News, Politics and other Satire

Does Buffet's Secretary Pay a Higher Rate Than He?

2012-02-13T13:53:00.002-05:00

Obama’s claiming once again that Warren Buffet’s secretary pays more in taxes. But is this true? Let me be the one to spoil his fun with some facts.

Buffet lives off investment income. But to invest he would have had to earn money or inherit it. If he had inherited it, his first tax would have been about 50 percent. But we know he is self-made and probably paid taxes pre-Reagan when the rates were high. But suppose he paid the top marginal rate of 39 percent enforce under Clinton. That money would have gone into his holding company, Bershire Hathaway (BH). It then invested the money in other businesses; call them Business A, Business B and Business C. Let’s be conservative and say these three businesses only made only enough to pay the lowest tax rate, 15 percent. The profits passed on the BH would be taxed again at 15 percent as profit to BH, before being passed on to Buffet so he could pay another 15 percent.

So it is true that the last of the four taxes is likely lower than the one tax his secretary is exposed to. But the $1 in profit from Businesses A, B and C comes to him as $0.72. After paying personal taxes, he pockets $0.61, an effective tax rate is at least 39 percent after having paid 39 percent on the original investment. And it’s likely BH Business pay much more than the minimum so his actual effective tax rate is likely well over 50 percent.

But the businesses paid the taxes, right? If you think that, you need to realize that business do not ever pay taxes; people do. If the businesses had not been taxed, $1 would have come to him instead of $0.72. The rest of what he would have gotten went to the government. I argue that is a tax.

And in case you are a fan of “Don’t tax you; don’t tax me; tax the corporation behind the tree”, you should know there are four ways corporations deal with taxes. “Just go ahead and pay them” is not one of them. They are:
1. Pass the cost on to the consumer.
2. Decrease pay and benefits to employees.
3. Shift jobs off-shore.
4. Go bankrupt and/or out of business.

Businesses typically use a combination of the four but there are always people paying the consequences.

And how does Warren Buffet feel about paying so “little” in taxes. The IRS claims BH owes nearly $1 Billion in additional back taxes. Buffet is fighting them.

And Why Does Government Need To Do That?

2010-02-21T21:34:00.008-05:00

As Obama’s recession continues, critics and apologists argue whether the unemployment rate is 10.1 or 9.9 percent. What is clear is that a new round of unemployment is in store as bloated state and local governments that expanded in good times hit limits in bad times, unable to print money like the Feds to keep the “good times” rolling. While most politicians cry for tax hikes, they find the electorate in no mood to suffer at the expense of unions and government bureaucrats. While most of them sound like stuck pigs, stuck in their own stupidity, a few like Christi of New Jersey are asking for spending cuts only. Why do we all not take this opportunity to ask if government is suited to do all it is tasked to do.

Whenever you propose cutting spending, the first thing you hear is “Oh no, teachers, firemen and police will be cut.” And then come things like “minority children won’t be prepared for college, houses will burn while criminals will go free.” Why don’t you ever hear things like “Oh no, second level bureaucrats, assistants to the nuts advancing the global warming hoax, and meter maids at national parks will be cut.” Why no bemoaning that “The school superintendent will have to get his own coffee now, the bureaucrat yucking it up with Joy Bahar about how stupid Palin is has a crooked tie, and the number of parking tickets handed out at the St Augustine Fort may plummet by almost one percent.”

While cuts like the latter might do the job, government threatens us with the former to preserve itself from shrinking. This is one of the greatest threats of government that we have become complacent about. Government wants to grow, profusely, endlessly, without bounds. The more we task it with, the more tools it has to threaten us with. Liberals boast that much of the stimulus went to keep police on the streets. While this is not quite true, let’s give them their argument but ask, how does it help to send our money to Washington, feed half of it to a bureaucrat that does nothing, send it to a state bureaucrat that does little more before a fraction of it finally makes it to the paycheck of my local county’s deputy Sherriff. I guess I should be grateful it did not stop off at the UN first but how about I pay my taxes to a local fund devoted only to police enforcement and leave the rest of you out of it. This would shrink government, a move that strikes fear into the heart of every government worker sitting in the cube of another government worker that has spent all day talking about the origin of the smoke monster in LOST.

So what must the government do? Between police, fire and schools, only policing needs be done by the government. Police wield power and power is essential to their job. Power is unique to the government. When it organizes that power into a military structure and limits the power of unions, it does a decent job. If cops sit at the local donut shop all day, visiting and doing nothing, it will not be long before someone will be in trouble and the union is not going to be able to save them. Firemen do not need government power to do their jobs. Fire companies could be run like grocery stores or insurance companies. They could compete for our business. The government can require that everyone carry coverage and subsidize the poor like we subsidize with food stamps. No shipping money to Washington first, no more threats when bloated governments hit the skids.

For education power is not only unnecessary but is harmful. We set standards for education and car insurance but the government does not provide car insurance; it should not provide education. Unions that bargain for deals for teachers and employees turn around and influence who gets voted onto the board. In essence, unions are on both side of the table. The power of government is then used to build greater protections for the teachers and bankrupt the People with sweetheart retirement deals. And again, the Feds get involved with taking tax dollars and routing them through Washington first. Round-trip tickets for my tax dollars again? How about round round-trip tickets for me and my wife to Hawaii instead?

Oh yes, I can hear the defenders of big government now, especially with education. The kids with the greatest needs would be left in failing schools. Nonsense! Markets invent and overcome. Money spent on overdone union deals can be spent to subsidize these kids (if parents cannot afford it) to find a school to serve them. The more money you offer to government, the more it takes. The more money you offer to free enterprise, the more it innovates and competes to solve your problem and keep you satisfied. Government has you captive and has no incentive to innovate. Customers of private companies can abandon them at a whim if they are not satisfied. Companies either satisfy their customers or go out of business (unless the government steps in to mess thing up).

As tea parties come back in vogue, remember that the original Tea Party in Boston protested a government that abused its power and overtaxed. They were not upset that London was not providing free education or health care. They did not ask for larger welfare payments. The Bill of Rights was a big box around the government which they saw as necessary evil, but evil indeed. If not constrained, it eats money, liberty and small children trying to pray in public. As Americans, we all heirs to that legacy. We need to get back to the core values of limited government. How about next time a politician complains he cannot live without the latest toy or a particular program, just say, “NO!” And if he falls to the floor in a screaming fit while threatening to hold his breath until he turns blue or fire a policeman, fireman or teacher, just leave him there, walk out of the store and drive home. Someone will bring him by later when he comes to his senses.

And Why Does Government Need To Do That?

2010-02-21T21:34:00.000-05:00

As Obama’s recession continues, critics and apologists argue whether the unemployment rate is 10.1 or 9.9 percent. What is clear is that a new round of unemployment is in store as bloated state and local governments that expanded in good times hit limits in bad times, unable to print money like the Feds to keep the “good times” rolling. While most politicians cry for tax hikes, they find the electorate in no mood to suffer at the expense of unions and government bureaucrats. While most of them sound like stuck pigs, stuck in their own stupidity, a few like Christi of New Jersey are asking for spending cuts only. Why do we all not take this opportunity to ask if government is suited to do all it is tasked to do.

Whenever you propose cutting spending, the first thing you hear is “Oh no, teachers, firemen and police will be cut.” And then come things like “minority children won’t be prepared for college, houses will burn while criminals will go free.” Why don’t you ever hear things like “Oh no, second level bureaucrats, assistants to the nuts advancing the global warming hoax, and meter maids at national parks will be cut.” Why no bemoaning that “The school superintendent will have to get his own coffee now, the bureaucrat yucking it up with Joy Bahar about how stupid Palin is has a crooked tie, and the number of parking tickets handed out at the St Augustine Fort may plummet by almost one percent.”

While cuts like the latter might do the job, government threatens us with the former to preserve itself from shrinking. This is one of the greatest threats of government that we have become complacent about. Government wants to grow, profusely, endlessly, without bounds. The more we task it with, the more tools it has to threaten us with. Liberals boast that much of the stimulus went to keep police on the streets. While this is not quite true, let’s give them their argument but ask, how does it help to send our money to Washington, feed half of it to a bureaucrat that does nothing, send it to a state bureaucrat that does little more before a fraction of it finally makes to the paycheck of my local county’s deputy Sherriff. I guess I should be grateful it did not stop off at the UN first but how about I pay my taxes to local fund devoted only to police enforcement and leave the rest of you out of it. This would shrink government, a move that strikes fear into the heart of every government worker sitting in the cube of another government worker that has spent all day talking about the origin of the smoke monster in LOST.

So what must the government do? Between police, fire and schools, only police need be done by the government. Police wield power and power is essential to their job. Power is unique to the government. When it organizes that power into a military structure and limits the power of unions, it does a decent job. If cops sit at the local donut shop all day, visiting and doing nothing, it will not be long before someone will be in trouble and the union is not going to be able to save them. Firemen do not need government power to do their jobs. Fire companies could be run like grocery stores or insurance companies. They could compete for our business. The government can require that everyone carry coverage and subsidize the poor like we subsidize with food stamps. No shipping money to Washington first, no more threats when bloated governments hit the skids.

For education power is not only unnecessary but is harmful. We set standards for education and car insurance but the government does not provide car insurance; it should not provide education. Unions that bargain for deals for teachers and employees turn around and influence who gets voted onto the board. In essence, unions are on both side of the table. The power of government is then used to build greater protections for the teachers and bankrupt the People with sweetheart retirement deals. And again, the Feds get involved with taking tax dollars and routing them through Washington first. Round-trip tickets for my tax dollars again? How about round round-trip tickets for me and my wife to Hawaii instead?

Oh yes, I can hear the defender of big government now, especially with education. The kids with the greatest needs would be left in failing schools. Nonsense! Markets invent and overcome. Money spent on overdone union deals can be spent to subsidize these kids (if parents cannot afford it) to find a school to serve them. The more money you offer to government, the more it takes. The more money you offer to free enterprise, the more it innovates and competes to solve your problem and keep you satisfied. Government has you captive and has no incentive to innovate. Customers of private companies can abandon them at a whim if they are not satisfied. They either satisfy or go out of business (unless the government steps in to mess thing up).

As tea parties come back in vogue, remember that the original Tea Party in Boston protested a government that abused its power overtaxed. They were not upset that London was not providing free education or health care. They did not ask for larger welfare payments. The Bill of Rights was a big box around the government which they saw as necessary evil, but evil indeed. If not constrained, it eats money, liberty and small children trying to pray in public. As Americans, we all heirs to that legacy. We need to get back to the core values of limited government. How about next time a politician complains he she cannot live without the latest toy or a particular program, just say, “NO!” And if he falls to the floor in a screaming fit while threatening to hold his breath until he turns blue or fire a policeman, fireman or teacher, just leave him there, walk out of the store and drive home. Someone will bring him by later when he comes to his senses.

Mr. Brown Goes to Town

2010-01-22T22:25:00.003-05:00

With the election of Scott Brown as a senator from Massachusetts many have tried to draw lessons for Democrats nationally while some insist there is no lesson nationally. I see some very important lesson for liberal Democrats, especially President Obama. Here they are:

· You cannot govern from left of Massachusetts without consequences. Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts are just the beginning. We are not France or Denmark. We are right of center and you are not just out in left field, you, Mr. President, are not in the ball park.

· President Obama, you recently said, “The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and frustrated.” You are right. Bush and the Republicans spent outrageous amounts of money. Many of the states that voted for McCain sent Democrats to Congress, just to try something new. Now you have done Republican sins times ten. What did you expect?

· Picking a fight with Fox News was stupid. It beats all the other cable news channels combined every night while your precious Air America dissolved in bankruptcy this week. Where do you think most people heard about Scott Brown?

· Your elitist hubris offends voters. Making fun of Mr. Bown’s truck reminds us of how you bemoaned how the common plebes “bitterly cling to their guns and religion.” Making fun of and attacking citizens protesting your policies is not a strategy any president has ever employed. Hate us if you will but we still get to vote.

