blogs, and their comments on the blogs of others, I hear:
RIGHTEOUSNESS IS EVIL
LIBERTY IS OPPRESSION
ACCOMPLISHMENT IS FAILURE
In the book, Winston Smith worked in the Ministry of Truth. He revised history, rewriting the newspaper archives so that there was no record of any change of position by the Government on any issue. (Think about that when you hear phrases like "I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it," or "WMD's were the only reason that we agreed to go into Iraq," or "I never had sex with that woman Ms. Lewinski,")
The reason that "The Party" had to have people to do this job was that nothing that was broadcast to the people through the Media was true in the first place, and any evidence of contradiction was evidence of the Corruption of the Government. (Think about that when you remember how quickly the Dan Rather "Memogate" story went away, and when you hear the outrage of the Mainstream Media in America at the thought that the U.S. Military may have been planting pro-America stories in Arab Newspapers.)
(I must admit that the thought of the Military planting news stories makes me a little nervous, except that the Mainstream Media ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT report a story that might make the President or the War or America look good, so I'm glad that at least SOME positive news is getting out, by whatever method.)
So while all of you who basically disagree with me on every single important issue are sitting around dreaming about how wonderful life will be when the Federal Government has finally eliminated Economic and Social inequality, and has finally begun to provide Universal Healthcare to everyone free of charge, and eliminated starvation and poverty and has made everything fair, take a little time and read these books.
Do you really want to live like that?
Me neither.
Think about what you are doing.
I make a point to read each of them about once every couple of years. If you are willing to actually think about what these books contain, you realize that while Orwell's timing may have been off by a few years, he was truly a prophet.
"Animal Farm" is a microcosm of pure Communism and Socialism, and illustrates the final inevitable outcome of embracing these immoral and oppressive systems. (I know that there are differences between these two systems, but the basic premise of both is Social and Economic equality through redistribution of wealth from producers to non-producers by Government intervention, so I tend to lump them together.)
"1984" deals with the loss of personal Freedom and individuality that Socialism run amok creates. The Hero, Winston Smith, is indeed equal with everyone he knows. They are all equally miserable, hopeless, and powerless to improve their lives in any way. To even think of doing so is a crime punishable by not just death, but erasure, as if the person guilty of wanting to improve their lot in life were never there.
There are people in the story who are not destitute and miserable, but they are all in the upper levels of Government.
As I listen to the ongoing struggle in our government between those who would push our society gradually toward this circumstance, and those who resist that push (not nearly strongly enough, in my opinion) I am reminded more and more every day of phrases from this book.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Once again, Orwell is off a little bit, but only slightly, and only in the details.
When I hear the comments uttered by the Leaders of the Modern Democrat Party over the last few months, their words begin to all meld together until all I hear is this:
TRUTH IS LIES
DEFEAT IS VICTORY
VICTIMHOOD IS POWER
And when I listen to their supporters, read their blogs, and their comments on the blogs of others, I hear:
RIGHTEOUSNESS IS EVIL
LIBERTY IS OPPRESSION
ACCOMPLISHMENT IS FAILURE
In the book, Winston Smith worked in the Ministry of Truth. He revised history, rewriting the newspaper archives so that there was no record of any change of position by the Government on any issue. (Think about that when you hear phrases like "I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it," or "WMD's were the only reason that we agreed to go into Iraq," or "I never had sex with that woman Ms. Lewinski,")
The reason that "The Party" had to have people to do this job was that nothing that was broadcast to the people through the Media was true in the first place, and any evidence of contradiction was evidence of the Corruption of the Government. (Think about that when you remember how quickly the Dan Rather "Memogate" story went away, and when you hear the outrage of the Mainstream Media in America at the thought that the U.S. Military may have been planting pro-America stories in Arab Newspapers.)
(I must admit that the thought of the Military planting news stories makes me a little nervous, except that the Mainstream Media ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT report a story that might make the President or the War or America look good, so I'm glad that at least SOME positive news is getting out, by whatever method.)
So while all of you who basically disagree with me on every single important issue are sitting around dreaming about how wonderful life will be when the Federal Government has finally eliminated Economic and Social inequality, and has finally begun to provide Universal Healthcare to everyone free of charge, and eliminated starvation and poverty and has made everything fair, take a little time and read these books.
Do you really want to live like that?
Me neither.
Think about what you are doing.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Democrat Plan To Bring Soldiers Home Is Working...
From the Ass. Press...
Dec 2, 1:24 AM EST
Murtha Says Army Is 'Broken, Worn Out'
LATROBE, Pa. (AP) -- Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group.
Two weeks ago, Murtha created a storm of comment when he called for U.S. troops to leave Iraq now. The Democratic congressman spoke to a group of community and business leaders in Latrobe on Wednesday, the same day President Bush said troops would be withdrawn when they've achieved victory, not under an artificial deadline set by politicians.
Murtha predicted most troops will be out of Iraq within a year.
"I predict he'll make it look like we're staying the course," Murtha said, referring to Bush. "Staying the course is not a policy."
There are no such crimes as Treason or Sedition anymore. Can you imagine a Congressman saying something like this in public during WWII?
The very idea that the United States Military has been beaten into uselessness by a bunch of cowardly murderers hiding among innocent civilians, making bombs from Anti-Freeze jugs and leaving them beside of roads, and blowing themselves up whether they kill or injure anyone else or not is the height of stupidity, and a U.S. Congressman uttering such bilge should be held accountable for the damage he does to his Country, and it's Military with such irresponible statements.
I know that Americans have, and should continue to have Freedom of Speech, and I understand what a Patriotic and nessecary thing it is to bring down the President and undermine the War, but statements like that can only serve to embolden our enemies and cost more of our soldiers their lives.
It crossed the line.
The truth is that this War would have been over and the troops would be home, or redeployed to defend freedom somewhere else already if Washington would turn them loose and let them win. We tell them "Go fight the War, but don't hurt anybody!!"
The Military is just fine. They are fully capable and well equipped enough to dominate the world, if that were our goal.
It is the American People and the Democrat Party who no longer have the stomach to oppose Evil, defend America, and win Wars.
BAGHDAD, Dec. 3 (Xinhuanet) -- Four more US soldiers have been killed in Iraq, the Pentagon said in a statement on Saturday. - Xinhua
Congratulations, Congressman Murtha. Your plan is working. Four more U.S. soldiers are coming home.
Dec 2, 1:24 AM EST
Murtha Says Army Is 'Broken, Worn Out'
LATROBE, Pa. (AP) -- Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group.
Two weeks ago, Murtha created a storm of comment when he called for U.S. troops to leave Iraq now. The Democratic congressman spoke to a group of community and business leaders in Latrobe on Wednesday, the same day President Bush said troops would be withdrawn when they've achieved victory, not under an artificial deadline set by politicians.
Murtha predicted most troops will be out of Iraq within a year.
"I predict he'll make it look like we're staying the course," Murtha said, referring to Bush. "Staying the course is not a policy."
There are no such crimes as Treason or Sedition anymore. Can you imagine a Congressman saying something like this in public during WWII?
The very idea that the United States Military has been beaten into uselessness by a bunch of cowardly murderers hiding among innocent civilians, making bombs from Anti-Freeze jugs and leaving them beside of roads, and blowing themselves up whether they kill or injure anyone else or not is the height of stupidity, and a U.S. Congressman uttering such bilge should be held accountable for the damage he does to his Country, and it's Military with such irresponible statements.
I know that Americans have, and should continue to have Freedom of Speech, and I understand what a Patriotic and nessecary thing it is to bring down the President and undermine the War, but statements like that can only serve to embolden our enemies and cost more of our soldiers their lives.
It crossed the line.
The truth is that this War would have been over and the troops would be home, or redeployed to defend freedom somewhere else already if Washington would turn them loose and let them win. We tell them "Go fight the War, but don't hurt anybody!!"
The Military is just fine. They are fully capable and well equipped enough to dominate the world, if that were our goal.
It is the American People and the Democrat Party who no longer have the stomach to oppose Evil, defend America, and win Wars.
BAGHDAD, Dec. 3 (Xinhuanet) -- Four more US soldiers have been killed in Iraq, the Pentagon said in a statement on Saturday. - Xinhua
Congratulations, Congressman Murtha. Your plan is working. Four more U.S. soldiers are coming home.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Togetherness...
The Wife and I are currently in negotiations to buy a house in North Carolina.
If we get it, we are going to move back there.
The house that we are looking at needs a little work, so our original plan was for me to go ahead after the first of the year, and move up there and work a job there, and work on the house, and for her to stay here and finish out the school year.
But after sleeping together on it, I have come to the realization that I just can't leave her behind alone.
I just can't stand the thought of her being in Florida without me when it gets hot.
And I also know that it will get hard on me, and when it does, I will want her to be there.
Now don't get me wrong. I know how to handle myself, and I'm sure that she does as well, but it's just better if you have a partner.
And I know how I am, (I was single for a very long time...) and with temptation of all kinds lurking behind every Convenience store counter, there is no telling what I might get into, if I am left unsupervised. Things could get sticky and messy.
And I know that she could be tempted as well, and if she is lonely and some handsome guy comes along, she might blow it.
(Not that I'm worried...)
So after an all night session of, uhm, discussion, we have decided to get our things together and try to come at the same time.
I am sure that as long as we continue to focus on each other, and be there to fulfill each other's needs, that we will have a happy ending.
Relationships are tricky at best, and when you find one that fits, you need to work on it at every opportunity, and hang on to it.
After all, a perfect pair only comes along once in a lifetime...
If we get it, we are going to move back there.
The house that we are looking at needs a little work, so our original plan was for me to go ahead after the first of the year, and move up there and work a job there, and work on the house, and for her to stay here and finish out the school year.
But after sleeping together on it, I have come to the realization that I just can't leave her behind alone.
I just can't stand the thought of her being in Florida without me when it gets hot.
And I also know that it will get hard on me, and when it does, I will want her to be there.
Now don't get me wrong. I know how to handle myself, and I'm sure that she does as well, but it's just better if you have a partner.
And I know how I am, (I was single for a very long time...) and with temptation of all kinds lurking behind every Convenience store counter, there is no telling what I might get into, if I am left unsupervised. Things could get sticky and messy.
And I know that she could be tempted as well, and if she is lonely and some handsome guy comes along, she might blow it.
(Not that I'm worried...)
So after an all night session of, uhm, discussion, we have decided to get our things together and try to come at the same time.
I am sure that as long as we continue to focus on each other, and be there to fulfill each other's needs, that we will have a happy ending.
Relationships are tricky at best, and when you find one that fits, you need to work on it at every opportunity, and hang on to it.
After all, a perfect pair only comes along once in a lifetime...
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
OK, Dems...NOW What?
From Condescending News Network . Com...
White House: Document spells out Iraq strategy
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In an effort to address criticism that the United States has no clear plan for winning the war in Iraq, the White House Wednesday released a 35-page document that it says maps out the national plan for achieving victory.
"National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," a National Security Council document, attempts to define what victory in Iraq means in the short term, the medium term and the long term."
You wanted an exit strategy, well there it is.
Now what?
Or more importantly, what is the Democrat strategy for ending the War? Cut and run? Increase the number of troops? Finish the job? Announce to the Insurgents a specific timetable for pulling the troops out?
What?
I'll tell you what the Democrat strategy is.
Hammer the President.
That's it. The Sum Total of the Democrat strategy regarding the War in Iraq. Just bash and accuse and undermine and oppose the President.
They have no interest in winning this War. They roundly ignore news of anything positive coming from Iraq, even when it comes from one of their own, preferring rather to focus on trumped up accusations of lies as to the reason we went to War in the first place, and to attempt to position themselves to take credit for any reduction of troops in Iraq, when it inevitably happens. (READ THAT LINK. Its the only morsel of real truth regarding the situation in Iraq that has come from any Democrat in a LONG, LONG time),
They are truly pathetic.
It's okay, though. President Bush's approval numbers are at about the same level as President Lincoln's were at the height of the War of Northern Aggression. Today history recognizes President Lincoln as one of the Greatest Presidents of all time, and the liberator of the slaves.
