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?
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