· Million, billion, trillion; it matters which one you use. Mr. Brown was sent to Congress largely to keep you straight on that. We cannot afford Obamacare, Cap and Tax or any of the other socialist crap you keep trying to stuff down our throats. And while you’re at it, why don’t you, just for a change of pace, propose something that at least 50 percent of the country supports?

· I know it did not occur to you to use ACORN in Massachusetts like you did in Minnesota but if you let them anywhere near the 2010 census, we will call for your impeachment.

· Mr. President, you lied about earmarks, putting lobbyists and tax cheats in the government, and open-door meetings on TV. Didn’t you think we would notice? If your policies were so wonderful, why do you have to bribe lawmakers to vote for them. Mr. Brown was sent to stop this crap or at least keep it from passing. Would you have actually signed the Cornhusker kickback into law?

· Very high in the polls in Massachusetts was the incompetence this administration has used in fighting terrorists. Shutting down New York for your date night was bad enough, but shutting it down for a show trial of terrorists who already confessed does not play well outside of Tehran. The way you coddle terrorists has got sales of “Depends” disposable underwear sky rocking in the Middle East (some of those terrorist leaders are quite old and making them laugh so hard at your ludicrous policies gives them bladder-control problems) but can you not find a better way to stimulate the economy.

· And while we’re at it, it’s the economy , stupid. Trying to spend our way to prosperity is stupider. Try tax cuts. It’s so simple even Sarah Palin could to it!

· Stick a fork in you legislative agenda; you’re done! Enough government intrusion; enough socialism. Go play golf in Hawaii or tour the balconies of Europe where they love you. You might be surprised how much the economy at home recovers while you are gone.

· Most of all, get to know Scott Brown. Love him or hate him, come November we have about fifty more like him coming to a Congress near you.

Haiti and Denmark: Lessons in Destroying a Nation

2010-01-15T20:48:00.003-05:00

When Oprah Winfrey was in Denmark to help the Olympic bid for Chicago, she took the opportunity to create an exposé of this socialist utopia. She was absolutely giddy to discover how wonderful Denmark was with free education, free healthcare and free sunshine. She aired her special this week just as Haiti had its terrible earthquake. For liberals such as Oprah and her good friend President Obama Denmark may be their dream for America but Haiti would be the reality.

In a socialist utopia the idea is to redistribute the wealth so that there are no poor. No country in Europe has undertaken such radical wealth redistribution such as the Danes. Free education through college and free medicine are among the reasons they have been rated the happiest people on earth. They are held up as health conscious and environmentally conscious; nearly all adult Danes ride bicycles on a daily basis with children and groceries in toe, according to Winfrey. It makes you want to just bring all that happy socialism here, does it not?

Now with all due respect to Oprah, it’s time for the truth. Denmark does have an advantage over other socialistic experiments such as the USSR and Cuba. It introduced socialism without violence; it just ignored its own constitution and slowly implemented it one law at a time. Sound familiar? There are no poor living on the streets because the government pays 90 percent of your salary when you get laid off or fired. But there are no rich there either. Taxes take 70 percent of the Danes’ income, preventing people like Oprah from every becoming wealthy.

But the high taxes pay back in the form of great social services. The Danes think so, which accounts for the high rating of contentment. But this mindset is set more in cultural thinking than reality. The Danish lifespan has not increased since 1970 and now rates near the bottom in the European Union. Like all universal health care systems, it rations care and people die regularly waiting for needed operations. Many blame this on drinking and smoking; Danes smoke at almost twice the rate as Americans. Oprah’s claim that Danes are health and environmentally conscious seems ridiculous. How could all the smoke be good for either their health or environment? It owes more to the fact that the government forces them out of cars with 90 percent sales tax, 180 percent registration fee, annual car taxes, fuel taxes and green taxes. Trust me, they are not riding bicycles in subzero weather because they want to.

But at least all that free education is providing them with greater opportunities, right? Actually, the US has twice the percentage of college graduates as Denmark. People here choose what they wish to study and the free market rewards them. Denmark tells students what to study although applicants are allowed to make requests. People are increasingly requesting social studies and less math and science. Maybe the schools do a lousy job preparing scientist or maybe the stark right-and-wrong nature of math and science is too harsh for a socialist society. Maybe something a little less concrete, like global warming, will get more interest in “science.” Maybe they should host a world conference on the subject. Oh, wait, they did, just before being plunged into the coldest winter of the last 50 years. Oh, well.

Denmark does such a lousy job planning its economy, it relies heavily on Germany to provide what it does not (sort of like those Canadians we have). People who want to leave find the government continues to strip them of their wealth through taxation of pensions after they leave, even though they lose all rights to vote as an expatriate. Some have proposed laws requiring repayment of education expenses first which would create a new iron curtain. For those who stay, pensions are capped at inflation plus three percent. Savvy investors are taxed 100 percent beyond that. I bet they forgot to tell Oprah that.

For all this socialistic engineering Denmark is just Haiti in the making. Haiti is overrun with corruption. Denmark has allowed judges and politicians to say the constitution means whatever they want it to and are now selling judgments and votes in return for money and favors. Haiti takes most of the wealth of its people through criminal extortion and corruption. Denmark does it through taxation. Crime in Haiti is out of control, especially violent crime. Crime in Denmark since 1960 has gone up 700 percent, although the population has hardly changed. Violent crime has risen steeper. Both Haiti and Denmark invent nothing and export little. Neither has a military developed well enough to repel an invasion from a country like Iran and are, therefore, dependent on other nations for their own defense. Because the incentive to work in Haiti has been destroyed by criminals, few are employed and crushing poverty is spread equally. In Denmark less than 10 percent lived on the dole in 1970. Today it is eclipsing 20 percent. Counting that with government employees, about 40 percent of the population lives off the government. Destroying the work ethic through the welfare state means some good times for now but Haiti is coming to a Dane near you.

Now as the US goes off to rescue Haiti, let’s try to learn some lessons while we are there. Corruption destroys nations. It isn’t just about sex and I don’t care what the senators from Louisiana and Nebraska said, you can’t go around buying votes. You can’t keep taking from us, even if you think we are rich. High taxation is just legal extortion. Governments cannot spread the wealth around, just the poverty. And the constitution says what the founders meant. It was put there precisely to stop you from cramming universal healthcare down our throats. Go help the Haitians but then help us by getting out of our way, out of our lives and out of our pockets. Then go help the terrorists and I don’t mean with clean water, art therapy and tax-payer funded tours of New York!

Current American Politics For Dummies (But Conservatives Will Like It Too)

2010-01-10T21:05:00.004-05:00

He was hailed as the great Messiah, ushering in the death conservatism as Democrat registrations soared in 2008. Both houses of Congress went Democrat in his honor as he rode in on the back of the Clintons. A year later some still argue which was the savior and which was the ass but just like Jesus, only a short time has passed since fawning praise has given way to cries for his execution, if only in a political sense. And while Jesus stood with grace and forgiving majesty as the previously palm-throwing crowd now called for Barabas, the fact that a near majority of Americans wish Bush were back has got be gulling to the man-child president Obama whose skin is thinner than his excuses for not turning the economy around. This week we now hear that the number of people who self identify as conservative has reached a 20-year high. What?! I thought that dragon had been slain? And how did Palin sell so many books before they were released in bookstores? And what do we make of the tea party movement? Whoever can make sense of this political landscape and articulate conservatism at least as well as Obama can say nothing while reading from a teleprompter, could emerge as the leader of a movement. Although I do not have that as my goal, I would like, nevertheless, to try. In this blog I explain the political landscape.

Everyone understands that the political landscape is divided between right, middle and left. Skin-heads and racists make up the extreme right but are considered whacko and have been rejected by the political main stream since the David Duke was ousted from the Republican Party in the 1980s. On the extreme left, you have socialists and communists. In recent years, the extreme left has found its way into power. Although it is every bit a minority as the racists, it has captured the imagination of some very rich people such as the Hollywood elite and the Billionaire George Sorros.

Under Ronald Reagan conservatism coalesced as economic conservatives (less government, less spending, lower taxes) and moral conservatives (traditional Judeo-Christian values such as pro-life, pro-family policies). This left the Democrats with everyone else. While it’s common to find gun-toting, Jesus-loving patriots who want lower taxes and to protect the unborn, how often to you find anti-war, men-hating, gay activists who belong to a teacher’s union, want to ban guns, protect abortion, raise taxes and think that the nation’s founders were evil white slave-owners. Ok, so MSNBC seems to find plenty of them but how many of them are there really. If they existed in any great number, don’t you think ACORN would try to register them to vote instead of going after dead people and cartoon characters?

Among the American political spectrum we have four categories of voters. First there are issues voters. They cling to a party because it coincides with their view on one or more issues important to them; abortion or taxes, for example. The second category is the no-matter-what voter. They will not budge on how they vote not matter what information they get. The third category is a mixture of the previous two. They vote based on an issue based on how they think a party feels about that issue regardless of what evidence is presented that the party does not coincide with their position. The fourth category is the rice-bowl voters. Filling their rice bowls, their very existence and livelihood, depends on the government. A voter can be in more than one category and these categories exist in both sides of the political spectrum but not in equal numbers. This is largely due to the difference between conservatism versus liberalism and the way politicians/office holders have packaged and presented them.

Conservatism is largely an intellectual pursuit; liberalism is largely an emotional pursuit. Category 1, the issues voters, overwhelms the political right and much of the middle. When Republicans went to Washington as the majority, promising the usual stuff, they drank the power Kool-aid, betrayed their voters and found themselves ousted by an angry electorate in 2008. Much of the new Democrat majority came from states that went for McCain. What was thought to be the death of conservatives was just issues voters doing what issues voters do, throwing out the bums. And if you are a pro-abortion Republican running against a pro-life Democrat in a right-leaning district, you are going to have a problem, even if you like lower taxes and Grandma’s apple pie. The converse it not true. Harry Reed comes from a conservative state but gets no grief on the national stage from liberals for his voting record as a pro-life, pro-gun rights Democrat. He got a pass on his recently revealed racist remarks concerning Obama made during the campaign because voters from categories two and three dominate the Democrat party. The same courtesy was not afforded Trent Lot for his comments during Strom Thurmond’s birthday party. An us-versus-them mentality evolves among these voters. They make excuses for the offenses of their own while vehemently attacking the other side for the same or similar offense. Bad behavior is often defended with “Well, Bush did the same thing”. That was the crux of circling the wagons around Clinton while subsequently engaging in Bush bashing, even long after Bush has left the public scene.

Recently the ueber-liberal Joy Bahar stated that she did not understand how Sarah Palin sold so many books considering most of her fans cannot read. The data show (there goes the truth messing up the left again) that among voters lacking a high-school diploma, they vote majority Democrat. Many of them are category two, no-matter-what voters that are not educated and refuse to be educated. Emotional speeches about nothing will get them excited but make sure you bus them to the polls. Their lack of commitment to education and improvement make them fickle voters. They may even fall for hoaxes about election day being on a Wednesday this year. Often they spill over into category three. They are usual poor and are appealed to through emotional campaigns like class warfare and minimum wage. Over taxation of the wealthy has caused a drag in the economy and the recent raise in minimum wage has inflated the unemployment. But these facts have no effect on them; their brains just do not process it. Many vote Democrat because they think it promotes minority rights. The Civil Rights act of the 1960s was passed in the face of most Democrats voting against it because an overwhelming number of Republicans (the minority at the time) voted for it. While we have seen the black family disintegrate under welfare and affirmative-action pats on the head that substitute for actual education, black voters continue to vote Democrat.

The fourth category makes up those that live off the government. Expanding the government and government programs is crucial to expanding liberal power. The health care bill coming out of the senate does not cover everyone, does not lower health care costs but does raise taxes. The president is still interested because it expands the number of rice-bowl voters. Professors also belong to this category but Obama also loves them because they provide hare-brained theories to try out on the American economy.