In a few years, history will recognize President Bush as one of the Greatest Presidents of all time, the Liberator of Twenty Million Iraqis from Tyranny, the Founder of Democracy in the Middle East, and the Stabilizer of the region, in the face of strong domestic opposition.
And history will remember the Democrats as the people who fought the liberation of the Iraqi people and the stabilization of that region for political advantage.
Which side of this conflict would you rather history remember YOU as being on?
White House: Document spells out Iraq strategy
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In an effort to address criticism that the United States has no clear plan for winning the war in Iraq, the White House Wednesday released a 35-page document that it says maps out the national plan for achieving victory.
"National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," a National Security Council document, attempts to define what victory in Iraq means in the short term, the medium term and the long term."
You wanted an exit strategy, well there it is.
Now what?
Or more importantly, what is the Democrat strategy for ending the War? Cut and run? Increase the number of troops? Finish the job? Announce to the Insurgents a specific timetable for pulling the troops out?
What?
I'll tell you what the Democrat strategy is.
Hammer the President.
That's it. The Sum Total of the Democrat strategy regarding the War in Iraq. Just bash and accuse and undermine and oppose the President.
They have no interest in winning this War. They roundly ignore news of anything positive coming from Iraq, even when it comes from one of their own, preferring rather to focus on trumped up accusations of lies as to the reason we went to War in the first place, and to attempt to position themselves to take credit for any reduction of troops in Iraq, when it inevitably happens. (READ THAT LINK. Its the only morsel of real truth regarding the situation in Iraq that has come from any Democrat in a LONG, LONG time),
They are truly pathetic.
It's okay, though. President Bush's approval numbers are at about the same level as President Lincoln's were at the height of the War of Northern Aggression. Today history recognizes President Lincoln as one of the Greatest Presidents of all time, and the liberator of the slaves.
In a few years, history will recognize President Bush as one of the Greatest Presidents of all time, the Liberator of Twenty Million Iraqis from Tyranny, the Founder of Democracy in the Middle East, and the Stabilizer of the region, in the face of strong domestic opposition.
And history will remember the Democrats as the people who fought the liberation of the Iraqi people and the stabilization of that region for political advantage.
Which side of this conflict would you rather history remember YOU as being on?
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
You Can Quote Me...
In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."-- Alexander Tyler
"A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."-- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
" The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."-- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794
"[T]he best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." - Benjamin Franklin
My objections to Socialism in America are not new. The problem is that Socialism is highly addictive, and we have had a taste of it now.
Most people do not know that America has tried Socialism (or more acurately, Communism) (Same economics, different methodology...) before. The Pilgrims originally set up a system by which all property was communally owned and shared. According to the Colony's Governor, William Bradford, "This system (“taking away of property and bringing [it] into a commonwealth”) bred “confusion and discontent” and “retarded much employment that would have been to [the settlers’] benefit and comfort.”
When they realized that this system was going to starve them all to death, the Pilgrims switched to a "Free Market" style economic system, by which each settler was allotted a parcel of land, and allowed to use, keep, or sell whatever they produced on it.
According to Bradford “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious.” In fact, “much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been” and productivity increased. “Women,” for example, “went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn.”
One last quote:
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana
The Founding Fathers remembered the lessons of the past when they set up this Nation, but now I am afraid that we are going to have to re-learn them.
Special thanks to the website of economist Dr. Walter E. Williams.
P.S. Tommorrow night, I promise I will post on something other than the evils of Socialism...
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."-- Alexander Tyler
"A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."-- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
" The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."-- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794
"[T]he best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." - Benjamin Franklin
My objections to Socialism in America are not new. The problem is that Socialism is highly addictive, and we have had a taste of it now.
Most people do not know that America has tried Socialism (or more acurately, Communism) (Same economics, different methodology...) before. The Pilgrims originally set up a system by which all property was communally owned and shared. According to the Colony's Governor, William Bradford, "This system (“taking away of property and bringing [it] into a commonwealth”) bred “confusion and discontent” and “retarded much employment that would have been to [the settlers’] benefit and comfort.”
When they realized that this system was going to starve them all to death, the Pilgrims switched to a "Free Market" style economic system, by which each settler was allotted a parcel of land, and allowed to use, keep, or sell whatever they produced on it.
According to Bradford “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious.” In fact, “much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been” and productivity increased. “Women,” for example, “went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn.”
One last quote:
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana
The Founding Fathers remembered the lessons of the past when they set up this Nation, but now I am afraid that we are going to have to re-learn them.
Special thanks to the website of economist Dr. Walter E. Williams.
P.S. Tommorrow night, I promise I will post on something other than the evils of Socialism...
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Killing The Golden Goose, American Style...
I hope that the UAW is happy.
GM has announced a new round of Layoffs, and Plant Closings.
An estimated 35,000 workers will lose their jobs.
The American Left should be dancing in the streets.
GM has been subject to an ongoing attack for several years now by the Left.
By "The Left", I mean the Labor Unions and the Environmental Lobbies.
By conservative estimate, it costs GM about 65$ per hour to employ a union member.
GM has aproximately 1.1 Million people drawing pensions and healthcare benifits, who no longer work for GM. They contribute nothing to GM anymore, they only cost GM money.
GM has aproximately 180,000 workers who actually do contribute to GM's profits.
In what Economics class is this equation sustainable?
If you want a GM product, I suggest that you buy it quick. GM won't be around much longer.
Those of you who work for GM now had better start looking for another job, for your own good. (Good luck finding one that pays as well...)
The Union is killing GM. Plain and simple. They threaten strikes unless GM provides benifits that no company can sustain. But this is not surprising. This is what Unions do.
They protect the unproductive, discourage innovation, and undermine profitability, without which no corporation can survive. They take the bargaining power away from the individual. They take away the possibility for rewards for individual excellence, and reward incompetence and derail consequences for substandard performance.
They are Socialist in their very nature.
I have never been a Union member, nor will I ever be. I hate everything that Unions are.
But then, I hate Socialism, in any form.
At the same time that this situation has been brewing, the Environmentalist Left has been engaging in an ongoing attack against SUV's, GM's best selling product, with gleeful help from the Media.
So the Left has successfully taken down another EEE-VILLL successful American Corporation.
Congratulations.
I hope those of you who manage to keep your jobs enjoy paying the extra taxes and higher prices for your cars, and all of the other advantages that flirting with Socialism affords.
I just hope that the rest of us can learn the lessons of GM.
For all of America's history, up until the mid to late 1940's, the Tax burden in America was around 3% of the GDP. Now it is 27%, and growing every year.
What changed?
We began to introduce Socialism.
We need to arrest this trend, or the Federal Government will go the way of GM.
GM has announced a new round of Layoffs, and Plant Closings.
An estimated 35,000 workers will lose their jobs.
The American Left should be dancing in the streets.
GM has been subject to an ongoing attack for several years now by the Left.
By "The Left", I mean the Labor Unions and the Environmental Lobbies.
By conservative estimate, it costs GM about 65$ per hour to employ a union member.
GM has aproximately 1.1 Million people drawing pensions and healthcare benifits, who no longer work for GM. They contribute nothing to GM anymore, they only cost GM money.
GM has aproximately 180,000 workers who actually do contribute to GM's profits.
In what Economics class is this equation sustainable?
If you want a GM product, I suggest that you buy it quick. GM won't be around much longer.
Those of you who work for GM now had better start looking for another job, for your own good. (Good luck finding one that pays as well...)
The Union is killing GM. Plain and simple. They threaten strikes unless GM provides benifits that no company can sustain. But this is not surprising. This is what Unions do.
They protect the unproductive, discourage innovation, and undermine profitability, without which no corporation can survive. They take the bargaining power away from the individual. They take away the possibility for rewards for individual excellence, and reward incompetence and derail consequences for substandard performance.
They are Socialist in their very nature.
I have never been a Union member, nor will I ever be. I hate everything that Unions are.
But then, I hate Socialism, in any form.
At the same time that this situation has been brewing, the Environmentalist Left has been engaging in an ongoing attack against SUV's, GM's best selling product, with gleeful help from the Media.
So the Left has successfully taken down another EEE-VILLL successful American Corporation.
Congratulations.
I hope those of you who manage to keep your jobs enjoy paying the extra taxes and higher prices for your cars, and all of the other advantages that flirting with Socialism affords.
I just hope that the rest of us can learn the lessons of GM.
For all of America's history, up until the mid to late 1940's, the Tax burden in America was around 3% of the GDP. Now it is 27%, and growing every year.
What changed?
We began to introduce Socialism.
We need to arrest this trend, or the Federal Government will go the way of GM.
Friday, November 18, 2005
The Religion Of Liberalism.
In a comment responding to another Blogger on my last post, I refered to Environmentalism and Liberalism as Religions.
The person to whom I was speaking accused me of "spin".
Since then I have been thinking about this subject more and more, though.
Is Liberalism a Religion?
Sure looks like one...
It believes in an omnipotent benevolent Creator and Protector, (Government,) that can be called upon to help you in your hour of need.
It requires a tithe (taxes.) (If only the Liberal Tithe would stop at 10%...)
It oppresses other Religions (Christianity) as a matter of Good v.s Evil.
Un-believers are labeled as heritics and lunatics, and must be converted, or silenced and forced to go along with the priciples of Liberalism whether they believe or not.
It's believers follow unquestioningly the edicts of it's Priests (Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, The Clintons), and chant it's prayers (Bush Lied, War For Oil, Halliburton/Cheyney/ Wal-MartBigOilBigTobaccoSuv's are Evil, Help the Poor/Children/Minorities/Women).
It's followers believe without a doubt that they are doing Good, without regard for the results of their policies, and they will never admit failure.
It may even be the last religion on Earth (unless there is some Pagan or Satanic Cult that I am unaware of) that practices Human Sacrifice (Abortion) by which unborn children are sacrificed to the gods of convenience and momentary pleasure.
There are Fundamentalist Jihadist Liberals, and Moderate Peaceful Liberals, who basically believe the same doctrine, but have varying levels of committment.
To a completely impartial observer, Liberalism qualifies as a Religion on almost every level.
So I say we call a spade a spade. (So to speak.)
Let's declare it a Religion. Let's give it it's proper due.
(I'll deal with Environmentalism on another post.)
The person to whom I was speaking accused me of "spin".
Since then I have been thinking about this subject more and more, though.
Is Liberalism a Religion?
Sure looks like one...
It believes in an omnipotent benevolent Creator and Protector, (Government,) that can be called upon to help you in your hour of need.
It requires a tithe (taxes.) (If only the Liberal Tithe would stop at 10%...)
It oppresses other Religions (Christianity) as a matter of Good v.s Evil.
Un-believers are labeled as heritics and lunatics, and must be converted, or silenced and forced to go along with the priciples of Liberalism whether they believe or not.
It's believers follow unquestioningly the edicts of it's Priests (Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, The Clintons), and chant it's prayers (Bush Lied, War For Oil, Halliburton/Cheyney/ Wal-MartBigOilBigTobaccoSuv's are Evil, Help the Poor/Children/Minorities/Women).
It's followers believe without a doubt that they are doing Good, without regard for the results of their policies, and they will never admit failure.
It may even be the last religion on Earth (unless there is some Pagan or Satanic Cult that I am unaware of) that practices Human Sacrifice (Abortion) by which unborn children are sacrificed to the gods of convenience and momentary pleasure.
There are Fundamentalist Jihadist Liberals, and Moderate Peaceful Liberals, who basically believe the same doctrine, but have varying levels of committment.
To a completely impartial observer, Liberalism qualifies as a Religion on almost every level.
So I say we call a spade a spade. (So to speak.)
Let's declare it a Religion. Let's give it it's proper due.
(I'll deal with Environmentalism on another post.)
Monday, November 14, 2005
Answer Me This...
From CNN.com...
Jordan 'failed bomber' confesses on TV...
Monday, November 14, 2005; Posted: 2:14 a.m. EST (07:14 GMT)
"I tried to detonate mine but I failed,' woman tells interrogators."
"My husband detonated his bomb, and I tried to detonate mine but failed," Saijida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi said on Jordanian television. "People fled running, and I left running with them."
"Jordanian authorities say al-Rishawi, 35, and her husband, Hussein Ali al-Shamari, went to carry out their bombings at the Radisson hotel. His explosives went off, killing 38 people attending a wedding reception in the ballroom."
'Jordan's Deputy Prime Minister Marwan Muasher said al-Rishawi is the sister of Zarqawi's "right-hand man," who was killed in Falluja, Iraq. He did not identify the Zarqawi lieutenant."
This story is intriguing to me on several levels. It brings up all kinds of interesting questions...
For one thing, this woman is the sister of a very high ranking Al-Queda official, and the wife of another one (who, incidentally succeeded in blowing himself up.)
Is Al-Queda having recruitment problems? Are they now having to resort to sending their right hand men, and family members? Even the women?
That's another thing...
Haven't female suicide bombers been rare up until now?
Isn't one of the motivating factors in recruiting suicide bombers the promise of Eternity in Paradise, surrounded by seventy perpetual virgins?
How does that work for a woman?
Does she get male virgins, or female virgins?
If she gets male virgins, how does that work within the religion of Islam? Would Allah be okay with the idea of a woman in a position of power over that many men for all of eternity?
Or does she become one of the virgins for some other suicide bomber? If so, do you think it would be worth it to blow yourself up so that you could have the chance to service some dude once every 25 to 35 days? (If he was an absolute machine...)
Or would she be assigned to her husband? In that case, she would get the chance to share him with sixty-nine other chicks...
And if that is the case, then is it possible that her husband might have tampered with her bomb, so that it wouldn't go off?
Is it possible that she screwed up on purpose?
And the ultimate question on this subject...
Have you ever thought about what a woman has to do to remain a perpetual virgin? She has to refrain from EVER having sex, right?
Would you want to live for all eternity with seventy women with whom you could NEVER have sex? EVER?
FOR ALL ETERNITY??
Hmmm...
Jordan 'failed bomber' confesses on TV...
Monday, November 14, 2005; Posted: 2:14 a.m. EST (07:14 GMT)
"I tried to detonate mine but I failed,' woman tells interrogators."
"My husband detonated his bomb, and I tried to detonate mine but failed," Saijida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi said on Jordanian television. "People fled running, and I left running with them."
"Jordanian authorities say al-Rishawi, 35, and her husband, Hussein Ali al-Shamari, went to carry out their bombings at the Radisson hotel. His explosives went off, killing 38 people attending a wedding reception in the ballroom."
'Jordan's Deputy Prime Minister Marwan Muasher said al-Rishawi is the sister of Zarqawi's "right-hand man," who was killed in Falluja, Iraq. He did not identify the Zarqawi lieutenant."
This story is intriguing to me on several levels. It brings up all kinds of interesting questions...
For one thing, this woman is the sister of a very high ranking Al-Queda official, and the wife of another one (who, incidentally succeeded in blowing himself up.)
Is Al-Queda having recruitment problems? Are they now having to resort to sending their right hand men, and family members? Even the women?
That's another thing...
Haven't female suicide bombers been rare up until now?
Isn't one of the motivating factors in recruiting suicide bombers the promise of Eternity in Paradise, surrounded by seventy perpetual virgins?
How does that work for a woman?
Does she get male virgins, or female virgins?
If she gets male virgins, how does that work within the religion of Islam? Would Allah be okay with the idea of a woman in a position of power over that many men for all of eternity?
Or does she become one of the virgins for some other suicide bomber? If so, do you think it would be worth it to blow yourself up so that you could have the chance to service some dude once every 25 to 35 days? (If he was an absolute machine...)
Or would she be assigned to her husband? In that case, she would get the chance to share him with sixty-nine other chicks...
And if that is the case, then is it possible that her husband might have tampered with her bomb, so that it wouldn't go off?
Is it possible that she screwed up on purpose?
And the ultimate question on this subject...
Have you ever thought about what a woman has to do to remain a perpetual virgin? She has to refrain from EVER having sex, right?
Would you want to live for all eternity with seventy women with whom you could NEVER have sex? EVER?
FOR ALL ETERNITY??
Hmmm...
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Get Killed or Die Trying
(Follow all links.)
Do you listen to Rap Music?
I do sometimes. It isn't my favorite genre, but I like some of it. I think that a lot of it is too violent, promotes the wrong stereotypes, and warps expectations and priorities, but I appreciate artistic expression.
The rapper Fi'tty Scent (Curtis Jackson) has released a new movie in a theatre near you. It is entitled "Get Rich Or Die Tryin'."
This inspiring movie chronicles the struggle of a young man, who at an early age realized the disadvantages of poverty. It tells the story of how he studied very hard, got really good grades, stayed out of trouble, went to college, and then worked his way up the corporate ladder to eventually become the CEO of a Fortune 500 Corporation.
Fans and Critics alike have sung the praises of this inspirational film, and I highly reccomend it, even though I have not yet seen it. (To those of you who are pigmentally challenged like me, I highly reccomend waiting until it comes out on home video.)
I believe that the youth of america need more positive roll models like Fi'tty Scent to help them find the path to success.
Do you listen to Rap Music?
I do sometimes. It isn't my favorite genre, but I like some of it. I think that a lot of it is too violent, promotes the wrong stereotypes, and warps expectations and priorities, but I appreciate artistic expression.
The rapper Fi'tty Scent (Curtis Jackson) has released a new movie in a theatre near you. It is entitled "Get Rich Or Die Tryin'."
This inspiring movie chronicles the struggle of a young man, who at an early age realized the disadvantages of poverty. It tells the story of how he studied very hard, got really good grades, stayed out of trouble, went to college, and then worked his way up the corporate ladder to eventually become the CEO of a Fortune 500 Corporation.
Fans and Critics alike have sung the praises of this inspirational film, and I highly reccomend it, even though I have not yet seen it. (To those of you who are pigmentally challenged like me, I highly reccomend waiting until it comes out on home video.)
I believe that the youth of america need more positive roll models like Fi'tty Scent to help them find the path to success.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
The REAL Oil Pirates...
The Senate wasted today with a politically motivated, useless, grandstanding investigation into the "excessive" profits of the oil industry in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
They were careful to leave out any mention of the real profiteers of the oil trade.
THE GOVERNMENT.
THEMSELVES.
From The Tax Foundation website...
"State and Federal Treasuries "Profit" More from Gasoline Sales than U.S. Oil Industry
by Jonathan Williams and Scott A. Hodge
High gas prices and strong oil company earnings have generated a rash of new tax proposals in recent months. Some lawmakers have called for new “windfall profits” taxes—similar to the one signed into federal law in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter—that would tax the profits of major oil companies at a rate of 50 percent. Meanwhile, many commentators have voiced support for the idea of increasing gas taxes to keep the price of gasoline at post-Katrina highs, thereby reducing gas consumption.
However, often ignored in this debate is the fact that oil industry profits are highly cyclical, making them just as prone to “busts” as to “booms.” Additionally, tax collections on the production and import of gasoline by state and federal governments are already near historic highs. In fact, in recent decades governments have collected far more revenue from gasoline taxes than the largest U.S. oil companies have collectively earned in domestic profits. "
These hypocritical politicians have engaged in a political witch hunt aimed at the oil industry, ignoring the fact that Taxes on gas and heating oil are HIGHER THAN THE PROFITS REALIZED BY THE COMPANIES THAT THEY SEEK TO DEMONIZE.
"In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the devastation that has followed, consumers are feeling the economic consequences of the disaster. Record gasoline prices are constantly in the headlines, which leaves many asking why prices are so high. While supply and demand are the primary determinants of gasoline prices, a significant portion of the price consumers pay at the pump can be attributed to gasoline taxes. In fact, the federal gas tax alone equals 18.4 cents for every gallon purchased."
So our Senators are grilling "Big Oil" for making a 9.8% profit on gasoline while the Federal Government makes 18.4 cents per gallon?
And in addition, the Senate is considering imposing a "Windfall Profits Tax" on the oil industry, and they are doing it because they think that the American people are so stupid that they will think that the oil companies should be punished for making a profit. (And they are probably right.)
Does no one besides me realize that Corporations do not PAY taxes? Corporations COLLECT taxes. They do not PAY them. You CAN'T MAKE THEM PAY TAXES. They add taxes to the top of the price of whatever they sell. IN ADDITION TO PROFITS. The only thing that a "Windfall Profits Tax" on oil will do is RAISE prices at the pump, and send money to an already bloated and overfed Government.
Where are the tax cuts?
Wouldn't that be the quickest, easiest way for the government to provide relief from high gas prices at the pump?
Are they interested in the well being of the consumer or not?
They were careful to leave out any mention of the real profiteers of the oil trade.
THE GOVERNMENT.
THEMSELVES.
From The Tax Foundation website...
"State and Federal Treasuries "Profit" More from Gasoline Sales than U.S. Oil Industry
by Jonathan Williams and Scott A. Hodge
High gas prices and strong oil company earnings have generated a rash of new tax proposals in recent months. Some lawmakers have called for new “windfall profits” taxes—similar to the one signed into federal law in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter—that would tax the profits of major oil companies at a rate of 50 percent. Meanwhile, many commentators have voiced support for the idea of increasing gas taxes to keep the price of gasoline at post-Katrina highs, thereby reducing gas consumption.
However, often ignored in this debate is the fact that oil industry profits are highly cyclical, making them just as prone to “busts” as to “booms.” Additionally, tax collections on the production and import of gasoline by state and federal governments are already near historic highs. In fact, in recent decades governments have collected far more revenue from gasoline taxes than the largest U.S. oil companies have collectively earned in domestic profits. "
These hypocritical politicians have engaged in a political witch hunt aimed at the oil industry, ignoring the fact that Taxes on gas and heating oil are HIGHER THAN THE PROFITS REALIZED BY THE COMPANIES THAT THEY SEEK TO DEMONIZE.
"In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the devastation that has followed, consumers are feeling the economic consequences of the disaster. Record gasoline prices are constantly in the headlines, which leaves many asking why prices are so high. While supply and demand are the primary determinants of gasoline prices, a significant portion of the price consumers pay at the pump can be attributed to gasoline taxes. In fact, the federal gas tax alone equals 18.4 cents for every gallon purchased."
So our Senators are grilling "Big Oil" for making a 9.8% profit on gasoline while the Federal Government makes 18.4 cents per gallon?
And in addition, the Senate is considering imposing a "Windfall Profits Tax" on the oil industry, and they are doing it because they think that the American people are so stupid that they will think that the oil companies should be punished for making a profit. (And they are probably right.)
Does no one besides me realize that Corporations do not PAY taxes? Corporations COLLECT taxes. They do not PAY them. You CAN'T MAKE THEM PAY TAXES. They add taxes to the top of the price of whatever they sell. IN ADDITION TO PROFITS. The only thing that a "Windfall Profits Tax" on oil will do is RAISE prices at the pump, and send money to an already bloated and overfed Government.
Where are the tax cuts?
Wouldn't that be the quickest, easiest way for the government to provide relief from high gas prices at the pump?
Are they interested in the well being of the consumer or not?
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
FASCIST!!
Occasionally when a left leaning ideaologue visits my blog, or when I visit their's, I get called a Fascist. I assume that they assume that the term "Fascist" means "Extreme right wing", and it is usually associated (within this context) with Hitler, or being a Nazi. They do this, (again, I am assuming,) because they need a scary, evil sounding label to brand me with, in order to attack my credibility with any hapless reader who may happen to stumble across my writings.
(Hitler was a Socialist, by the way. Mousilini was a Fascist.)
The problem is that no one has ever used this term correctly.
I am not a Fascist. I am a "Free Market Capitalist." A "Laissez-Faire" Capitalist, which, loosley translated means a "leave us the hell alone" Capitalist. I believe the less Government interferes with the "Free Market" economic system, the better off everyone is, and the stronger our Economy becomes. (Sorry, ER, you still haven't convinced me...)