Into this political cauldron we have three new phenomena that provide the golden opportunity for a new conservative leader. First, the conservative voters have been largely abandoned. Only after 2008 have Republicans in Congress put their foot down and said “no” to all the liberal crap being jammed down our throat. But too often, even as the majority, they let the Democrats set the agenda, proposing only modifications to liberal bills. This political pull to the left is in response to the second new phenomena; the whacko far left has become issue oriented and rich. Obama, who ran as centrist, winked at the radical left as he collected their money. But he is now trying to govern from the left and has enraged the regular left, middle and right, giving rise to the third phenomenon, the tea-party movement.

To exploit this opportunity we need a leader with three key qualities. Quality one is genuineness. Campaign from the right and government from the right. If you are Christian, Jew or agnostic, be that. But be conservative and live conservative values the best you can. Category one voters are the only ones you can reach and they live on the right. And remember that independent voters are just conservative voters that do not want to be labeled. The political right and the right-leaning middle make a political voting majority. The left (including the press) will be vile and nasty so you need quality two. Have a spine. Remember, bipartisanship to a liberal means shut up and do it my way so stand up to them. Third, and most important, teach, preach and explain conservativism. You cannot let the left define you like Gingrich and Bush did. Reagan was always speaking to the people and not just from a teleprompter. Pushing the political landscape back to the right (where it wants to be naturally) will make it all the more difficult for Obama to get his socialist agenda through. This will save the country grief but also further anger his financial donors. If they get mad enough, maybe they will stop donating or maybe even move to France like they keep promising. Then the tea-party people can go back home and get back to living their lives, assured the country is safe and leave all the rally stuff to the out-of-power, whacko left. Don’t forget your ace in hole: Conservativism works and liberalism does not. Be true to us and we will be true to you, quietly voting you back into office election after election, regardless of what Katie Curic or Rosie O’Donnel say. And we can keep Joy Bahar scratching her head until her finger hits her brain or whatever is underneath that thick skull. Wow! Image if that stuff leaked out. Can you say "Clean up aisle 9"! I wonder if you would have to call the CDC or the EPA?

The Bush Made Me Do It!

2009-12-12T15:35:00.002-05:00

As President Obama’s approval ratings drop, it is important to remember an important fact. This poignant fact was repeated this week in recent speeches made by the president including the momentous speech in Norway this week. The problems we face in this country are actually George Bush’s fault. In a speech to the UN in 2006, Hugo Chavez told us the reason why Bush is so ominous; he is the devil. Chavez’s nose, which is extraordinarily large and sensitive, could even smell the sulfur as Bush left the chamber. It is natural that Bush, being the devil, would sabotage the most historic presidency in history, that of the great American messiah, the great Barack Obama. The evidence of this sabotage is clear if you just look for it.

First, there is the war. Bush used torture to get information that ended the fight in Iraq. The fighters have gone to Afghanistan to embarrass Obama who said this was the necessary war. Now Obama has to send more troops even as he received his well-deserved Peace Prize. How embarrassing is that?

And just look at the horrible economy Bush left. While Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were in Congress trying to get Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lend money for homes to poor minorities, the evil George Bush was out there touting that home ownership was at its highest, as if he were responsible for it. He knew these mortgage companies were on the verge of collapse and even convinced them to give copious amounts of money to Dodd and Obama (the highest two recipients of cash, in fact) just so these great individuals would be tainted when the scandal broke. At the end of Bush’s term, he abandoned the free market, not because he believed it would save the economy, but because he wanted Obama to be branded a socialist. In fact, Bush started months earlier to send evil brain waves to Obama to force him to vote so liberal in the senate that he would be rated the most liberal of all senators. Then during the campaign, Obama broke away from his liberal sins by telling us moderate things like “a government takeover of health care is over-kill.” Just when Obama had come to his senses, Bush tricked him into approving a multi-billion dollar stimulus package. Obama recently pointed out how flawed that package was but everyone knows it was passed during the Bush administration without any input whatsoever from Obama and any enthusiastic support Obama may have expressed at the time were just more of Bush’s evil brain waves. Even the press knows that, which is why they never play clips of Obama talking as if the stimulus package had been his idea.

Furthermore, there are these outrageous deficits. Obama keeps reminding us that we need to do something about the spending. But Bush’s evil brain waves have overrun the Congress which keeps passing more spending and they keep tricking the President into signing them. Recently the banks paid back the TARP money and now the Devil Bush has got Congress talking about spending it instead of paying back the deficit. Money meant for stimulus has been spent on projects no sane person would invest in. An example is an airport in rural Pennsylvania servicing fewer than 10,000 people per year but it got $800,000 in stimulus money. But does Bush get blamed for whispering evil seductions in lawmakers’ ears? No, he convinces people to name it after Congressman John Murtha, as if Murtha had anything to do with it. How evil is that?!

And what about the fight over health care. When Bush was president, the Republicans went along with expanding Medicare. Now that Obama needs them, they all stand together in stern opposition. Some of them claimed they learned a lesson from 2008 but we all know it is Bush whispering in their ear to oppose Obama. Even some Democrats are succumbing to Bush’s evil whisperings and are opposing things such as publicly funded abortions. Since when did Democrats start opposing free abortions? You know evil forces are at work when that starts happening. Some fearless souls, such as Harry Reed, know that the American people demand health care reform. But when pollsters go out to measure the support, Bush causes them to misprint the result, showing the opposite of the truth. People have attempted to turn out in droves in support of health care reform but Bush has been so powerful in keeping them from turning out at the rallies that network news teams have had to do close-ups on all ten demonstrators who managed to escape Bush’s grasp so that people think millions showed up, which was what would have happened if Bush’s evil brain waves had not gotten in the way. Meanwhile fringe movements, such as the tea-party movement, have otherwise peace-loving people filled with Nazi hate and showing up to oppose the benevolence of the great Obama. Only evil forces, like that mustered by Bush, could behind all this.

Now 2010 approaches, an election year. Things will go badly for the Democrats if unemployment does not come down and the economy does not start growing again. Obama has done everything he can to spend our way back to prosperity, and in spite of huge employment gains in government, Bush’s hold on greedy corporations and business owners has them hoarding their money instead of hiring. This has caused unemployment to rise above even Joe Biden’s highest estimate and we know he is always right otherwise. And just when Bush’s evil friends, the Rich, have been brought to their knees, evil brain waves have penetrated Congressmen who suggest we cut taxes to stimulate the economy. These good soldiers, who were expected to lay down their congressional seats for Pelosi and Reed’s agenda, are now trying to save themselves from the unemployment lines. Even Obama has suggested tax cuts for small business owners. (Et tu, Obama?)

So as we move into the new year, try to focus on important things like global warming and the terrorist trials in New York exposing the evil plots of the Bush administration. Be patient as we sacrifice jobs, wealth and even the Constitution as the Democrats try to save us from Bush and his evil wealth-creating brain waves. And if Obama cracks once in a while and suggests tax cuts or fighting terrorist abroad, cut him some slack. After all, the Bush made him do it!

In God We Trust

2009-12-06T20:15:00.001-05:00

As the debate on climate change took an interesting turn this week, I have been fascinated how quickly science has been left behind and the adherents to the Church of Man-made Global Warming have marched undauntedly forward, preparing to issue several edicts from the Council of Copenhagen. How they could do that gives us insight into human nature. Since Liberalism is a result of human nature and not actual logic, a dissection of recent events gives us a deeper understanding of the how we get not just “Cap and Tax” but why Liberals still pursue insane policies such as Obamacare and deficit spending in the face of high unemployment.

First we need to delineate between science and religion and figure out what their roles in society are. Both seek to get at the truth but both have entirely different approaches. Our founding fathers fostered science but were also men of deep religious convictions.

Science gets at the truth incrementally through human experience and is bound only by our intellect, curiosity and physical boundaries. Science exists in four tiers, each built upon the one below in a pyramid structure. At its base is the Science of Reason, mathematics. Next are the Empirical Sciences, physics and chemistry. They use observation to explain the world. The third tier has the Sciences of Extrapolation. Here, you cannot observe actual phenomena but you can observe the results and make conclusions base on that. Here you find such things as biology, archeology and geology. The last level contains the Derived Sciences, based on the previous three. Here are the “Is-too-a-science” disciplines such as psychology and sociology. Two fundamental rules exist here. First your theories cannot contradict theories of a science on the lower tier. Doing so incurs the responsibility of reworking the theory of the lower tier as well. Second, all data is forever subject to review, reinterpretation, reproduction but not refutation.

Religion gets at the truth from using another approach. It relies on the Deity (God) revealing itself. It can take you beyond the realm of human understanding but comes in so many stripes that we are, at present, unable to share it as a common experience. Religious organizations set their own rules of how you reach the truth. Sometimes certain truths are beyond reproach and questioning them can set you outside the group. If, for example, you do not belief that Jesus was the son of God, this may place you outside Christianity, at least as far as self-identified Christians are concerned. Although religion is not science, it can provide a rich, rewarding aspect to the lives of those choosing to pursue it.

Because religion and science aim for the same goal, you think they might complement each other. History, however, is replete with clashes. In medieval Europe, the church wielded direct political power and Copernicus found himself in 16th-century Italy under threat of excommunication until he recanted his theory that the earth went around with the sun. American colonists fled the motherland to escape imprisonment when they found their conscience at odds with the monarch who was also the head of the church. While religion can be life enriching, theocracies are not. Our founding fathers enshrined religious freedom in the First Amendment but placed religious organization outside direct government control and out of direct political power.

Now along comes Global Warming. It may have started as a scientific approach to explain the data but at some point the data was refuted, refitted and ultimately refused. This violates the second law of science as stated above. Since the data cannot be reviewed, all conclusions based on it pass out of the realm of science. So the question of whether there is man-made global warming goes back to being unanswered. If the belief in it persists, it must live on as a religion, not as a science. And live it has. It has placed its doctrines beyond reproach, distained its non-believers as Global-Warming deniers, and persecuted its heretical detractors as if they were Copernicus himself. While data comes showing the earth has cooled precipitously over the last decade, one true believer decried the data as a travesty. Another declares this is just a temporary break from global warming. Did God reveal to him that we will begin warming again in the future, because science has not.

So why do they march to Copenhagen as if nothing happened? Humans do not give up deeply held beliefs easily. Although religion has found a way to exist on a planet that orbits the sun, Copernicus was not formally exonerated by his church until the 1980s. It is not unprecedented that science has morphed into religion while claiming it is still a science. Darwin built his Religion of Evolution based on the doctrine that there is no god. It started as a science but now violates the Second Law of Thermodynamic (from chemistry and physics, second tier) and would need trillion, not merely billions of years to occur according to statics (from mathematics, first tier). Its predecessor theory, the Disuse Theory, said that animals changed because appendages that were not used discontinued in subsequent generations. In a famous experiment, after cutting off the tails of several generations of mice, subsequent generations of mice were still being born with tails. This led to a rejection of the theory. But wait, they were also still giving birth to mice. Would this not also refute evolution? No, because evolution is in keeping with the fundamental anti-deistic doctrine (You don’t need a higher being manipulating the biosphere, like chopping of tails). Intelligent design, however, is heretical at its core to the atheists of Darwin’s church, even if it also explains the data. I do not necessarily endorse intelligent design because it is too often placed within Christian dogma and placed outside scientific review but when the failings of Evolution are pointed out, adherents still cling to it, fearing a replacement theory may invoke an antithetical belief in God. And the punishment of Evolution heretics rivals that of the Spanish Inquisition.