I believe that if a businessman figures out how to turn profits with his company, legally, then that businessman should be allowed to keep those profits. I also believe that if anyone, businessman, or private citizen, fails, due to bad decisions made while exercising their own freedom to make bad decisions, then they should be allowed to fail, so that the rest of us can be allowed to learn from their mistakes. So that THEY can be allowed to learn from their mistakes.
I am not, however, heartless. I do not believe that anyone in America should be allowed to starve. I also do not believe that anyone who has failed in life due to decisions that they have made while exercising their freedom to make bad decisions, should be allowed to live the same lifestyle (supported by the rest of us who have not made such bad decisions) as a working couple, both making their own income, and trying to manage their money wisely.
(How about THAT sentence?)
My point is that the term "Fascist" has a specific meaning, and it ain't "Extreme right wing."
If you look up the term "Fascist" on Dictionary.com, it says:
"fas·cist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshst)n.
often Fascist:
1) An advocate or adherent of fascism.
2)A reactionary or dictatorial person. "
Well, I have no interest in setting up any kind of dictatorship in America. I like our system of Elected Representative Government just fine.
The strict definition of an Economic Fascist (as I understand it) is "Someone who believes in the Government control of privately owned businesses."
I say all of that to say this.
There are evidently some real Economic Fascists in our Government.
Next week, the chief executives of all of the major oil companies are being called before the Senate to explain why their profits climbed as high as 9% during the last business quarter. (9% is not an outrageous amount of profit for a business to make, in case you didn't know...)
The Senate is also expected to demand that these oil companies "give back" some of these exorbitant profits to help pay for heating costs for "the poor".
The confiscation of profits from privately owned businesses for the public good is called "Fascism."
Do you know who the most prominent "Fascists" (by this definition) in the Senate are?
Republican Senator Charles "Chuck" Grassley of Iowa, and New York Senator Hillary Clinton. (We all know what she claims to be.)
I will say what I said on another blog recently about Wal-Mart.
If I owned Exxon-Mobil, I would shut it down.
Then watch what would happen to gas prices, and oil company profits.
Watch what would happen to consumer confidence, the stock market, inflation, and unemployment.
Do you want high gas prices?
Then support people who, for political advantage, would take the profit out of the oil industry.
How high do you want the price of a gallon of gas to go?
(Hitler was a Socialist, by the way. Mousilini was a Fascist.)
The problem is that no one has ever used this term correctly.
I am not a Fascist. I am a "Free Market Capitalist." A "Laissez-Faire" Capitalist, which, loosley translated means a "leave us the hell alone" Capitalist. I believe the less Government interferes with the "Free Market" economic system, the better off everyone is, and the stronger our Economy becomes. (Sorry, ER, you still haven't convinced me...)
I believe that if a businessman figures out how to turn profits with his company, legally, then that businessman should be allowed to keep those profits. I also believe that if anyone, businessman, or private citizen, fails, due to bad decisions made while exercising their own freedom to make bad decisions, then they should be allowed to fail, so that the rest of us can be allowed to learn from their mistakes. So that THEY can be allowed to learn from their mistakes.
I am not, however, heartless. I do not believe that anyone in America should be allowed to starve. I also do not believe that anyone who has failed in life due to decisions that they have made while exercising their freedom to make bad decisions, should be allowed to live the same lifestyle (supported by the rest of us who have not made such bad decisions) as a working couple, both making their own income, and trying to manage their money wisely.
(How about THAT sentence?)
My point is that the term "Fascist" has a specific meaning, and it ain't "Extreme right wing."
If you look up the term "Fascist" on Dictionary.com, it says:
"fas·cist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshst)n.
often Fascist:
1) An advocate or adherent of fascism.
2)A reactionary or dictatorial person. "
Well, I have no interest in setting up any kind of dictatorship in America. I like our system of Elected Representative Government just fine.
The strict definition of an Economic Fascist (as I understand it) is "Someone who believes in the Government control of privately owned businesses."
I say all of that to say this.
There are evidently some real Economic Fascists in our Government.
Next week, the chief executives of all of the major oil companies are being called before the Senate to explain why their profits climbed as high as 9% during the last business quarter. (9% is not an outrageous amount of profit for a business to make, in case you didn't know...)
The Senate is also expected to demand that these oil companies "give back" some of these exorbitant profits to help pay for heating costs for "the poor".
The confiscation of profits from privately owned businesses for the public good is called "Fascism."
Do you know who the most prominent "Fascists" (by this definition) in the Senate are?
Republican Senator Charles "Chuck" Grassley of Iowa, and New York Senator Hillary Clinton. (We all know what she claims to be.)
I will say what I said on another blog recently about Wal-Mart.
If I owned Exxon-Mobil, I would shut it down.
Then watch what would happen to gas prices, and oil company profits.
Watch what would happen to consumer confidence, the stock market, inflation, and unemployment.
Do you want high gas prices?
Then support people who, for political advantage, would take the profit out of the oil industry.
How high do you want the price of a gallon of gas to go?
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Acting!!...Marvelous!!!...
Did you watch "The West Wing" tonight?
I don't watch it very often becuase it usually turns me into a raving maniac for a couple of hours afterwards, but I watched it tonight.
Tonight "The West Wing" featured a "live" presidential debate between the Pro-Choice Republican candidate senator Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda), and Pro-Life (or rather Anti-reckless Abortion) (Who in the world is FOR reckless Abortion?) Democrat Candidate congressman Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits).
Just before they went onstage, the two candidates decided to bravely throw caution to the proverbial wind, and forget the rules of debate decided on beforehand by their staffers, in order to have an "honest" debate.
I watched as they presented their respective viewpionts, and a horrible thought struck me.
I would vote for the Republican candidate, even if it were Alan Alda!
He explained that it is not the job of the President or Government to create jobs, but rather to get out of the way of the market, and let IT create the jobs.
He explained that the choice was between a Republican who might not be able to "pay for tax cuts", and a Democrat who could not pay for expanding Government programs, even with tax increases. Neither balancing the budget.
He explained the importance of getting "control" of government rather than growing government. He explained that an unobtrusive Government was what the founding fathers wanted for us.
He refused to take any other pledge, other that the Oath of Office, when challenged by his opponent to pledge never to go to war for oil. (Like we have ever done that before.)
I'm sorry, but his proposals and explanations of the issues just made more sense to me, even though while I was watching him do it, I knew full well that Alda had trouble even making his mouth say the things he was saying. He doesn't believe a word of any of it.
But he sold it.
This makes me think of Hillary's drift to the right (not the right of center, just the right of where she used to be...) as we plod on toward the 2008 election cycle. She won't speak out against the war, she has softened on Abortion, and has in general tried to distance herself from the positions of the "Radical Left".
The truth is that I would never vote for Alan Alda for president, because I know how he really feels about the issues. No amount of acting skill or slick writing can change that.
I would know that even if he spouted the right rhetoric, gave all of the right answers, and sold his part perfectly, I would still take into account what I know already of his political views.
Same thing with Hillary. Even if she pleged to only nominate Pro-Life judges to the Supreme Court, promised never to socialize medicine, and to offer a tax cut for working families who pay for their own healthcare, and proposed a flat tax system, I still could not vote for her, because I know that she would not be articulating her core beliefs, but rather saying whatever she and her advisors thought would get her enough votes to win.
I have to be able to believe that the candidate that I am listening to is actually expressing his or her beliefs.
This is why, when given a choice between George W. Bush, and John F. Kerry, I choose Bush.
This is why, when given a choice between George W. Bush, and Al Gore, I choose Bush.
This is why, when given a choice between Hillary and an un-named Republican, the Republican would have to be pretty bad for me to choose Hillary.
Character, and honesty are THE MOST important factors when choosing an elected leader.
Aside from that, all we are doing is judging acting skills.
I don't watch it very often becuase it usually turns me into a raving maniac for a couple of hours afterwards, but I watched it tonight.
Tonight "The West Wing" featured a "live" presidential debate between the Pro-Choice Republican candidate senator Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda), and Pro-Life (or rather Anti-reckless Abortion) (Who in the world is FOR reckless Abortion?) Democrat Candidate congressman Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits).
Just before they went onstage, the two candidates decided to bravely throw caution to the proverbial wind, and forget the rules of debate decided on beforehand by their staffers, in order to have an "honest" debate.
I watched as they presented their respective viewpionts, and a horrible thought struck me.
I would vote for the Republican candidate, even if it were Alan Alda!
He explained that it is not the job of the President or Government to create jobs, but rather to get out of the way of the market, and let IT create the jobs.
He explained that the choice was between a Republican who might not be able to "pay for tax cuts", and a Democrat who could not pay for expanding Government programs, even with tax increases. Neither balancing the budget.
He explained the importance of getting "control" of government rather than growing government. He explained that an unobtrusive Government was what the founding fathers wanted for us.
He refused to take any other pledge, other that the Oath of Office, when challenged by his opponent to pledge never to go to war for oil. (Like we have ever done that before.)
I'm sorry, but his proposals and explanations of the issues just made more sense to me, even though while I was watching him do it, I knew full well that Alda had trouble even making his mouth say the things he was saying. He doesn't believe a word of any of it.
But he sold it.
This makes me think of Hillary's drift to the right (not the right of center, just the right of where she used to be...) as we plod on toward the 2008 election cycle. She won't speak out against the war, she has softened on Abortion, and has in general tried to distance herself from the positions of the "Radical Left".
The truth is that I would never vote for Alan Alda for president, because I know how he really feels about the issues. No amount of acting skill or slick writing can change that.
I would know that even if he spouted the right rhetoric, gave all of the right answers, and sold his part perfectly, I would still take into account what I know already of his political views.
Same thing with Hillary. Even if she pleged to only nominate Pro-Life judges to the Supreme Court, promised never to socialize medicine, and to offer a tax cut for working families who pay for their own healthcare, and proposed a flat tax system, I still could not vote for her, because I know that she would not be articulating her core beliefs, but rather saying whatever she and her advisors thought would get her enough votes to win.
I have to be able to believe that the candidate that I am listening to is actually expressing his or her beliefs.
This is why, when given a choice between George W. Bush, and John F. Kerry, I choose Bush.
This is why, when given a choice between George W. Bush, and Al Gore, I choose Bush.
This is why, when given a choice between Hillary and an un-named Republican, the Republican would have to be pretty bad for me to choose Hillary.
Character, and honesty are THE MOST important factors when choosing an elected leader.
Aside from that, all we are doing is judging acting skills.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Wal-Mart Revisited...
From Brietbart.com, via the Drudge Report...
"WAL-MART ECONOMY KEEPS LID ON U.S. INFLATION: studyNov 04 12:50 PM US/Eastern
"The "rock-bottom" pricing strategy used by retail giant Wal-Mart has filtered into the US economy and kept a lid on inflation, according to a study commissioned by the company and released."
Didn't that just say that Wal-Mart commissioned and released a study into whether they, as a company were good or bad for the U.S. economy?
"The study by the economic research firm Global Insight concluded that the discounting along with other measures led to cumulative savings for consumers of 263 billion dollars between 1985 and 2004, or 895 dollars per person."
"The report also found that Wal-Mart's low pay for employees led to a 2.2 percent drop in overall wages across the economy but maintained that this was offset by falling consumer prices." (emphasis mine.)
"Consumers earned less in nominal dollars, but their income bought them more in the economy with Wal-Mart because of real disposable income gains," the study concluded." (again, emphasis mine.)
The Free Market works, folks.
Hate Wal-Mart all you want.
Wal-Mart is a good thing for America.
"WAL-MART ECONOMY KEEPS LID ON U.S. INFLATION: studyNov 04 12:50 PM US/Eastern
"The "rock-bottom" pricing strategy used by retail giant Wal-Mart has filtered into the US economy and kept a lid on inflation, according to a study commissioned by the company and released."
Didn't that just say that Wal-Mart commissioned and released a study into whether they, as a company were good or bad for the U.S. economy?