The human ability for fervor surrounding deeply-held beliefs, religious or otherwise, is undeniable. People can continue on in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. For example, the Senate worked this weekend to pass a healthcare bill. Harkin of Iowa declared that we have to do this because that is what the American people demand even though all polls show the opposite to be true. Tax cuts and decreased regulation have been shown to spur job growth but Obama acts like wild government borrowing, increased taxes and legislative chaos are the keys even as unemployment has rocketed past 10 percent. This because the Keynesian pinhead of liberal academia told him it was a good idea. Human fervor can be enhanced when, what Covey called the bread bowl, is threatened. Entire businesses and careers are in invested in Global Warming, Evolution, and Keynesian dogma. People make their living based on the supposition that these theories are true and you would have better luck getting the Pope to give up Catholicism than getting these people to reexamine their beliefs. Liberals in Congress are threatened with job losses by next year’s election and want to extend their power over us by controlling our health care. That way they can also make up stuff about what Republicans want to do it like they make up stuff about Medicare.

Now I do not mind that people have their beliefs but when they find their way into public policy, it is fair game to challenge them. And when they unilaterally declare that the debate is over, I get very suspicious that a religion, not a science, is being crammed down my throat. Furthermore, if you are not going to provide government funding for my religion to send out missionaries, why should I pay for Obama to go to Copenhagen? If the government is not going to pay to build churches, why should we pay for Cap and Trade?

So if I do not believe in Global Warming, Evolution or Keynesian Economics, you can call me a Global Warming denier, a religious zealot and a racist; I don’t care. But stop pretending you are scientists, ok? Remember, “In God we trust”, everyone else must bring data.

Big Barack is Watching!

2009-11-15T18:53:00.002-05:00

When the Obama Administration was trying to establish its identity, it compared itself to other administrations. Obama followed the route into Washington proposed for Lincoln without mentioning that Lincoln sneaked into Washington to avoid assassination and the train was, like Obama, an elaborate ruse. After ten months we now have a track record to figure out what model an inexperienced, Marxist-loving President such as Obama might be using. Some have compared him to the Liberal icon, Kennedy. Kennedy was a tax-cutting, anticommunist that cheated on his wife. The first two are definite strikes and if Obama is stepping out in his wife, we may have the first presidential assassination of the century on our hands when Michelle finds out. Some compare him to FDR. He does have that whole welfare-state thing going on but if he cannot even stand up to Pelosi, how would he confront the likes of Hitler. Besides, BHO does not have the same pizzazz and since we are not allowed to use the middle name anyway, BO is not much better. I think the best model for understanding Obama and the Left in general comes from George Orwell in his novel, 1984. Although Orwell was not a President, his satirical story of a totalitarian state gave us the phrase “Big Brother is Watching” and it’s sad that a classical book making fun of communism has come to epitomize the governing party of our country. But here are the parallels:

In the novel, Oceana is just one of three super states in the world. Our world has more than three states but Liberals think it is too bad we are the only superpower. No other nation has been able to come to our level so Obama debases the country every chance he gets with his Apology-Abroad tours. Iran is building the bomb and North Korea is developing missiles with nukes so maybe we will have our three super states before Obama is finished.

The book describes a section of the government that revises history and historical records to match whatever Big Brother says. Oceana called this department Minitrue but today we know it as CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC and sometimes CNN. Minitrue incinerated the original documents in what they called a “memory hole”. I think MSNBC has one of those but Sandy Burger’s socks work great too, in a pinch. Whenever the Administration is called out on an inconvenient truth, they simply deny the charge with “No it’s not” and the Media dutifully twist history to match the party line. Whether it’s Carter's saying that most Obama opposition is racist or Barney Frank’s giving Fannie Mae a pass, a simple denial makes it all go away.

One of the obsessions of Big Brother was to revise the English language in what they called Newspeak. Bad was replaced with “ungood”, and criticism of Big Brother was banned. Today political correctness has attempted to limit public discourse. A man in the DC government got in trouble for admonishing his department heads to be niggardly. They claimed the word was too close to a racial slur and people in government often have small vocabularies, are incapable of looking up words and are too quick to jump to conclusions if the alleged offender is a white, Christian male. I am not sure government officials are capable of being frugal anyway, which is the actual meaning of niggardly. Racial politics also explains why the word “honk” is still allowed. By the way, I hope our modern Newspeak lets us keep the word “spade” because I am running out of words for that particular garden tool but I hear it may be changed to “unshovel” as spade (which is too closely associated to something black in cards) joins such forbidden words and phrases as “illegal alien”, “islamofacist”, “war on terror”, “In God We Trust”, “parental consent” and “Merry Christmas”.

Big Brother allows no dissent, admonishes its citizens to the glory of the state with slogans, encourages tattling on each other and punishes offenders with the status of “unperson” where you disappear from history. Today children are forced to sing songs in school, praises to the greatness of Obama. The White House asks children to write essays on how they can help Obama and be good comrades for the state while asking that “Fishy Emails” be reported. Offenders are given the dreaded status of “Racist” and Fox News is made into an “un-news organization”.

At times Big Brothers actions make no sense but the threat of becoming an “unperson” keeps Oceana in line. Today, due to fear of being called a racist, we allow an Islamic extremist to stay in the military even though he has publicly stated that nonbelievers should have their heads cut off and have hot oil poured down their throats. If a white Christian had said that about abortion doctors, how many seconds would have it taken for discharge papers to be delivered? Meanwhile, we continue to frisk old, white ladies at the airport. Heaven forbid one of them smuggles a crochet hook aboard the airplane and brandishes it at a flight attendant.

Paranoid of even subversive thoughts, Big Brother anoints the Thought Police. Today we call it Hate Crimes where the act alone is not worthy of punishment. Your thoughts and attitudes about the victim have to be punished as well. And the press happily reports racist statements from Rush Limbaugh that were never said. When the truth is revealed, Limbaugh still has to be punished because we all know he thought it even if he did not say it.

Oceana has no need of elections because Big Brother knows more than anyone else and is watching over all. Obama has ACORN to go around fixing the mistakes made by voters so people like Al Franken can be in the Senate. Activist judges thwart the will of the people and repeatedly force gay marriage on the country. Obama, like Big Brother, is in constant campaign mode with great speeches and slogans (and in the words of the great Joe Jonas: “Does a great speech always have to have a point?”) Obama knows more than us so our opposition to Obamacare is moot. His benevolence warrants our trust as we surrender our freedoms to his will.

Although Winston Smith, the hero of our story, ends back where he started, a little worse for the wear, I hope our experiment in American Democracy does not end so “ungoodly”. But next time you are tempted to recite the “Pledge of Allegiance” (with your hand over our groin, of course), wear a flag on your person, or pick up a gun to go hunting, just remember Big Barack is Watching!

Go Right, Young Man, Go Right!

2009-11-08T20:16:00.010-05:00

During WWII, servicemen across the Pacific would tune to a radio program that featured the seductive voice of Tokyo Rose. Rose was a Japanese American who had turned loyalties back to Japan and presented a radio program urging Americans to give up the fight and go home. The propaganda was mixed with music to entertain, which allured the servicemen to listen, along with that sexy voice. Fortunately for America (and for Japan) her message was for naught. Today, Republicans are plagued with a slew of “Liberal Roses”. Colin Powell talks about the Big Tent while endorsing Obama. Lindsey Graham backs Global Warming Legislation that would wreck the US Economy. The revolt of conservatives in the recent New-York Congressional election nearly elected a third-party candidate while the former Republican nominee endorsed the Democrat on dropping out.

Conventional wisdom says that we need to be open-minded enough to allow anybody in the party so that we can win elections. This wisdom has caused the Republican Party to drift left, blurring the lines between Republican and Democrat. This has not won more elections but stuck us with the most left-wing President in history and a Democratic Congress.

First, a party that stands for everything stands for nothing. President Bush (41) abandoned his no-tax pledge and lost big time to Clinton. Clinton adopted many of the Right’s ideas (NAFTA, lowering capital gains tax, and welfare reform) and got reelected. Bush (43) coined the bizarre phrase “compassionate conservatism”. Conservatism is compassionate by its very nature but what Bush used it for was a cover to raise Federal spending to unreal levels. The Republican Congress went along for the ride, splitting from Conservatives who wanted a smaller government. If the Liberals had not been so wacko on the war, Bush may have well lost the election, hovering around 50 percent approval most of the time. In the last election, Republicans put up the darling of the Liberal Media, McCain, the most liberal candidate ever offered by Republicans. Many conservatives stayed home and many independents decided to give Democrats a try thinking that they couldn’t be any worse. Surprise! The only bright spot in the fiasco was Palin and the only reason this anonymous politician from Alaska curried any appeal was because of her conservative credentials.

Like the seductive voice of Tokyo Rose, the Liberal Roses can seem to make sense. Slipping left may seem easy but is no more the rode to victory than that advocated by Tokyo. To you Liberal Roses who think we need to outflank the Democrats on the Left, tell me what is to be gained when you look at the issues of the day:

Abortion: American opinion is drifting against abortion. Even Liberals talk about how they hate abortion but think it is a private matter. Curious that wearing a seat belt or buying health insurance is not.

Global Warming: The overwhelming majority of the American people do not think that man is causing global warming. They are suspicious of this whole movement that is full of anti-capitalist Marxists and Lobbyists that want to deprive America of its wealth. Although you can see why the Obama administration loves them so much, Americans think giving up beef and leather is a bit much. And not to confuse the issue with facts, global temperatures over the last decade have been falling, cancelling out the warming from the previous century.

Health Care Reform: Americans do not want this monstrosity. It is being crammed down our throats by a party that knows no bounds to hubris. Greater expansion of the government is not popular no matter what Pelosi calls it or no matter how much lipstick is on it. And while Democrats have scared seniors every year into thinking that Republicans will cut their benefits, only Democrats have proposed cuts to Medicare and threaten death panels through rationed care.

Taxes: Obama campaigned on higher taxes for the wealthy but still had to offer lower taxes for anyone else. The tax cuts he enacted at the beginning of his term are probably what broke the fall in the economy but there are a myriad of new taxes that are being proposed to cancel out the effect. The damage done to the economies of Virginia and New Jersey have caused them to run from Liberal rule. Even California is talking about tax cuts to repair the damage done by Liberals.

Illegal Immigration: Ok, what part of illegal do you not understand? America is a country of immigrants, but we need legal, controlled immigration. Aside from the drugs many of them bring with them, the poor souls coming to flee oppression and corruption come here to eek out a living as a landscaper or maid only to fall victim to the corruption of the American system, fostered by the Democrats. They are rounded up in ACORN buses, told in Spanish how to vote, and whisked off to the poles with the promises of a few bucks for “doing the right thing.” To the ire of the American people, Democrats talk about undocumented immigrants and liken it to speeding. I wonder if they would be so forgiving if I engaged in undocumented bank withdrawals.

War on Terrorism: The war in Iraq has turned and the beleaguered enemy has retreated to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Americans are not so supportive of the war in Afghanistan because the goals have not been delineated by this Administration. While the President dithers about troop levels, soldiers are dying. I know the President recoils when accused of dithering but the UN approved General McChrystal’s plan weeks ago. When take longer than the UN to make up your mind, you are, by definition, dithering. Supporting the troops and winning this war is a winning strategy for the American electorate. It’s also another reason to seal the borders to illegal immigration. How many Americans and undocumented immigrants are going to be dead when a nuclear dirty bomb is brought across the Mexican border and detonated in Los Angeles?

Education Vouchers: This is extremely popular with impoverished minorities who are traditionally in the tank for Democrats. Educating minorities, really educating them (not just giving them an affirmative-action pat on the head as you pass them to the next grade) is key to truly ending poverty. Unfortunately, the poor and the uneducated (high school drop-outs) vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Liberals have no interest in allowing captive voters to escape. One of Obama’s first acts was to abolish such a program in D.C. that was causing people to become self-reliant and may have led to a rise in Republican voters. Breaking the backs of teachers’ unions will cause few Americans to shed many tears and all Americans would be better for it.

I believe that an articulate American (black, white, Hispanic, Asian, male or female) who believes in Conservatism and can explain it could capture the electorate and do great things for this country. With all due respect to you Liberal Roses out there, my advice to the Republican party is from a phrase adapted from John Wayne: “Go Right, young man, go Right!”