"The study by the economic research firm Global Insight concluded that the discounting along with other measures led to cumulative savings for consumers of 263 billion dollars between 1985 and 2004, or 895 dollars per person."
"The report also found that Wal-Mart's low pay for employees led to a 2.2 percent drop in overall wages across the economy but maintained that this was offset by falling consumer prices." (emphasis mine.)
"Consumers earned less in nominal dollars, but their income bought them more in the economy with Wal-Mart because of real disposable income gains," the study concluded." (again, emphasis mine.)
The Free Market works, folks.
Hate Wal-Mart all you want.
Wal-Mart is a good thing for America.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Tug's Wreck...
My friend, ER, in one of his recent posts, spoke of a wreck that he survived a number of years ago. It started me thinking about my own closest call.
Wednesday morning, March 10, 2004, about 8:10 am, I was pulling a load of live turkeys from a farm deep in the woods of eastern North Carolina to the Cargill processing plant in St Pauls, NC.
It wasn't even supposed to be my load, but one of the other guys had to go to the dentist that morning, and he asked me if I would trade schedules with him that night so that he could go home about 4:00 am and rest a few hours before he went. I traded.
The schedule on that job was erratic, to say the least. We went in sometime before midnight, giving ourselves enough time to get to whichever farm our first load came from, pulled two or three loads per night, and went back home whenever we dropped the last load of the day at the plant in the morning. The length of the workday varied according to how many loads, how far from the plant the farm was, and whether or not we totaled our truck that night.
The night was uneventful for the most part. I pulled my first two loads, dropped them at the plant, and took the only trailer that was left there, number 326.
Normally, none of us would pull 326, because it had weak springs on the right hand side, and was tipsy. It would scare you. We had complained about it to our supervisor, but most of our trailers were junk, and if they had put them all in the shop, we wouldn't have had any to pull the birds with. The only thing we could do was put one or two in the shop until they were fixed, and pull the rest until we got them back.
I hooked to 326, and headed to the farm. When I got to the farm, the loading crew was running behind, so I parked off to the side, and took a nap.
They woke me up about 7:30, and I pulled up to the loader. The standard procedure was to load half of one side, turn around, and load all of the other side, turn back around, and load the rest of the first side. But this what we called a "Cleanout Load." The last load of that flock, from that farm. I had to get every last bird from that farm on that load, and if it was heavy, then it was heavy.
They wound up loading the whole right side twice.
The side with the weak springs.
I made it seven miles.
I had stopped at a stop sign, and started again, and was up to around 35 MPH. The road curved around to the left, and about halfway around the curve, I glanced at my mirror, and observed my left side trailer wheels coming off the ground, real gentle like.
I cannot describe the feeling you get when you see something like that.
I backed off the fuel, and tried to set the trailer back down, but it kept on coming up, so I slammed the fuel back to it, to try to keep the cab ahead of the load. I knew at that point that I was going to turn over, and my main concern was not getting trapped under 2500 dying turkeys, out in the middle of the woods.
The truck turned almost completely upside down in a ditch with about a foot of water in it. When it stopped sliding, I climbed out the driver's side window, and surveyed the damage.
I had totaled an almost new, T-800 Kenworth road tractor, a 30 year old cage trailer, and killed 1300 of the little turkeys in the trailer, and almost killed the big one in the cab.
When I tried to climb back in to get my cell phone, there wasn't room in the cab for a human being. I had to find the headset cord, and follow it to the phone, and fish it out from outside.
Anyway, I called in, reported the wreck, and the ambulance came and took me away. (They wouldn't let me drive the ambulance...I was bummed.)
At the Hospital, I discovered that I do not have one single private part, but that I was not seriously hurt. I was one big purple bruise, but the only broken bone that I had was my floating rib on my left side. I had a cut on my head behind my right ear, a cut and sprained index finger on my right hand, and a sprained right wrist.
But that was it.
I lived through it. I don't know why.
I think about that every time I look at the pictures of that truck. I think about my wife of almost five months walking around the truck, taking pictures and crying. I think about myself, covered with mud and blood, sitting in the wheelchair at the hospital, trying through a case of mild shock to explain what happened, to the company safety manager, and what I must have looked like to him. I think about how my wife must have felt when she got that phone call at work, and learned that her new husband had just destroyed an 80,000 lb truck, and was at the hospital.
I think about how she must have felt when she realized that her new husband no longer had a job, and probably could not get another one any time soon. I think about how worthless I became as the depression set in over the next few weeks.
I'm glad she stuck with me through it. I certainly wouldn't have blamed her if she hadn't. I became a pitiful monster.
I think about how easily and quickly you can lose it all.
But she, my family and her family prayed me through the aftermath. Today I have a decent job, (Still driving tractor-trailers), my self esteem is back, and this is just an unpleasant memory.
But if anyone ever asks me how I know that there is a God, I can tell them that I know because I felt His hands close around me as the cab of that truck folded up.
Take it however you want, but I believe.
I got the pictures to prove it.
Monday, October 31, 2005
I Can't take It Anymore...
I think I will take a couple of days off from my normal cycle of blogging.
It has been a rough couple of days for me.
On Saturday, I wrote a post in which I advocated giving away free food in order to combat the problem of Hunger in America, giving free Housing and Job Skill training and Education to all of America's Homeless, Revamping the tax code in order to spur the Economy and Create Jobs, and Closing the Borders in order to stop the artificial depression of Wages and Working Conditions.
I was called a Fascist, Told that I was filled with Hatred, and mercilessly attacked, because I dared to state the belief that America's achievers should be allowed to keep the money that they make, and that perhaps people should be responsible for their own well being.
Sunday, I voiced my opinion (on another blog) that the Second Ammendment was a good thing, and that the Gun Laws we already have on the books should be enforced, rather than enacting even more laws, designed to take guns for personal protection out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
I was then told that I was advocating the Murder of Police Officers.
Tonight, I logged onto a Friend's blog, and read a "Poor Pitiful Me" style post lamenting the fact that Wal - Mart was making money, but the author of the post could not, when he was working there. This was a mystery to him, even though, by his own admission, he wouldn't stick with the job for any length of time, and was constantly quiting, and starting back again at entry level wages.
On his comments page, I read comments lamenting the fact that Even though Wal-Mart provided Health Insurance, (they don't HAVE to, you know) that it was sub-standard, and that unskilled, hourly workers got low pay.
(I got news for you...If the kid next to you is still in high school, and makes the same money as you, you really need to re-evaluate your situation.)
Then I read a comment touting the benifits of inflation.
And then another slamming ALL big business, Mourning the death of the "Mom and Pop" mainstreet, (who didn't pay their workers anything, either...) and suggesting that we all go and burn our local Wal-Mart store down.
I left an unnessecarily harsh comment there, and for that I apologize.
I know that this post seems quite harsh as well, and again, I apologize. I am not trying to offend anyone, but rather to wake everyone up.
This kind of thinking is what will eventually ruin our Economy, on a National Scale.
Welcome to the People's Republic of the United States.
When people are tired of the Free Market Economy that built America into the strongest Nation in the History of the World in only 200 short years, then they are tired of Freedom.
With Freedom comes Responsibility for YOUR OWN ASS. It's a harsh fact, but it IS a fact.
Nobody should have to hold your hand. Nobody should have to feed you. Nobody else should have to bear the burden for YOUR mistakes.
If you are forty years old, and all you are qualified to do is take stuff out of a box, and put it on a shelf, or push a dust mop around your local Wal-Mart, then you should be glad that Wal-Mart was willing to hire you, and you should be grateful for whatever they provide, in connection with this type of job.
It isn't the fault of the American Taxpayer, it isn't the fault of Wal-Mart, nor President Bush, nor the Big Oil Companies, nor Bill Gates, nor Paris Hilton, nor Brittany Spears, nor the Olsen Twins.
It's Yours.
Figure out how to fix it.
What bugs me about all of this is that I know that ALL of these people are smarter than this.
It drives me crazy, and being driven crazy is not why I started a blog.
So have fun slamming the creator of so many jobs, and the supplier of so many things to so many people, at low, affordable prices.
Figure out how to help the poor on your own. (But keep your measley hands off my wallet while you do it.)
I'll see you all in a couple of days.
I'm going to go look for someone to talk to who actually is willing to think.
It has been a rough couple of days for me.
On Saturday, I wrote a post in which I advocated giving away free food in order to combat the problem of Hunger in America, giving free Housing and Job Skill training and Education to all of America's Homeless, Revamping the tax code in order to spur the Economy and Create Jobs, and Closing the Borders in order to stop the artificial depression of Wages and Working Conditions.
I was called a Fascist, Told that I was filled with Hatred, and mercilessly attacked, because I dared to state the belief that America's achievers should be allowed to keep the money that they make, and that perhaps people should be responsible for their own well being.
Sunday, I voiced my opinion (on another blog) that the Second Ammendment was a good thing, and that the Gun Laws we already have on the books should be enforced, rather than enacting even more laws, designed to take guns for personal protection out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
I was then told that I was advocating the Murder of Police Officers.
Tonight, I logged onto a Friend's blog, and read a "Poor Pitiful Me" style post lamenting the fact that Wal - Mart was making money, but the author of the post could not, when he was working there. This was a mystery to him, even though, by his own admission, he wouldn't stick with the job for any length of time, and was constantly quiting, and starting back again at entry level wages.
On his comments page, I read comments lamenting the fact that Even though Wal-Mart provided Health Insurance, (they don't HAVE to, you know) that it was sub-standard, and that unskilled, hourly workers got low pay.
(I got news for you...If the kid next to you is still in high school, and makes the same money as you, you really need to re-evaluate your situation.)
Then I read a comment touting the benifits of inflation.
And then another slamming ALL big business, Mourning the death of the "Mom and Pop" mainstreet, (who didn't pay their workers anything, either...) and suggesting that we all go and burn our local Wal-Mart store down.
I left an unnessecarily harsh comment there, and for that I apologize.
I know that this post seems quite harsh as well, and again, I apologize. I am not trying to offend anyone, but rather to wake everyone up.
This kind of thinking is what will eventually ruin our Economy, on a National Scale.
Welcome to the People's Republic of the United States.
When people are tired of the Free Market Economy that built America into the strongest Nation in the History of the World in only 200 short years, then they are tired of Freedom.
With Freedom comes Responsibility for YOUR OWN ASS. It's a harsh fact, but it IS a fact.
Nobody should have to hold your hand. Nobody should have to feed you. Nobody else should have to bear the burden for YOUR mistakes.
If you are forty years old, and all you are qualified to do is take stuff out of a box, and put it on a shelf, or push a dust mop around your local Wal-Mart, then you should be glad that Wal-Mart was willing to hire you, and you should be grateful for whatever they provide, in connection with this type of job.
It isn't the fault of the American Taxpayer, it isn't the fault of Wal-Mart, nor President Bush, nor the Big Oil Companies, nor Bill Gates, nor Paris Hilton, nor Brittany Spears, nor the Olsen Twins.
It's Yours.
Figure out how to fix it.
What bugs me about all of this is that I know that ALL of these people are smarter than this.
It drives me crazy, and being driven crazy is not why I started a blog.
So have fun slamming the creator of so many jobs, and the supplier of so many things to so many people, at low, affordable prices.
Figure out how to help the poor on your own. (But keep your measley hands off my wallet while you do it.)
I'll see you all in a couple of days.
I'm going to go look for someone to talk to who actually is willing to think.
Scooter Libby
Are you sick of the Karl Rove story YET??
Five different indictments were handed down against Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, "Scooter"Libby on friday.
These indictments were the result of a two year long, seventy Million dollar investigation into who, if anyone, leaked the name of a covert (?) CIA agent, Valerie Plame, to the press.
During this investigation, it was never determined that a crime of any kind was committed in the first place, but it was determined that crimes may have been committed along the way, stemming from the investigation (into a non-crime.)
In any case, they were after Karl Rove.
The best they could do was "Scooter" Libby.
I remember the first time I ever heard of "Scooter"...