White Guilt: The Path to Incompetence

2009-10-25T19:58:00.000-04:00

The last president to fail this miserably spoke candidly of the malaise that had descended upon the American people. While the Iranians jerked us around, President Carter put on a smile and a sweater and gave pep talks in a dimly lit White House as the energy crisis choked the economy. We all learned there was a reason he was known as “Jimmy Who?” before the election and we realized anew that the president ought to have some experience and know-how before coming to office. But then comes 2008 and an “articulate black guy” (as Biden put it) pops on the stage. A combination of liberal white guilt and Obama’s ability to say nothing eloquently enough to mean anything gripped enough of the left and mushy middle to sweep him into office. Now people complain that he is doing nothing. Government’s doing nothing is usually a good thing. Not having enough laws does not usually rate in polls asking what Americans are concerned about. Obama in his short ten months not only has no accomplishments but has done the following damage:

· Assaulted the First Amendment—This crazy war the White House has launched against Fox News has people remembering Nixon’s enemy’s list a feud with NBC. Being compared to Nixon is never a good thing. Not even Carter was this thin skinned.

· Wrecked the economy – Passing the stimulus bill was heralded as one of his accomplishments. They claimed they saved jobs as unemployment surged passed their direst predictions. Even a key White-House advisor admitted that the stimulus package “will have no further simulative effect passed the second quarter of 2010.” I guess a trillion bucks doesn’t buy what is used to. Meanwhile the world’s economists warn the dollar may collapse due to the reckless debt Obama has mounted (more than all his predecessors combined).

· Offended our allies—The liberals whined that Bush was not nice enough to the international community. Obama has offended the British by grabbing their Queen with both hands as if she were an eager campaign donor and gave the British Prime Minister a CD player that does not work in Europe. The Poles and Czechs are furious because he canceled a missile defense program there because Russia wanted us out. And while the Russians gave us squat in return, did he ever wonder why Russia does not want Poland to be able to defend itself? And while we heard no end of Bush’s snubbing the snobby French, their prime mister said this week of Obama’s Iranian policy, “I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing. More enriched uranium, more centrifuges, and on top of that, a statement by Iranian leaders proposing to wipe a UN member State off the map.”

· Emboldened our enemies—Afghanistan, a war of necessity in Obama’s words, is being lost while he dithers, waiting for the elections in November to pass before inevitably alienating is left-wing base by sending troops to the war zone. Close elections, like the governor’s race in New Jersey, will go to the Republicans if Obama’s base is offended. Meanwhile soldiers die. Do you think the media will calculate the number of Democrat votes that were bought by each soldier’s death?

Obama learned from Carter’s failures not to stand by and take it. Having the media in their lap like a pretty poodle, the only vicious lap dog out there is Fox News. Obama is lousy at governing but great at campaigning, especially when it has an enemy, be it Fox New, Humana, or the Chamber of Commerce; it takes the attention away from their abysmal failings. But the liberal white guilt exerted during the campaign meant that no tough questions were asked during the campaign and a very thin-skinned, unseasoned Politian has been elevated to the presidency because of it. People who voted for the president primarily because he is black call the current opposition racist. After all, how could anyone be against this president; he is still black.
Wrecking the economy is a natural result of implementing liberal policies. Liberals whine that Bush started it. The economic melt-down was the result of forcing banks to loan to people who could not pay them back. These people fit the liberal definitions of down-trodden. True, Bush did not stop it and he did acquiesce to Obama’s plans during the transition, but it is still a bad idea. If Bush spent too much, how is it better that Obama spend more, astronomically more? But Obama lacks any experience that would tell him this is a bad idea. His overconfidence in liberalism may very well bring on the depression he claims to have avoided.

His offense of our allies is because his overblown sense of self convinced him that they would love him just for being himself. Although this is true of the Nobel Committee, much of Europe is addicted to American defense welfare and will not step up to do anything. His asking for help from the Europeans has not only yielded nothing, France (of all countries) lectures him for not doing enough in Iran. Hey, Mr. President, don’t you know that not listening to France is what got Bush in trouble? Although Sorkarzy is right, how about France does something to earn its seat on the UN permanent counsel.

Our enemies scoff at the liberal belief that we are all people who just want to get along. While liberals bristle at the racism that caused slavery, they fail to realize that this same force is at work through Islamofacists who would make slaves of us all. You think tea-baggers are racists? What do call a maniacal dictator that wants to kill all the Jews? You weren’t planning on making him your race-relations Czar, were you?

Hey Liberals out there, next time you decide to relieve your white guilt by doing this much damage to the rest of us, could I get you to ask one question first: “Would I vote for someone this inexperienced who has told us virtually nothing about himself with ties to radical left-wing groups if he were white?”

The Nature of Government: What Michael Moore Does Not Understand

2009-10-17T14:34:00.011-04:00

While watching Sean Hannity was interviewing his pal Michael Moore, Moore asked "Why do you hate this government so much?" The context was Hannity's reluctance to allow the government to take care of Americans with endless entitlement programs. I have pondered the question and have decided the question shows a grave ignorance over the nature of government and the precarious situation we find ourselves in vis-a-vis this government. Attitudes toward government form the basis of political philosophies and underscore the fundamental difference between Conservatives and Liberals.

Governments wield power. In fact, power is the core of government. Governments throughout the centuries have wielded their power in various ways. When government power is wielded by a king, dictator, or oligarchy, the result has eventually been upheaval from the governed. These governments have either yielded to democratic reforms or suffered revolution and/or collapse. Our nation's founders experienced the latter and established a replacement government that reflected their extreme suspicion of government. They set the Constitution, a written document, as the supreme law above all the government rulers. Rulers can be fickle but a written law is immutable. Then lest the nation's rulers just ignore the constitution, they made the rulers accountable to the people, drew lines between federal and state powers, divided the government in three parts (executive, legislative, and judicial) and set them at odds with each other through and ingenious check-and-balance system. Then they wrote a bill of rights listing what the government could not do. Hey, Mr. Moore, if you think Hannity was suspicious of government, you should have met George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.

Government, therefore, is a magnate of people who crave power. We should be suspicious of those who wish to wield power over us because wielding power always means curbing our freedom. As a conservative, I believe government should exercise its power to balance my freedom against yours. You have the right to swing your fist anywhere you want but your freedom must end where my nose begins. Government must stop you from hitting my nose or punish you if you do. Making laws against murder, robbery and such is a legitimate role of the government. With power comes virtually endless resources through its ability to tax. Government then also becomes a magnate for those desiring wealth. Liberals believe that power and wealth should be used to better society beyond just preventing you from hitting my nose. For lack of a better term, I call this social engineering. Our experience with social engineering has been largely detrimental. There are three basic reasons why social engineering is doomed to failure.

First, politicians are just not smart enough. Virtually no one is. We rely on free markets to do what no person or small group of persons can do. Social programs are engineered by people who do not know what they are doing, make assumptions that bear no resemblance to reality or work at cross purposes to the governed for their own benefit. The war on poverty has spent trillions without eliminating poverty. Medicaid and Medicare cost seven times their projected estimates. Congressmen are still being caught in bribery and tax evasion scandals.

Second, your social engineering interferes with my right to swing my fist. You may argue that I do not need to swing my fist but what the heck gives you the right to decide? If I want to make a billion dollars in a year, why do you get to decide you need half? Forcing me to work for the benefit of others is slavery. Is is alright to enslave people based on their fitting in a certain category? If I decide you should be my slave because you have blond hair, would that be OK? Our nation's founders believed in maximizing the freedom of white males which we have now expanded to mean the freedom of all people. Singling out a category of people for tax punishment (rich people), economic punishment (not allowing Rush Limbaugh to buy a NFL team based on political speech), or opportunity denial (preferring minorities over whites in college admission) are all social engineering endeavors that run counter to the premise that everyone is created equally and are equal under the law.

Third, expanding the role of government amplifies the negative aspects of its nature, usually without great benefit. The more government does, the more lobbyist flood into the government tempting the power holders with worldly goods. Companies that could use their capital to produce more goods and services are, instead, paying campaign donations to stave off threatened regulations and with good reason. Government power does not stand idle. Bureaucracies grow through endless hiring and justify their existence with never-ending regulation, most of which is costly and nugatory. How much of our national productivity is lost to lawyers and lobbyists dealing with this asinine nonsense? Some regulation is necessary. You should not be able to steal my money via a Ponzi scheme (like Bernie Madoff did to thousands) but even when regulation is in place the government often fails to do its job (or do we blame this on the extreme incompetence of Tim Geithner who was the head regulator in New York at the time?) Experience has shown that he governs best who governs least.

Things are especially precarious now because the liberal have developed an us-versus-them mentality. Conservatives are heavily scrutinized while Liberals get a pass. Hypocrisy is at record levels with Democrats who now run the entire government. While Tom Delay had to be run out of Congress for, as I understand it, being mean to Democrats, Charles Rangel keeps his chairmanship while committing tax fraud. Nancy Pelosi breaks out in tears and demands Wilson apologize to everyone multiple times for calling the President a liar (which turns out to be true) while Grayson can use defamatory lies to demean Republicans with near impunity.

With Congress and the White House in the same party the power check between the two has broken down. With the appointment of Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, we break down the check of the judicial branch because she does not believe the constitution to be what the founders intended, an immutable law. The courts already pretend the ninth and tenth amendments do not exist, while the Federal Government leaves its heavy footprint on the backsides of the states. The first amendment grants the press special powers to be the watch dogs over the government but they have abdicated their role, all tilting left as well. While the corruption of ACORN, a recipient of billions in tax dollars, was being exposed by undercover novices, the New York Times did not cover the story saying that too many of its reporters were on vacation at the time. Yet the "Naked Politician" was covered (sorry for the pun) during that week. The liberals in Maryland do not seem to be as concerned with ACORN helping set up brothels with underage, illegal aliens as much as they are that the undercover agents used clandestine recording devices. Unchecked, the White House has stocked their ranks with tax cheats, lobbyists and Marxists. The environment for corruption and abuse of power by the the White House is rife. Mr. Moore is naive if he does not think that Obama and the Chicago thugachracy he brought with him do not have the ability or inclination to abuse government power. Besides, the last president who misused his power (in that case he fixed the outcome of a law suit against himself for sexual harassment) was let off and still held in high esteem by many people.

This leaves the American people to protest and threaten the House of Representatives with reprisal in the next election. This may be the only way left to correct this mess. The White House has reacted to this by slandering the people who oppose his initiatives. And in a bizarre turn they have declared war on Fox News because it covers the protests, does not faun over the president, and has commentators that actually criticize the President's polices. Liberals have tried to brunt opposition, not with reasoned arguments, but by labeling opponents as racists.

Mr. Moore, I do not hate this government but I do not trust it or any government. Government must earn my trust each day and I will always be suspicious of anyone wishing to wield power over me regardless of their political stripes. However, never before has so much of the safeguards put in place by the founders been breached because of the wide-spread power of liberalism and the inability of most of the press to do their jobs! Let's at least put the Congress back in the hands of some conservatives, then we'll talk. I bet the press will start doing its job then!

Obama Finally Wins Something

2009-10-12T09:44:00.001-04:00

I was totally thrilled this weekend when President Obama got the Nobel Peace prize. I personally have always wanted a Nobel Prize for science so I got right on it this weekend. I have heard there is a Theory of Everything in science and, although it was not my idea originally, I think it is a good one. I have spoken to people about much I feel it is a good idea. I am even putting together a committee of Czars and demanding they have the theory on my desk to sign by Thanksgiving break. I have also spent the weekend worrying about how the cool autumn air is a sign of global warming and am in total mourning of Evil White European day, today, on account of Columbus coming over here and all. I hope the Norwegians know I don’t mean them ‘cause they didn’t pillage anything like Columbus unless you count the Vikings plundering half of Northern Europe but we all know that plundering from rich white people is what you’re supposed to do anyway.

So all this thinking and feeling has got me too exhausted to write anymore and I am too tied up in knots trying to decide what to have for dinner (I know the deadline for deciding is tonight but I may just put it off until next week even though I have been warned that by doing so I may lose the opportunity to have dinner at all.) I know you expected me to write more but maybe the lack of words will inspire you to admire me for being pensive and deliberative. Say, maybe I could use this blog entry to win the Nobel Prize for Literature!

Obama: Incompetent, Delusional, or Liar

2009-10-03T12:49:00.002-04:00

This week President Obama made a pitch to bring the Olympics to Chicago. He promised to use all his powers of persuasion to bring the Games home but it worked out just about as well as all his other attempts to persuade Congress to pass his radical agenda as the Olympic Committee voted to send the Games to Rio de Janeiro. The president was criticized for the colossal waste of money and time but at least he wasn't doing something stupid like his recent Air-Force-One flyby of Manhattan. What bothered me was his inability to take the failure like a, well, president (Remember "The buck stops here?"). Instead, he launched into another "I'm-sorry-for-America" speech and blamed previous administrations. Get off it already; Bush isn't there anymore! I have begun to wonder if he is incompetent, delusional, or just a liar. I can't decide. Here is the evidence I have pondered for each.

Of course, he can read a speech like no other since Lincoln and the Gettysburg address. But why did that not persuade the committee. Is he loosing his touch? Perhaps they are still mad at Bush or maybe they are all a bunch of racists! He has made Obamacare the hallmark of his administration and it is going nowhere. Racism? Clinton tried the same thing and failed. Is the nation so racist that we would not even listen to an honorary black president. Perhaps, the country does not like Southerners? Why doesn't Hilary get out there a stump for the reforms? She was the mastermind behind it last time. Is the president afraid we are prejudice against women? Listen, Mr. President, somewhere out there is a person or persons who can explain your wonderful policies so that we will all love them. Maybe one of your many Czars? We could play some perverse game of "Green Eggs and Ham". Maybe we'll like Health Care Reform in a box with a fox. And then he blames his failures on Bush and on the Republicans in Congress. News flash, the Democrats own Congress! The Republican are there to stop you but there would be too few of them if you could get your party together. Is he just too incompetent to get his proposals through and too incompetent to find someone who can?

Meanwhile, Afghanistan is deteriorating and Iran pursues nuclear weapons. He is not talking to his commander in the field. And although the stimulus bill had to be passed immediately before it could be read, he agonizes over sending more troops to a country that had attacked us and harbors terrorists. His only success this week was that his charisma extracted a new set of lies from the Iranians so they can buy time, leaving Israel in the lurch. And when they break this new set of agreements, will he send them another letter telling them how disappointed he is and that they must really shape up this time or else? They are already fueling a power plant with letters they get like that from the UN.

Perhaps he is delusional. He did derail the Clinton machine and successfully lock Hilary away in the Secretary tower, dooming her to mundane diplomacy trips Malawi and Honduras. Some likened him to Jesus Christ and even made caricatures of him as the Messiah. By the way, the National Endowment for the Arts funded an exhibition with a crucifix dipped in urine. I wonder if we could get one of those posters dipped in urine and put on display somewhere. But let's skip the naked, chocolate Obama; I think we have seen enough of his bareness in the tabloids already. He doesn't need any more exposure. But he surely craves it and all this adulation may have gone to his head. Children in schools are now singing songs to his praise to him. If Chairman Mao were still alive, he would be green with envy. Rumors are the Kim Jung Il of North Korea has offered to stop his weapons program if Obama will send teachers from New Jersey to teach his song writers how to compose such marvelous songs of praise.

When Bush was president, he asked the world to help but went forward in our national interests when some refused to help. Now Obama thinks that apologies, sweet words, and the force of his personality will get these nations to change? Have they? Are they helping more? NO! France is still a burned-out socialist society that will do nothing. Russia and China still hate us. North Korea and Iran are as dangerous as ever. Hey, Mister President, are you sure you said "Pretty please with sugar on top?" I think he needs to lay off MSNBC and get his head back into reality. Ever heard of Fox News?

Or maybe he realizes all this and is a just a compulsive liar. He lied about Bill Ayers and Reverent Wright. He ran as a centrist Democrat promising ethical governance and then stuffed is his administration with Marxists and tax cheats. He promised no more lobbyist in high office and then put lobbyists in high office. He promised we would get to see bills on line before they are passed and now pushes them through before anyone can read them. He touts how great his economic measures are doing as the unemployment rate climbs to ten percent, the highest in thirty years. He says he will cut the deficit and then spends more money than all his predecessors combined. He talks about what is in his health care proposal when he has never submitted any proposals to Congress and insists that spending a trillion dollars on health care will not add to the deficit. It does not help that the press does not call him out on any of this. If Bush said the sky was blue, the press would exclaim that the sky was red and the Bush knew it and the only reason he was saying this was to starve children and harm senior citizens. Obama could say the sky was green and the press would report how wonderful it was that Obama turned the sky green in spite of all the racists that claimed the sky to be blue. Maybe this is just feeding his delusions. Does he really think he can cut waste, fraud and abuse from the government? You mean like when he worked with ACORN? And when anyone does confront him on how his proposals are hurting the country (like cutting $500 billion from Medicare), we get the Orwellian "No they're not."

Ten months into this nightmare and we finally are getting a sense of how radically left this president is but now we are left to wonder if he is incompetent, delusional or just a liar. I think he might be a bit of all three. But for all his faults he has done something I didn't think anyone on earth could do. He has made me wish Hillary Clinton had become President.

Environmentalism: How to Cause the Next Problem

2009-09-27T12:44:00.000-04:00

When I was young, I had a puppy that chased his tail. He never actually caught it so I often wondered why he bothered. Maybe it entertained him. Maybe it made him feel better. Or maybe he never bothered to think about how pointless it was. Now I realize he might just have been an environmentalist. Like the puppy, environmentalists chase their tails in the sense that their solutions either accomplish nothing or create the next problem, requiring another trip around the circle. Their current actions are never analyzed for effectivity or impact. Paramount is how the action makes them currently feel and motion is preferable to doing nothing even if nothing would give a better result.

When I speak of environmentalists, I speak of the extremists, not people who want clean air and water or might enjoy an occasional visit to a national park. Rather I refer to puppy-tail touting liberals that impose solutions creating the next set of problems. Obama's Cap and Trade is the latest in this line of idiocy but I thought instructive to look at environmentalism historically.
Modern environmentalism begins with Theadore Roosevelt who gave birth to the national park system. It seemed like a benign stretch of federal power. Later his cousin, FDR, founded the Tennessee Valley Authority. Its mission was to build dams to create hydroelectric power. It provided jobs for many during the height of the depression, raised the standard of living for many Appalachian poor, and drove demand for new consumer goods. Pollution from burning wood and coal diminished as people turned to cheap, reliable electricity to heat and cook. But now the environmentalists have discovered that fish populations have declined because the fish cannot get to their spawning grounds. The call now is to remove the power plants. This, of course, would increase poverty and push people back to wood and coal. Then what? Can you say, "Here puppy, puppy!"?

The Nixon administration founded the Environmental Protection Agency. This brings the force of the government and the hidden government agendas to environmental policy. Sulfur being emitted by burning eastern coal brings acid rain. Burning western coal would solve the problem. But this would affect local employment conditions. The EPA mandates the use of scrubbers on smoke stacks to remove the sulfur. Plants that cannot afford the scrubbers go out of business, affecting local employment conditions. Plants that burn western coal must also have the scrubbers even though they do absolutely no good. The cost is past on to you.

To deal with auto emissions CAFE standards were enacted, calling for lighter cars. Death rates climbed as survivability in these flimsy cars plummeted. For some environmentalists this is a good thing because human life is an empediment to a good environment. Air bags have helped curb the death toll but I wonder when they will start whining about the chemicals involved in making the bags. To further reduce auto emissions catalytic converters were mandated so "harmless" carbon dioxide would be emitted. Now they are all nuts about greenhouse gases.

Today environmentalists sow the seeds of their future complaints. Low-watt light bulbs contain elements to toxic to place in land fills. Cash for Clunkers took useful cars and placed in them landfills so "environmentally friendly" cars could take their place. Let's review how much damage hybrids do the environment. Cadmium is a key component in the batteries for hybrid cars. It is toxic to all living things and nothing will grow within miles of such a mine. Mines can be found in environmental sensitive places such as Brazil and the Great-Lakes area of Canada. The stuff is sent to China to be made into batteries. The batteries are then shipped to Europe to be made into engine assemblies. The engines are then shipped to the USA to make into cars. The amount of extra fossil fuel burned to produce and transport components for these cars versus a normal car far exceeds what the hybrid will save in its lifetime.

Now Obama joins the idiocy with Cap and Trade. C&T is supposed to mean that you cap the amount of greenhouse gases emitted globally. When a company want to exceed its cap, it must trade with another so the overall levels do not increase. But like all Marxists theories, it sounds great on paper but has no practical implementation. In Europe there is a market to buy credits when you want to exceed your cap. The money is sent to China where they are paid to dismantle on old, coal burning plant. But what do the Chinese do with the site afterward? Of course, they build a new, modern coal-burning plant. While CO2 emissions have increased steadily in spite of C&T, it has recently declined during Obama's War on Prosperity. Indeed, shrinking economies are the best way to reduce CO2 levels but who would want that? No one except Carol Browner, Obama's Global Warming Czar who belongs to the Commission for a Sustainable World Society which calls for rich countries to shrink their economies. I guess it makes sense for Obama to increase the number of poor in this country so he can increase the number of people he can hook on government unemployment and welfare. That way he can threaten them with starvation, like he threatens the elderly, if they don't vote correctly next time.

This week Obama went to the UN and did his usual apologies for the existence of America but he also promised to work with them on environmental issues. Now it's true the UN just wants to abscond our national wealth under the guise of environmentalism or whatever Obama will go along with but they are generally more inept than Obama at getting anything done so if anyone can gum up the puppy tail-chasing machine, they can; they gum up everything else. And they might even do it cheaper than the administration alone (It's pretty sad when the UN becomes a better bargain than the Federal Government). At least this will buy us some time until the 2010 election when Republicans can come back and, in Biden's words, "end our agenda". How's that for hope and change. And nothing against you dog lovers out there, but from now on, I am sticking to cats.

The Little Dutch Boys and the Pied Piper

2009-09-18T18:31:00.000-04:00

Reader warning is advised. If you are a child, childish, overly liberal, pregnant or may become pregnant, this story may not be right for you. Some portion may depict death. Please consult your doctor if death is not right for you.

Once there was a village nestled below a dike in the Dutch countryside. The village was called De Usaloompadoompadeedoo. (For this story we will just call it The Usa. De means "the" in English as in The Hague where liberals want to try Bush officials all the time for crimes against trees, fish and Islamic Freedom Fighters. And Usa, because Usaloompa...whatever, like many Dutch words is just too long since Dutch is a Germanic language. English is a Germanic language too and that is why liberals want us to change to Spanish, which is much easier to pronounce and has nothing to do with what Joe Biden called "Undocumented Aliens" pouring across the borders, collecting welfare goodies and voting Democrat to keep the good times rolling. But let's get back to the story).

One day a crack appeared in the mighty dike built above The Usa to keep the the ocean out. Water poured into the town, undermining the foundation of the great clock tower that had been a long-time landmark. The tower came crashing down, much to the dismay of the villagers. It was soon determined that illegal immigrants from Iceland had stolen a bunch of carts and smashed them into the dike. An Icelandic terrorist group, I'llkillya, claimed responsibility. They objected to the way the Dutch interfered with the flow of water from across the world by blocking it with dikes. Dikes were, of course, a way of life in the Netherlands but Icelanders had no dikes and did not see why the Dutch should have them either. Mayor Van Busch dispatched his bravest boys to the dike to stop the flooding. The Little Dutch Boys, as they were called, quickly stuck their fingers in the crack too stop the flow while the mayor tried to formulate a permanent solution.