It was about thursday of week before last, when the MSM began to talk about him in conjunction with this case. Libby is by no means the "Big Fish" that the Grand Jury, or the Main Stream Media were angling for.
But he is a Bush Whitehouse person, so you can bet that they will make as much political hay with it as they can.
Rove still has not been indicted for anything.
I think this is a good idea.
We should investigate everyone in Washington, from the President, to all of our Congressmen, Senators, their Aides, Advisors, friends and family. All the way down to the Whitehouse Custodial staff.
And do a very thorough investigation on them all.
Don't just try to find out if they have committed crime, but try to determine whether they can be tricked, or coerced into committing any kind of crime, either by comission or omission over the course of a two year investigation.
Leave no stone unturned.
If there is crime or corruption in Washington, I want it exposed. Dealt with.
Punished.
With the same intensity that has been directed at Karl Rove.
How many of our elected officials do you think could stand up to this kind of scrutiny?
Who do you think would be the first to fall?
Who do you believe would be the last one standing?
Five different indictments were handed down against Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, "Scooter"Libby on friday.
These indictments were the result of a two year long, seventy Million dollar investigation into who, if anyone, leaked the name of a covert (?) CIA agent, Valerie Plame, to the press.
During this investigation, it was never determined that a crime of any kind was committed in the first place, but it was determined that crimes may have been committed along the way, stemming from the investigation (into a non-crime.)
In any case, they were after Karl Rove.
The best they could do was "Scooter" Libby.
I remember the first time I ever heard of "Scooter"...
It was about thursday of week before last, when the MSM began to talk about him in conjunction with this case. Libby is by no means the "Big Fish" that the Grand Jury, or the Main Stream Media were angling for.
But he is a Bush Whitehouse person, so you can bet that they will make as much political hay with it as they can.
Rove still has not been indicted for anything.
I think this is a good idea.
We should investigate everyone in Washington, from the President, to all of our Congressmen, Senators, their Aides, Advisors, friends and family. All the way down to the Whitehouse Custodial staff.
And do a very thorough investigation on them all.
Don't just try to find out if they have committed crime, but try to determine whether they can be tricked, or coerced into committing any kind of crime, either by comission or omission over the course of a two year investigation.
Leave no stone unturned.
If there is crime or corruption in Washington, I want it exposed. Dealt with.
Punished.
With the same intensity that has been directed at Karl Rove.
How many of our elected officials do you think could stand up to this kind of scrutiny?
Who do you think would be the first to fall?
Who do you believe would be the last one standing?
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Change Is Good...
I have switched to Haloscan Commenting on this blog.
While it may be a little more of a hassle to post a comment here from now on, I do not want that to discourage anyone from leaving their thoughts about my posts.
The reason that I did it is so that I can control the tone of my comments page, and ultimately this will be a more friendly place.
Dissenting opinions have always been welcome, and they still are.
If you believe that I am wrong about anything, then tell me so.
Tell me why.
If you agree with me, tell me that as well.
If you can expand on one of my ideas, then feel free.
If I am full of crap, then point it out. I will consider your opinion, and respond accordingly. Whether you agree, or disagree.
My only request is, Keep it civil.
Hateful, unreasonable comments will be removed. Personal attacks against me, or any of my guests here will be removed, or I might even manipulate your comment to make you a flaming Right Wing Conservative. If this happens to you, it will be your own fault.
If you become a repeat offender, you will be banned.
This is MY blog.
I love honest debate, and the friendly exchange of ideas.
I don't have to put up with ignorance, hatespeech, or personal attacks, nor should anyone else who visits my blog.
This just makes it a little easier for me to protect myself, and my readers and commentors from these instances of unnessecary ugliness.
I would like to think that we are all friends here, just having a discussion.
I have said before, Neither I, nor anyone who visits here (that I know of) sets National Policy.
This is a video game.
Let's have fun with it.
While it may be a little more of a hassle to post a comment here from now on, I do not want that to discourage anyone from leaving their thoughts about my posts.
The reason that I did it is so that I can control the tone of my comments page, and ultimately this will be a more friendly place.
Dissenting opinions have always been welcome, and they still are.
If you believe that I am wrong about anything, then tell me so.
Tell me why.
If you agree with me, tell me that as well.
If you can expand on one of my ideas, then feel free.
If I am full of crap, then point it out. I will consider your opinion, and respond accordingly. Whether you agree, or disagree.
My only request is, Keep it civil.
Hateful, unreasonable comments will be removed. Personal attacks against me, or any of my guests here will be removed, or I might even manipulate your comment to make you a flaming Right Wing Conservative. If this happens to you, it will be your own fault.
If you become a repeat offender, you will be banned.
This is MY blog.
I love honest debate, and the friendly exchange of ideas.
I don't have to put up with ignorance, hatespeech, or personal attacks, nor should anyone else who visits my blog.
This just makes it a little easier for me to protect myself, and my readers and commentors from these instances of unnessecary ugliness.
I would like to think that we are all friends here, just having a discussion.
I have said before, Neither I, nor anyone who visits here (that I know of) sets National Policy.
This is a video game.
Let's have fun with it.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Tug's Plan For Helping The Poor.
There are a few things that I believe.
I believe that America is the land of opportunity.
I believe that Capitalism is the reason that America is the land of opportunity. I also believe that Socialism undermines the economic system which makes America strong by punishing achievers who take advantage of the opportunities that America offers, and rewarding behavior which creates dependency.
We in America are free. (At least for a little while longer, anyway.) We can decide where we want to live, how we want to live, how and whom we want to worship, or not. We can own property, we can choose our leaders, and we can make up our own minds about what we want to do for a living.
Our chances for wealth and prosperity in America are limited only by our individual ability to think, and our willingness to work hard enough to achieve our personal goals. (And in part, by the number of mistakes we, individually, have made in the past.)
What this means is that, ultimately, we are responsible for our own circumstances.
That being said, I will say that I do realize that some people are born with advantages that others do not have. That does not mean that these people should be punished, or that the disadvantaged people should be rewarded. Life is not fair. Never has been, never will be. To try to make life fair for everyone is an unrealistic goal, and a waste of time. It sounds good, and working toward that goal may make us feel good, for a while, but to set that as a goal means ultimate failure.
However, no one in America should be allowed to starve, no matter what situation they were born into. No child should be made to suffer because of bad decisions made by their parents.
I also realize that there are people in America who are handicapped to the point that they cannot provide for themselves, and provisions must be made for these people.
So here are a few suggestions for helping the poor and disadvantaged, without resorting to Socialist wealth redistribution programs, (Which I consider to be morally wrong.)
1. Food.
Do away completely with Food Stamp programs, and make one aisle in every grocery store completely free. Put generic items on this aisle like dry beans, rice, milk, generic breakfast cereals, canned vegatables, Spam, fatback, generic toiletries, and other household needs. Make all of these items totally free, to anyone who wants them.
This would do three things. One, it would eliminate fraud by eliminating any conversion of any of this stuff into cash, because anyone who wanted this kind of stuff could get all they wanted for free, and Two, eventually the people who could do better would get tired of living off that crap, and make an attempt to better their situation.
And Three, No one would go hungry. Anywhere, ever.
2. Clothing.
Make all clothing donations to organizations like the Salvation army, or Goodwill, completely tax deductible, at full, new, retail value, for everyone who donates anything, regardless of their income.
Make all clothing purchases from organizations like these completely tax deductible, at full purchase price, for everyone, regardless of their income.
This would encourage the "Rich" to donate unused clothing to these organizations, and the "Working Poor" to buy clothing from them. Win, win. And the Government neither made money, nor lost money on the process.
3. Housing.
This one was a little tougher. After much thought, I came to the conclusion that people who are unwilling to provide for themselves are not really entitled to the same choices as people who are, and people who are unable to provide for themselves should be grateful for whatever help they get from society.
First of all, I would put anyone who is too mentally ill to look after themselves into mental health care facilities. We used to do this, but the Democrats did away with this practice during the Carter Administration. (I don't know why.)
I would place anyone who is too physically handicapped to look after themselves into private assisted living facilities, if they had no family who were willing and able to look after them, and I would supplement these families, and facilities, with enough taxpayer money to make a job there profitable for qualified individuals who feel the calling to work there.
Anyone else who is homeless, I would relocate to closed military bases around the country. These facilities have provisions for schools, single family housing for homeless families, and dormitory style, and barracks housing for single homeless people. There are schools, and a multitude of buildings that can be converted into educational facilities for job training for homeless or disadvantaged adults.
I would even let the military oversee the education of these disadvantaged people, both children and adults, and use the power of the military to help place these people in jobs when they are trained. I would train them to be Civilian Military Contractors, and give them preferential treatment when bidding on military contracts.
There is already a "Troops to Teachers" program, and I would use this program to help poor and disadvantaged Americans.
4. Jobs.
We need to eliminate all corporate taxes, and go to a consumption based tax system, or a flat individual tax system, by which every individual American pays, say, 10 percent of their income in taxes.
No more than 10 percent, though. I have to live on the income that I get, and I believe that the Government should make do with 10 percent of all of the money that the whole working population can generate.
10 percent is enough for Jesus Christ. It should be enough for the Federal Government.
You have no idea how jobs would bloom if the drag of confiscatory taxes were to be removed from American industry. Rich people are in the business of making money. Not providing jobs, not manufacturing products, MAKING MONEY.
That's all.
All other things are peripheral. Job creation, product production, innovation, invention, marketing...all peripheral to the process of making money.
Rich people are the creators of jobs.
The more money they are allowed to keep, the more they will expand markets, the more new, innovative products they will produce, and the more new industries they will promote.
The more jobs they will create.
The better off everyone will be.
I'll say it again, in case you missed it. The more money the "Rich" are permitted to keep, THE BETTER OFF EVERYONE WILL BE.
Due to the Bush tax cuts, unemployment is already very low in America, and would be at the lowest point in history, if it weren't for the recent hurricanes which devastated large areas of our country, closing many businesses which employed a large number of people.
These businesses WILL reopen in time, because the people who own them are not tired of making money.
These lost jobs WILL be back.
I will tell you something else. The reason that I live in Florida right now is that the job market in North Carolina was very slow, and I AM PORTABLE. I can live anywhere. If I cannot find a job where I live, I will move to where the jobs are.
I've done it before, and I would do it again.
Anyone can. You just have to make up your mind as to what is important to you.
You have to decide whether you would rather be poor where you have always lived, or successful somewhere else.
There is one other factor at work here.
The job market is exactly that. A MARKET.
If you don't have anything to sell, you aren't going to make any money.
Get a skill. Get an education. Get something that belongs to you, besides time by the hour, that employers will pay you money for.
Invest in yourself. Time, effort, money.
If you do this, you will not be poor.
5. Retirement.
Let everyone who is interested, opt completely out of Socialist Security, and invest the same amount of money that would have gone to the Socialist Security system into Money Market accounts, or put it into 401k programs, or even into the Stock Market, or Real Estate Investments.
Mandate that every worker put at least some money away for their retirement, but put the individual in charge of their own account, and where the money goes.
Stop using the livelihood of our Senior Citizens as a tool to grow a voting block, and let Americans figure out what is best for them, themselves.
Put the PEOPLE back in control.
It's the American way.
6. Healthcare.
Hospital Emergency Rooms already provide stabilizing treatment for anyone who shows up, regardless of their ability to pay. I think that this is a good policy, however, it is extremely taxing to these facilities.
If all homeless people were already relocated to closed military bases, and being educated by military people, and trained for jobs by the military, then their healthcare could be provided by the military as well.
The "Working Poor" should already be offered health insurance by their employers. That is where my health insurance comes from. I have never been offered a job which came with absolutely no benefits, and health insurance is the first benefit that businesses provide for their employees.
7. CLOSE THE BORDERS.
The vast majority of disadvantaged people in America today, the vast majority of people working their lives away for minimum wage, the vast majority of people working jobs with no benifits, shouldn't even be here in the first place.