Now here is where it got a little sticky. The Usa was divided into two groups. One group liked trees, love songs and sweet rain. They frequently gathered to sing a song called "Let it Be" from which they got their name, the Let-It-Be party or the L.I.B.'s The other group believed in self reliance and taking care of your own nest (nest meant your own house in Dutch). The Care-Own-Nest or C.O.N.'s thought they should round up the Icelandofacists and put them in prison. The L.I.B.'s thought they should talk nicely to the Free-the-Water Fighters to find out why they hated the Dutch so much. In the midst of the debate there was a new election and the L.I.B candidate won, Mayor Barrack Van Damma. (The mayor had a middle name but I am not allowed to use it because it was Icelanic in origin on account of his father's family coming from Iceland).

Mayor Van Damma decided that is was the responsibility of the country dwellers that lived nearest the dike to repair it and announced he was going to withdraw the Little Dutch Boys in 16 months without a plan for the permanent repair of the dike. (Don't ask me where the 16-month time limit came from. It just gave the Icelanders an idea when they could attack again). Then the mayor announced he was going to focus on a problem that the rest of village had not thought about. Now, the village courthouse was where many people, especially the elderly, gathered for entertainment. It was, after all, very funny how child molesters got off with a few hours of community service while people convicted of yelling at cats, trees or children were sent to prison for years. Studies had shown that people lived longer when they indulged in regular attendance in the courthouse. But like many courthouses, it was infested with rats. The rats would chew through villager's wooden shoes. The affluent would wear steel-plate shoes lined with soft fur to avoid being bitten. But these shoes were very expensive and Mayor Van Damma did not think it fair that poor villagers could not afford them. But the village could not afford to buy steel shoes for everyone.

One day a piper from the far-away land of Montana named Maximus Backamus came to The Usa and promised to drive away the rats. When the mayor asked how much it would cost, the Pied Piper, as Max was called (I think pied refers to the shape of his face or something) assured the mayor that they need not worry about it since his piping will not only drive out the rats but cause sweet rain to fall endlessly on the village. Enthusiastically, the mayor reported to the L.I.B. dominated village counsel that signing the contract will cause sweet rain to fall and the poor will vote L.I.B forevermore. Many of the C.O.N.'s were concerned about the details of the contract and its huge cost. The L.I.B.'s accused them of being prejudice against the Mayor because he had big, floppy ears. Now the mayor was the first person with big, floppy ears to hold the office (although a previous L.I.B mayor, Wilhelm Van Grabanintern, claimed he was an honorary big-floppy earer) but the C.O.N.'s insisted their objections had nothing to do with ears.

Villagers protested the contract en masse but the counsel and the mayor approved the contract (without reading it; go figure) and the Pied Piper went to work. The rats left the courthouse (well a lot of them at least) but they did not leave The Usa. Instead, they infested the homes and businesses across the village, multiplying and tormenting everyone. When the baker complained that the rats were eating all the bread, the mayor simply took over the bakery and fired the baker. Somehow, that didn't fix anything and soon The Usa was broke from paying so much money to the Pied Piper. So the mayor decided to distract everybody by pointing out that while many of the Dutch boys holding up the dike were heroes, some of them were offending Icelandic Free-the-Water Fighters by pushing too hard against the water behind the dike. The C.O.N.'s insisted that the harsh finger-indention techniques were warranted to keep the ocean waters out and had been approved by Mayor Van Busch (After all, not a drop of water had come through the dike since the flood). But the L.I.B.s insisted that some boys had pushed so hard that they had contorted their face and contortion was illegal.

Unfortunately, the L.I.B.'s just said, "We are the ones in power." They threw half the Dutch boys in jail for what L.I.B.'s called their "dam crimes" and violations of "hydro-rights" while the other half was sent home with the Mayor's public thanks but told privately by the mayor's henchmen not to carry guns, display the Dutch flag in public or send emails about fish or they might be arrested. Meanwhile, I'llkillya had smuggled a giant bomb into the country and mounted it onto the dike. It exploded in a giant BOOM! The ocean poured into The Usa, wiping it from the map.

Now I you may not have heard this story before since Foxnews was the only outlet to cover it. But I am sure that if you had been made aware of the plight of The Usa before it happened, you would have done everything you could to prevent it. Well, maybe you still can.

Lessons of 9/11

2009-09-12T14:19:00.000-04:00

Another anniversary of 9/11 got me thinking of the lessons of that day. President Bush declared in 2001 that 9/11 was an attack on freedom. He dedicated himself, successfully, to the protection of the American people and to the protection of their freedom. I have since pondered why he was so successful and whether we will continue.

First you have to recognize that 9/11 was a continuation of a drama that has played out throughout human history. The desire for freedom is innate to the human psyche, but so is the malevolent desire to dominate. Even our nation as it strove for the former has committed the sin of the latter. Our forefathers founded a nation of freedom on the back of slaves. But we have since repented and deserve forgiveness as we overcome racism. But as we turned from the slavery of the 19th century to the isolationism of the 20th century, we discovered the struggle continued on the world stage. After two world wars we realized that if we do not direct world events, someone else will. Communism rose immediately in the last half of the previous century as then new enslaver. When the Cold War ended abruptly, Saddam Hussein took Kuwait much as Hitler took Poland. We acted to dislodge him to prevent another world war but our actions angered Islamofacists who acted against us on 9/11. This struggle will never end. We can retreat and let someone else force us into another world war or we can continue to play the manifest role we have as the word's only super power.

Our success in changing two governments in the Middle East and dismantling Al Qaeda is owed to a strong military and intelligent agency. They also have the most technologically advanced tools developed by unleashed innovation. Innovation is fostered by capitalism which allows people and corporations to profit from their innovation. Both organizations are motivated by strong patriotism, a long-fostered characteristic of our nation.

Unfortunately, the current administration is assaulting our nation. Its takeover of businesses, badmouthing them, taxing them and regulating them to death will slow the progress of innovation. The refusal to wear the American flag on the lapel and suspicion of patriotism undermines the moral of the the military. Saying that people went into the military because they could not get a regular job in Bush's economy is insulting. Prosecuting intelligence agents for protecting us will bring this to a halt. We can't even call the replacement for the World Towers the Freedom Tower because it offends people. What's up with that? Peaceniks cry for us to play nice and leave the world alone. This will leave malevolent forces to wreak havoc on the world stage. The oppression of Viet Nam and North Korea left in the wake of listening to these "do-gooders" will become the global norm until a mushroom cloud vaporizes another group of liberals in LA, NY, Chicago or Washington.

The Federal government itself has become the oppressor of 9/11. As Islamofacists want to force their morality on us, Liberals lecture us that providing health care for everyone is our moral obligation and proposes the government force us to do it. Forcing someone to do something they do not want to do is the essence of slavery unless you return something of value back the them. Taxing you to protect you from terrorists is not slavery, but taking your money to give to someone else is. Taxing the "rich" to support someone else is no different than forcing black slaves to work to support white masters. (By the way, protecting America, unlike Obama care, is almost deficit neutral. How much revenue has the government raised on the rising stock market since 9/11 and the two wars versus doing nothing and letting the economy continue to tank?)

While liberals bad-mouth our forefathers as dead, white slave-owners, I forgive them their sins and thank them for gifting us a republic with the right to vote for our leaders. The tea-party movement drives Liberals nuts but in spite of the insults hurled at them from public officials, estimates indicate 2010 could shift Congress by 100 seats or more. And if they don't get it, we will shift again until someone figures out that moral obligations are a matter of conscience, not a Federal issue, profit is not a dirty word, and "God Bless America" is not racist profanity.

Lessons From the Kennedy Family

2009-09-07T19:36:00.000-04:00

When I first heard that Senator Ted Kennedy died, I felt like singing that old classic from the "Wizard of Oz" -- "Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead." Fortunately, my better nature precluded this. But having said goodbye to Senator Kennedy, I think it is time to reflect on lessons he and his family have taught us. Not those sappy, milk-toast fawnings you get on TV but some real gems.

Gem 1: To avoid consequences be a liberal politician with a liberal constituency.
Of course, I am talking about Chapaquitic. Many have been frustrated that he got away with murder or something close to it. But liberals to not care about what sins their people commit as long as they say warm, fuzzy liberal stuff. The American people fortunately do not have the same attitude, which kept Ted Kennedy out of the White House. This week Van Jones, Obama's Tsar for green jobs resigned for public statements about Republicans that included obscenities, belonging to a group that thinks President Bush was complicit in 9/11, belonging to another group that called for violent overthrow of the government and oh, ya; he proclaimed he was a communist. Yet he got in to the administration because they did not care about any of that because he was saying warm, fuzzy liberal stuff. Not even the main-stream press said anything until the resignation because Liberals do not care! Just don't interrupt them with facts while they are chanting "Love and peace, my hair is full of grease..."

Gem 2: Don't force the elderly into back-ally health care clinics.
Senator Kennedy was old with a fatal disease. Yet he rejected President Obama's advice to take a pain pill and just die. Ultimately, the health care he consumed was for naught but it was his choice. Senator Kennedy bemoaned attempts to make killing unborn babies illegal. Women would be forced into back-ally clinics to have abortions anyway. If he was so sure that women would endure risky, illegal measures just to rid themselves of inconvenient children, imagine what the elderly will do to dodge the Obama death panels. The Kennedys know well what happens when you make an activity illegal. During Prohibition, Joseph Kennedy (Ted's father) made moonshine and worked with the Mafia to distribute it to a public desperate for booze. This made him rich and the family has lived off the proceeds ever since. He became ambassador to Britain and might have even become president if he hadn't supported some German politician named Hitler. At least his kids had the sense not to do that. Imagine what San Francisco, whose job it is to elect the wackiest socialists, would have to do to outdo a Nazi from Massachusetts.

Gem 3: Even after two generations of Kennedy liberalism poverty cannot be eradicated.
In 1964 the Kennedys applauded Johnson's War on Poverty. The goal was to eradicate poverty by 1980. Of course, we keep changing the definition of poverty, revising ever upward. America does poor like no other with TVs, cell phones, cars, refrigerators and, of course, cigarettes (just another way for your tax money to go up in smoke). Senator Kennedy championed the little guy but using methods that ultimately shafted the little guy instead. That is because he used the biggest guy on the block, the Federal Government. The government's fatal flaw is that it is all powerful. This makes is great for running the military and police but terrible for social programs. Because presidents in the past have used public jobs to reward cronies, laws have been passed to prevent the practice. The Clinton's were guilty of violating civil service laws when they fired the White House travel office and replaced them with friends from Arkansas. But how would you react if your boss changed every four years and he had virtually no power to fire you regardless of what you did. Some would work hard for reasons of integrity but over time your work place would become a magnate for people who wanted to collect a paycheck while playing computer solitaire all day or simply running a chess tournament (I did not make this up, I observed this in a government facility I once visited). So there you have it, the government "worker". If a charity were tasked with helping the poor and its workers did nothing at work, abused the charity's credit cards with impunity, stole or allowed others to steal from the charity, you would stop contributing. Try doing that with the Federal Government and you hit the fatal flaw, the power to take your money anyway. Charities that perform as abysmally as the government eventually die but the government lives on and continues sucking money from the little guy in the form of higher taxes and ever larger bureaucracies. This takes from charities that would actually help the poor and even worse, the government has the power to regulate is competition out of existence. Whether it's two generations or twenty of Kennedys coming after your money (funny they are not giving up their trust fund to the government), the War on Poverty will never be won this way. Although Obama's War on Prosperity is going quite nicely.

So Goodbye, Teddy. They say you were one of a kind and for our sakes, I hope so. Say, can we donate is body to science? If we could just discover what gene causes whaco liberalism, I might become a supporter of tax-funded abortions in certain cases.