If it were not for illegal immigrants who are willing to work for sub-minimum wages, and in sub-standard working conditions, these conditions would not exist, and Americans who might be willing to do the work that illegals do, might be able to negotiate a better wage, and better conditions for these jobs.
Everyone in America who accepts any job, negotiates their own deal for that job, at the time of hire. Benefits, pay, the whole bit. Most people do not realize the power that they have during the negotiation process. Push for a better deal for yourself up front. Chances are, you will get it. (If you have anything to offer a potential employer. If you don't, then you are at the mercy of everyone. I can't help you, if that is your situation.)
Except for this. Illegals undermine this process. They will work for nothing, and because of this fact, they artificially depress wages, and benefits for all low skilled, or unskilled American workers.
They need to be eliminated from the equasion.
The last factor of my plan is, we, as a society, HAVE to leave a few people behind. This is the cold-hearted and cruel part of our system.
Examples must be made, so that we can provide motivation for the rest of us.
There are some who, no matter how easy or effective the system, in a free country, will choose not to participate. These people MUST, for the good of society, be left alone to fall by the wayside. As per their own choice.
It's a free country.
At least for a little while longer, anyway.
I believe that America is the land of opportunity.
I believe that Capitalism is the reason that America is the land of opportunity. I also believe that Socialism undermines the economic system which makes America strong by punishing achievers who take advantage of the opportunities that America offers, and rewarding behavior which creates dependency.
We in America are free. (At least for a little while longer, anyway.) We can decide where we want to live, how we want to live, how and whom we want to worship, or not. We can own property, we can choose our leaders, and we can make up our own minds about what we want to do for a living.
Our chances for wealth and prosperity in America are limited only by our individual ability to think, and our willingness to work hard enough to achieve our personal goals. (And in part, by the number of mistakes we, individually, have made in the past.)
What this means is that, ultimately, we are responsible for our own circumstances.
That being said, I will say that I do realize that some people are born with advantages that others do not have. That does not mean that these people should be punished, or that the disadvantaged people should be rewarded. Life is not fair. Never has been, never will be. To try to make life fair for everyone is an unrealistic goal, and a waste of time. It sounds good, and working toward that goal may make us feel good, for a while, but to set that as a goal means ultimate failure.
However, no one in America should be allowed to starve, no matter what situation they were born into. No child should be made to suffer because of bad decisions made by their parents.
I also realize that there are people in America who are handicapped to the point that they cannot provide for themselves, and provisions must be made for these people.
So here are a few suggestions for helping the poor and disadvantaged, without resorting to Socialist wealth redistribution programs, (Which I consider to be morally wrong.)
1. Food.
Do away completely with Food Stamp programs, and make one aisle in every grocery store completely free. Put generic items on this aisle like dry beans, rice, milk, generic breakfast cereals, canned vegatables, Spam, fatback, generic toiletries, and other household needs. Make all of these items totally free, to anyone who wants them.
This would do three things. One, it would eliminate fraud by eliminating any conversion of any of this stuff into cash, because anyone who wanted this kind of stuff could get all they wanted for free, and Two, eventually the people who could do better would get tired of living off that crap, and make an attempt to better their situation.
And Three, No one would go hungry. Anywhere, ever.
2. Clothing.
Make all clothing donations to organizations like the Salvation army, or Goodwill, completely tax deductible, at full, new, retail value, for everyone who donates anything, regardless of their income.
Make all clothing purchases from organizations like these completely tax deductible, at full purchase price, for everyone, regardless of their income.
This would encourage the "Rich" to donate unused clothing to these organizations, and the "Working Poor" to buy clothing from them. Win, win. And the Government neither made money, nor lost money on the process.
3. Housing.
This one was a little tougher. After much thought, I came to the conclusion that people who are unwilling to provide for themselves are not really entitled to the same choices as people who are, and people who are unable to provide for themselves should be grateful for whatever help they get from society.
First of all, I would put anyone who is too mentally ill to look after themselves into mental health care facilities. We used to do this, but the Democrats did away with this practice during the Carter Administration. (I don't know why.)
I would place anyone who is too physically handicapped to look after themselves into private assisted living facilities, if they had no family who were willing and able to look after them, and I would supplement these families, and facilities, with enough taxpayer money to make a job there profitable for qualified individuals who feel the calling to work there.
Anyone else who is homeless, I would relocate to closed military bases around the country. These facilities have provisions for schools, single family housing for homeless families, and dormitory style, and barracks housing for single homeless people. There are schools, and a multitude of buildings that can be converted into educational facilities for job training for homeless or disadvantaged adults.
I would even let the military oversee the education of these disadvantaged people, both children and adults, and use the power of the military to help place these people in jobs when they are trained. I would train them to be Civilian Military Contractors, and give them preferential treatment when bidding on military contracts.
There is already a "Troops to Teachers" program, and I would use this program to help poor and disadvantaged Americans.
4. Jobs.
We need to eliminate all corporate taxes, and go to a consumption based tax system, or a flat individual tax system, by which every individual American pays, say, 10 percent of their income in taxes.
No more than 10 percent, though. I have to live on the income that I get, and I believe that the Government should make do with 10 percent of all of the money that the whole working population can generate.
10 percent is enough for Jesus Christ. It should be enough for the Federal Government.
You have no idea how jobs would bloom if the drag of confiscatory taxes were to be removed from American industry. Rich people are in the business of making money. Not providing jobs, not manufacturing products, MAKING MONEY.
That's all.
All other things are peripheral. Job creation, product production, innovation, invention, marketing...all peripheral to the process of making money.
Rich people are the creators of jobs.
The more money they are allowed to keep, the more they will expand markets, the more new, innovative products they will produce, and the more new industries they will promote.
The more jobs they will create.
The better off everyone will be.
I'll say it again, in case you missed it. The more money the "Rich" are permitted to keep, THE BETTER OFF EVERYONE WILL BE.
Due to the Bush tax cuts, unemployment is already very low in America, and would be at the lowest point in history, if it weren't for the recent hurricanes which devastated large areas of our country, closing many businesses which employed a large number of people.
These businesses WILL reopen in time, because the people who own them are not tired of making money.
These lost jobs WILL be back.
I will tell you something else. The reason that I live in Florida right now is that the job market in North Carolina was very slow, and I AM PORTABLE. I can live anywhere. If I cannot find a job where I live, I will move to where the jobs are.
I've done it before, and I would do it again.
Anyone can. You just have to make up your mind as to what is important to you.
You have to decide whether you would rather be poor where you have always lived, or successful somewhere else.
There is one other factor at work here.
The job market is exactly that. A MARKET.
If you don't have anything to sell, you aren't going to make any money.
Get a skill. Get an education. Get something that belongs to you, besides time by the hour, that employers will pay you money for.
Invest in yourself. Time, effort, money.
If you do this, you will not be poor.
5. Retirement.
Let everyone who is interested, opt completely out of Socialist Security, and invest the same amount of money that would have gone to the Socialist Security system into Money Market accounts, or put it into 401k programs, or even into the Stock Market, or Real Estate Investments.
Mandate that every worker put at least some money away for their retirement, but put the individual in charge of their own account, and where the money goes.
Stop using the livelihood of our Senior Citizens as a tool to grow a voting block, and let Americans figure out what is best for them, themselves.
Put the PEOPLE back in control.
It's the American way.
6. Healthcare.
Hospital Emergency Rooms already provide stabilizing treatment for anyone who shows up, regardless of their ability to pay. I think that this is a good policy, however, it is extremely taxing to these facilities.
If all homeless people were already relocated to closed military bases, and being educated by military people, and trained for jobs by the military, then their healthcare could be provided by the military as well.
The "Working Poor" should already be offered health insurance by their employers. That is where my health insurance comes from. I have never been offered a job which came with absolutely no benefits, and health insurance is the first benefit that businesses provide for their employees.
7. CLOSE THE BORDERS.
The vast majority of disadvantaged people in America today, the vast majority of people working their lives away for minimum wage, the vast majority of people working jobs with no benifits, shouldn't even be here in the first place.
If it were not for illegal immigrants who are willing to work for sub-minimum wages, and in sub-standard working conditions, these conditions would not exist, and Americans who might be willing to do the work that illegals do, might be able to negotiate a better wage, and better conditions for these jobs.
Everyone in America who accepts any job, negotiates their own deal for that job, at the time of hire. Benefits, pay, the whole bit. Most people do not realize the power that they have during the negotiation process. Push for a better deal for yourself up front. Chances are, you will get it. (If you have anything to offer a potential employer. If you don't, then you are at the mercy of everyone. I can't help you, if that is your situation.)
Except for this. Illegals undermine this process. They will work for nothing, and because of this fact, they artificially depress wages, and benefits for all low skilled, or unskilled American workers.
They need to be eliminated from the equasion.
The last factor of my plan is, we, as a society, HAVE to leave a few people behind. This is the cold-hearted and cruel part of our system.
Examples must be made, so that we can provide motivation for the rest of us.
There are some who, no matter how easy or effective the system, in a free country, will choose not to participate. These people MUST, for the good of society, be left alone to fall by the wayside. As per their own choice.
It's a free country.
At least for a little while longer, anyway.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
The Party Of Political Correctness
An interesting thing happened to me tonight.
I was invited by a commentor on another blog to visit his site because he wanted my perspective on his post about whether or not Condoleeza Rice was electable as a Republican.
(I will not identify him here.)
He seemed to be of the opinion that she is not electable on a Republican ticket, because she is black, and a woman. (Because republicans are racists and sexists, dont'cha know...)
In his post, he used the word "Crackers", referred to the Republican base as "Redneck Neocons", and basically asserted that a black woman would have absolutely no chance of winning any kind of election on a Republican ticket, because of our rampant racism.
He then concluded that Condi SHOULD run, because it would open the door for the Democrats to sweep the election, because WE are all racists.
I personally think that he is wrong about that. I think that Condi would have an excellent chance at winning a national office, no matter what color she is. I would have no problem whatsoever with the idea of voting for her, even if she was purple.
(I take that back. I HATE purple people!!)
But this is not what bothered me about his post.
What bothered me is his presumption that all Conservatives are basically racist, sexist, biggotted, knuckle-dragging, redneck crackers.
In the same breath, he called ME a racist, and then referred to me as a "redneck cracker".
This same person has disparaged Christians before, and could not understand why I got upset and called him on that prejudiced attitude as well.
Now, I assume that this is a white guy. (I don't know for sure...)
But even if he is, I find these terms, when used in this context, to be extremely offensive.
These are the terms of racists, and biggotts. These are the opinions of prejudiced people.
There is no excuse for it.
And he wants to sit over there on the left, and believe that HIS party is the party of political correctness, and tollerance.
Well they are not. They have become so self righteous (some of them) that they do not even recognize their own biggotry.
I will never say that I do not hate anybody.
I do.
I hate all idiots equally, regardless of race, color, creed, or political affilliation.
I was invited by a commentor on another blog to visit his site because he wanted my perspective on his post about whether or not Condoleeza Rice was electable as a Republican.
(I will not identify him here.)
He seemed to be of the opinion that she is not electable on a Republican ticket, because she is black, and a woman. (Because republicans are racists and sexists, dont'cha know...)
In his post, he used the word "Crackers", referred to the Republican base as "Redneck Neocons", and basically asserted that a black woman would have absolutely no chance of winning any kind of election on a Republican ticket, because of our rampant racism.
He then concluded that Condi SHOULD run, because it would open the door for the Democrats to sweep the election, because WE are all racists.
I personally think that he is wrong about that. I think that Condi would have an excellent chance at winning a national office, no matter what color she is. I would have no problem whatsoever with the idea of voting for her, even if she was purple.
(I take that back. I HATE purple people!!)
But this is not what bothered me about his post.
What bothered me is his presumption that all Conservatives are basically racist, sexist, biggotted, knuckle-dragging, redneck crackers.
In the same breath, he called ME a racist, and then referred to me as a "redneck cracker".
This same person has disparaged Christians before, and could not understand why I got upset and called him on that prejudiced attitude as well.
Now, I assume that this is a white guy. (I don't know for sure...)
But even if he is, I find these terms, when used in this context, to be extremely offensive.
These are the terms of racists, and biggotts. These are the opinions of prejudiced people.
There is no excuse for it.
And he wants to sit over there on the left, and believe that HIS party is the party of political correctness, and tollerance.
Well they are not. They have become so self righteous (some of them) that they do not even recognize their own biggotry.
I will never say that I do not hate anybody.
I do.
I hate all idiots equally, regardless of race, color, creed, or political affilliation.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Here It Comes...
Well, as Lorena Bobbitt said, it won't be long now...
I am going to make a prediction, based on the way that Harriett Miers filled out her questionare, the fact that her "Courtesy Calls" to several Senators have reportedly not gone well, and based upon other top secret evidence that only I have access to...
Harriett Miers will withdraw her own name from consideration for the Supreme Court vacancy sometime next week.
And I don't blame her if she does.
She showed up to work one morning, and the President dumped this situation on her. I don't know if she ever asked him to consider her or not. She and the President have been friends and associates for a long time, so if she wanted the job, she has had a lot of chances to let him know, but the fact of the matter is, it is up to the President to nominate who he wants for this spot on the Court.
Suddenly, Ms. Miers was thrust into this National debate, with the Libs (Who have no problem, by the way, with other Presidents putting people like their wives in charge of restructuring one SEVENTH of the U.S. economy) screaming about "Croney-ism", and demanding her to state beforehand how she will rule on specific issues, while Conservatives are running around questioning the brightness of her bulb, her lifetime achievements, her sexual orientation, her qualifications to even be in a Courtroom, even her personal financial situation.
Does anyone out there think that Harriett Miers was the first person that the President asked to fill this spot?
I don't.
Let me tell you why we wound up with Harriet Miers as a nominee in the first place.
This has all been brewing for a while. Back when the Democrats were threatening to filibuster John Bolton as Ambassador to the U.N., (Note: "Threatening." The Dems don't actually HAVE to filibuster anyone, they can hold up the vote with a THREAT...) The President finally got tired of all of the shenanigans in the Senate, and installed Bolton with a recess appointment, showing the Senate that he would actually go around them if he had to.
So the next time the filibuster issue came up, we got the "Nuclear Option" debate, and the "Gang of Fourteen" nonsense, effectively derailing the "Nuclear (Constitutional) Option", and keeping the filibuster issue alive to smack the President with later.
Why seven Senate Republicans thought that this was a good idea is totally beyond me. (To make sure that the "minority" still had a voice? You can believe that if the rolls were reversed, Democrats would show Republicans no such consideration...)
(But then again, Republicans like to believe that THEY take the high road in matters like this...)
So the President, faced with this controversial appointment, (The "Swing Seat," whatever that is on a body that is presumed to be objective and apolitical...) knew that he could not count on his Republican Senators to support him if things got tough.
So he nominated someone who NOBODY wanted.
Someone who the Democrats probably would not filibuster, but who would leave a bad taste in the mouth of the Conservative base.
If she made it through the confirmation process, and was installed on the Court, she would do a good job, rule fairly, and not engage in activism from the Bench.
If not, then he could use her to wake the Republicans in the Senate up, galvanize his troops, and maybe get someone a little more demonstrably Conservative through and onto the Court to counter some of the activism from the other side.
Win, win.
So, Republicans don't want Miers, and it looks (to me, anyway) like she will go away.
Let's just hope that we are ready for the REAL fight, when the NEXT nominee (the one we SAY we really want) comes along.
It won't be pretty, but it will be worth it.
I am going to make a prediction, based on the way that Harriett Miers filled out her questionare, the fact that her "Courtesy Calls" to several Senators have reportedly not gone well, and based upon other top secret evidence that only I have access to...
Harriett Miers will withdraw her own name from consideration for the Supreme Court vacancy sometime next week.
And I don't blame her if she does.
She showed up to work one morning, and the President dumped this situation on her. I don't know if she ever asked him to consider her or not. She and the President have been friends and associates for a long time, so if she wanted the job, she has had a lot of chances to let him know, but the fact of the matter is, it is up to the President to nominate who he wants for this spot on the Court.
Suddenly, Ms. Miers was thrust into this National debate, with the Libs (Who have no problem, by the way, with other Presidents putting people like their wives in charge of restructuring one SEVENTH of the U.S. economy) screaming about "Croney-ism", and demanding her to state beforehand how she will rule on specific issues, while Conservatives are running around questioning the brightness of her bulb, her lifetime achievements, her sexual orientation, her qualifications to even be in a Courtroom, even her personal financial situation.
Does anyone out there think that Harriett Miers was the first person that the President asked to fill this spot?
I don't.
Let me tell you why we wound up with Harriet Miers as a nominee in the first place.
This has all been brewing for a while. Back when the Democrats were threatening to filibuster John Bolton as Ambassador to the U.N., (Note: "Threatening." The Dems don't actually HAVE to filibuster anyone, they can hold up the vote with a THREAT...) The President finally got tired of all of the shenanigans in the Senate, and installed Bolton with a recess appointment, showing the Senate that he would actually go around them if he had to.
So the next time the filibuster issue came up, we got the "Nuclear Option" debate, and the "Gang of Fourteen" nonsense, effectively derailing the "Nuclear (Constitutional) Option", and keeping the filibuster issue alive to smack the President with later.
Why seven Senate Republicans thought that this was a good idea is totally beyond me. (To make sure that the "minority" still had a voice? You can believe that if the rolls were reversed, Democrats would show Republicans no such consideration...)
(But then again, Republicans like to believe that THEY take the high road in matters like this...)
So the President, faced with this controversial appointment, (The "Swing Seat," whatever that is on a body that is presumed to be objective and apolitical...) knew that he could not count on his Republican Senators to support him if things got tough.
So he nominated someone who NOBODY wanted.
Someone who the Democrats probably would not filibuster, but who would leave a bad taste in the mouth of the Conservative base.
If she made it through the confirmation process, and was installed on the Court, she would do a good job, rule fairly, and not engage in activism from the Bench.
If not, then he could use her to wake the Republicans in the Senate up, galvanize his troops, and maybe get someone a little more demonstrably Conservative through and onto the Court to counter some of the activism from the other side.
Win, win.
So, Republicans don't want Miers, and it looks (to me, anyway) like she will go away.
Let's just hope that we are ready for the REAL fight, when the NEXT nominee (the one we SAY we really want) comes along.
It won't be pretty, but it will be worth it.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Puppy Love
Hey! This is Mrs. Tug...in response to a request from ER, Tug said he needed some pictures of Sydney. Here are some of my favorites:
If you wondered what Tug looks like, he's the one wearing a baseball cap. Sydney is as spoiled as they come, he even gets to open our Christmas presents...
Memes, Memes, All Over The Place!
Sometimes it sucks to be popular...
My blogger buddies Mark, and ER, have both tagged me in the last couple of days, so I decided to answer them both in one post.
Mark's meme caused me to have to do the most actual work. (If this keeps up, I am going to just start numbering my posts, instead of naming them.)
Here it is.
1. Delve into your blog archive.
2. Find your 23rd post (or closest to).
3. Find the fifth sentence (or closest to).
4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions. Ponder it for meaning, subtext or hidden agendas.
5. Tag five people to do the same.
Sounds easy enough...
Okay, Here y'go.
My twenty-third post (if I counted correctly...) was entitled "Side-Stepping The Real Issues."
The fifth sentence was:
"But then I realized that I had bought in to the slant (though not the way they wanted me to) that my local Media wanted to put onto this story."
Try as I might, I cannot for the life of me find any meaning, subtext, or hidden agenda in this sentence. (I am not in the habit of including any of these things in any of my sentences anyway, so this does not surprise me.)
My five victims are:
1.Rich Bachelor. (I'll teach you to comment on my blog...Tee hee hee...)
2.Daffy76. (I'll teach you to be my sister...)
3.Carrier1. (I'll teach you to be Rich Bachelor's brother...)
4.ER. (I'll teach you to meme me...)
5.Pastor Timothy. (I'll teach you to...to... Well, I'll think of something.)
ER's meme was a little bit easier.
And here it is:
"THE SEARCH FOR JOY
Search your blog for the word "joy" used in the context of "happiness." If you cannot find the word in your weblog, you may use any of the select list of synonyms below.
"Joy, amusement, bliss, cheer, comfort, delectation, delight, ecstasy, elation, exaltation, exultation, exulting, felicity, gaiety, gladness, glee, good humor, gratification, happiness, hilarity, humor, jubilance, liveliness, merriment, mirth, pleasure, rapture, regalement, rejoicing, revelry, satisfaction, wonder."
Okay then.
My September 28th post was entitled "Oh Joy!"
It was about Tom Delay being endicted, and while you might think that I meant it sarcastically, I really am glad when real corruption is uncovered and dealt with in our Government. I don't think that it happens nearly enough.
I am basically a very happy person. I work very hard, and I have my share of problems, but God has been very good to me. I have a wonderful wife, and a spoiled rotten dog. (No children yet, but nature will eventually take it's course...) I have a big TV, a DVR, a yard full of cars, some junked, some not, depending on what day of the week it is... basically everything that a redneck could ever want.
Enough of this.
My five victims for this one are:
1. RebelAngel. (I'll teach you to...Nah. It was cute the first time...)
2. TC.
3. AJ.
4. Toad.
5. Xena.
So there you have it.
I have fulfilled my meme responsibilities for now.
My blogger buddies Mark, and ER, have both tagged me in the last couple of days, so I decided to answer them both in one post.
Mark's meme caused me to have to do the most actual work. (If this keeps up, I am going to just start numbering my posts, instead of naming them.)
Here it is.
1. Delve into your blog archive.
2. Find your 23rd post (or closest to).
3. Find the fifth sentence (or closest to).
4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions. Ponder it for meaning, subtext or hidden agendas.
5. Tag five people to do the same.
Sounds easy enough...
Okay, Here y'go.
My twenty-third post (if I counted correctly...) was entitled "Side-Stepping The Real Issues."
The fifth sentence was:
"But then I realized that I had bought in to the slant (though not the way they wanted me to) that my local Media wanted to put onto this story."
Try as I might, I cannot for the life of me find any meaning, subtext, or hidden agenda in this sentence. (I am not in the habit of including any of these things in any of my sentences anyway, so this does not surprise me.)
My five victims are:
1.Rich Bachelor. (I'll teach you to comment on my blog...Tee hee hee...)
2.Daffy76. (I'll teach you to be my sister...)
3.Carrier1. (I'll teach you to be Rich Bachelor's brother...)
4.ER. (I'll teach you to meme me...)
5.Pastor Timothy. (I'll teach you to...to... Well, I'll think of something.)
ER's meme was a little bit easier.
And here it is:
"THE SEARCH FOR JOY
Search your blog for the word "joy" used in the context of "happiness." If you cannot find the word in your weblog, you may use any of the select list of synonyms below.
"Joy, amusement, bliss, cheer, comfort, delectation, delight, ecstasy, elation, exaltation, exultation, exulting, felicity, gaiety, gladness, glee, good humor, gratification, happiness, hilarity, humor, jubilance, liveliness, merriment, mirth, pleasure, rapture, regalement, rejoicing, revelry, satisfaction, wonder."
Okay then.
My September 28th post was entitled "Oh Joy!"
It was about Tom Delay being endicted, and while you might think that I meant it sarcastically, I really am glad when real corruption is uncovered and dealt with in our Government. I don't think that it happens nearly enough.
I am basically a very happy person. I work very hard, and I have my share of problems, but God has been very good to me. I have a wonderful wife, and a spoiled rotten dog. (No children yet, but nature will eventually take it's course...) I have a big TV, a DVR, a yard full of cars, some junked, some not, depending on what day of the week it is... basically everything that a redneck could ever want.
Enough of this.
My five victims for this one are:
1. RebelAngel. (I'll teach you to...Nah. It was cute the first time...)
2. TC.
3. AJ.
4. Toad.
5. Xena.
So there you have it.
I have fulfilled my meme responsibilities for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