Shadow Beliefs: The Key to Understanding Liberal Stupdity

2009-08-24T15:53:00.000-04:00

Some years ago I heard Oprah Winfrey talk about shadow beliefs. (Hey, don’t give me grief, I was home sick that day and do not make a habit of watching such drivel.) A shadow belief is one that influences your world view; you behave as if it is totally true, and yet, the belief is completely false. Since then, I have noticed that liberals are masters at holding and defending shadow beliefs. These beliefs bring comfort and often validate a person’s reason for existence. These otherwise gentle people will defend their shadow beliefs with hate-filled rancor and personal attacks if necessary. Conservatives are often baffled how much Liberal are impervious to reason and logic. Liberals often attack people of faith for having religious beliefs while holding to their shadow beliefs with equal fervor, attempting to expunge religious expression from public life while extolling their PC beliefs as the true orthodoxy. Although the irony is lost on Liberals because of their blinding arrogance, irony is yet another of their hallmarks. In our current discussions I would like to point out some of the shadow beliefs you are seeing in play.

Shadow Belief 1: Only the Federal Government can solve domestic problems.

This belief is largely driven by the fact the government has virtually limitless taxing power. Having limitless resources is useful in solving large problems. The truth is that the government can only tax up to the size of the economy and the more it taxes, the smaller the economy. Liberals like to talk about how much money this or that tax will raise and then act surprised when the numbers fail to materialize. I saw a poignant example of this on a recent trip to Savanna, GA. The lovely antebellum houses have balconies lined with ornate wrought-iron railing but there are no doors leading to any of the balconies. Instead, they are lined with floor-to-ceiling windows. This is because the British government taxed the number of external doors you have so people stopped making doors and just stepped onto the balconies through the large windows. The style is so ingrained in the architecture that over 300 years later, new buildings in the city mimic the design. Now I am sure some British law makers intended to raise a lot of money, not start a new building trend that would last forever but history is replete with examples of government intending one thing and getting something quite different. Furthermore, the fact that pyramid schemes are illegal in private enterprise means we understand how inherently dangerous they are but government is allowed to package them as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. All are going broke, as pyramid schemes do, and now they want to add health care? And if we continue to add $2 trillion to the national debt every year, I guess we will all find out where the resources of the Federal Government end.

Shadow Belief 2: Corporations are evil; Government is good.

From their tirade against Big Tobacco and Big Oil to their attacks on McDonald’s and Walmart, Liberals think corporations are out to get them. Current attacks against insurance companies continue the narrative. But corporations have created more wealth and made life better for more people than any government could. Where governments foster free enterprise and protect the right of corporations to operate, their people have become wealthy. In areas of the world where corporations are scarce or non-existent (largely due to adverse government action), people suffer crushing poverty. Placing sanctions on misbehaving governments is designed to drive out corporations to increase public hardship and, therefore, public pressure for reform.

Now the private sector does mess up but unlike the government, it self corrects quickly. Is anyone still complaining about the Edsel or platform shoes? But how many years are we to bemoan the state of public education, wonder why our food is literally being driven from the dinner table to our gas tanks, complain that our roads are full of potholes and our bridges are falling down? And while everyone knows what going Postal means, have you ever heard of someone going FedEx (other than someone trying to mail themselves to America from one of those flea-infested nations lacking a McDonald’s or a Walmart)?

Shadow Belief 3: Republicans are evil.

Perceived Republican sins make a lengthy list but two are particularly intriguing right now: Republicans are racist and want old people to suffer. Nancy Pelosi’s comments about town-hall protesters being Nazis flowed naturally from her inherent shadow belief. Dr. Hill, a distinguished professor and frequent guest on Fox News concluded that the protesters must be racist because they come from predominately white areas that voted heavily Republican. What other evidence did he offer? These people were old enough to have lived through the civil right movement and must have opposed it. They were not actually afraid of being condemned by Obama’s death panels but just disliked the President’s race. This stupid assumption about race played out in commercials when Bush ran and Liberals stated that more black churches would burn if Republicans were elected. More churches have burned and have been vandalized, but mostly all white. Yet you don’t see commercials warning that electing a liberal President who happens to be black, pretends to be Christian and is actually Muslim and listens to racist summons will cause more Christian churches to burn. That sounds almost as ridiculous as saying Obama care will create death panels. And while such panels may be one of the unintended consequences flowing from Shadow Belief 1, the Social Security Administration announced this week that benefit checks would be cut for each of the next two years. This while the government is wall to wall Democrat. I thought Democrats told us this would only happen if we elected Republicans.

So if you have a liberal friend who appears to get angry at you for no apparent reason, you probably stepped on one of their shadow beliefs. You might as well apologize now, because whether Grandma is done in by a death panel or the whole fiasco goes down in a blaze of glory, you and the virtually non-existent Republicans in Congress are getting the blame. How’s that for irony?

Obama, the New Hitler?

2009-08-11T16:10:00.000-04:00

The White House called on citizens this past week to forward “fishy” emails to the White House, emails that contradicted Obama’s claims in the health care debate. On par with buzzing New York City with Air Force One, this mistake is born of the President’s inexperience but also offers proof once again how broken down the American Press is.

Liberals defend the White House saying that it needs the opportunity to rebut misinformation that is floating out there about health care reform. The President is upset that people are mischaracterizing his health care reform plan. First, the President has not put forth a health care reform plan; the House has passed a bill. Much of the “fishy” emails stems from people reading and quoting from this bill. Many provisions are in conflict with Obama’s stated goals but instead of criticizing the bill, he demands it be passed immediately. Still many are uneasy with the call for emails. Senator Cornyn stated, "I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed ‘fishy' or otherwise inimical to the White House's political interests…” Sen. Cornyn is not completely correct. Nixon ordered the FBI to attend anti-war rallies to collect data on what was said there and who said it. He was taken to court and the Supreme Court held this practice is unconstitutional. The government is forbidden to collect information about its citizens’ political speech. Furthermore, Obama need not sift through emails to discover the source of people’s “manufactured” outrage. The House bill is the source. But again, his inexperience shines through. He continues to point out that there is a fly in the room (i.e., medical inflation is too high, people without insurance overuse ERs, some go bankrupt over health issues) but has not explained to us why we need to whack the fly with a sledge hammer (i.e., dismantle the health care system) and does not explain what he will do with the damage when the sledge hammer, missing the fly, makes a hole in the wall (just look at Medicaid, Medicare, VA to see what can and will go wrong). But in the current debate there is only one pertinent question he needs to answer. If health care reform will be so wonderful, why do all proposal so far exclude him and his family, all of Congress and all government employees?

On a separate note, this call for “fishy” emails has demonstrated how broken the American press is. The institution known as the mainstream press, the constitutionally enshrined arbiter of our liberty has been virtually silent because of their blinding adoration for the President. Meanwhile, they have deluged the airwaves and wasted good ink criticizing Rush Limbaugh for comparing Democrats to Nazis while completing failing to mention that the Speaker of the House first claimed health care reform protesters were Nazis. Limbaugh is correct to point out that Nazi comes from a German word meaning National Socialist. The Nazis wanted free health care, guaranteed jobs, strong unions and a whole host of programs that are very similar to modern Democrat proposals. But they are most notorious for their evil atrocities in exterminating people they deemed unfit. However, they did not invent anti-Semitism; they simply exploited a prejudice that already existed. Fomenting this already ubiquitous hatred, they consolidated power. And then, when they had the upper hand, they terrorized everyone into submission. While no evil has yet surpassed the Nazi regime, how is it any better that Democrats, finding people full of envy for fellow citizens who have more, foment and exploit this envy to promote their policies and then cow political opponents with threats of political correctness and begin collecting IP addresses? Why does the press not object in harsh tones? The prewar German press was greatly enamored with Hitler and virulently anti-Semitic. Are the Rich simply the new Jews? Now I hate it when people quickly equate political opponents to Nazis but, since Pelosi started it, when are we going to question the policies of class warfare? Germany lay in ruins before questioning the destruction of Jewry. Health care reform is an assault on the Rich and on capitalism. What will be the condition of America before it realizes the immorality of destroying the Rich and the stupidity in attacking capitalism?

While Obama is no Hitler, with all due respect Ms. Pelosi, neither are the town-hall protesters who are just trying to save us from Obama’s inexperience. And those “fishy” emails wouldn’t be necessary if the malfeasant press would just do its job!

Unexpected Consequences, the Hallmark of Liberalism

2009-08-02T19:54:00.000-04:00

Liberalism's strength is that is sounds so good. It's weakness is that it's application is usually disastrous. It proposes solutions to problems without examining what other effects will manifest when the solution is implemented. These effects are usually predictable but are often misnomered "Unexpected Consequences" by Liberals. Liberal damage is most severely felt in economic matters. Because they like to pretend certain economic forces do not exist, they forge ahead and act surprised when the inevitable ill outcomes materialize. But as the Nobel-Prize winning Economist, Friedrich August von Hayek pointed out, "Economic forces are just that, forces; ignore them at your own peril."

This week we were treated to a new volley of simplistic solutions with some very nasty "unexpected consequences" looming in them. First, we had Barney Frank insisting that banks lower the payments for home borrowers who were having a difficult time making payments. The implication is that the principle be reduced, transferring money/assets from the bank to the borrower. The obvious result is that millions of home owners stay in their homes and avoid bankruptcy. But what other effects will follow? Just as water under the force of gravity seeks lower ground, economic activity seeks profit. By rewarding borrowers that did not pay their mortgage timely, you encourage this activity. You set the expectation that the government will rescue you if you get into trouble. This increases the number of borrowers going into arrears. At the same time you punish banks for making the loans. This causes a decrease in the amount the banks are willing to loan. We already have this problem and Frank proposes something to make the problem worse? What is more insidious is that when the problem does worsen, he will propose another "solution" more invasive and more idiotic to keep the abyss going.

Next, congressional leaders went after insurance companies. Harry Reed claimed that insurance companies have seen profits grow four fold over the last seven years. The fact is that they have seen their profits drop precipitously over the last two. But liberals just hate it when we confuse the issue with facts. Just as there is a reason a ball drops to the ground when thrown out a second-story window, there is a reason why insurance profits are the way they are. The simplistic answer is that they are greedy. But few businesses are altruistic. Greed and fear are essential to a free market. Businesses vie for your money (greed) and hope they make you happy (fear). This balance keeps prices in check while maximizing your satisfaction. You vote with your money who wins. Losers disappear in this economic Darwinism (Hey, don't liberals adore Darwin).

Government has only greed because it possesses what no business has, power. Government can be useful when it uses power in endeavors that require it. For example, military power can be used to strike fear in our enemies while sparing us the fear of invasion. When government power is aimed at economic activity, you get a disaster like Chrysler. Bailing out Chrysler in the '70s removed the fear of making bad decisions. Once I owned a Dodge that had its transmission blow at 60,000 miles. The dealer simply rolled his eyes and said that was happening to all them, then handed me a $700 bill. I decided not to buy any more Chrysler products. But the government reached into my pocket and undid that decision with a second bailout. Chrysler, immune from fear, can proceed without ever changing. Meanwhile, we instill fear in the insurance companies with the zeal Bush used against Al Qaeda. Do you have any doubt the Federal government can wipe out the insurance industry just as effectively?

And once the insurance industry is gone, replaced with an entity with massive power and greed and virtually lacking in fear (i.e., the government), how will that will be better? How will it be punished for mistakes? Currently, the government is tasked with curbing one of very few vices in capitalism, fraud. Bernie Madoff was supposed to be stopped by Federal regulators. The head regulator in New York at the time was Tim Geithner. And how was he punished for this massive failure? He was made Treasury Secretary. What kind of punishment is that? (Can somebody remind me why Obama thought he was the only one smart enough to do that job?)

Finally we have the proposal to cap executive salaries on Wall Street. This asinine idea presupposes that government officials can correctly guess what the salaries are supposed to be. Again, economic forces, like physical forces kick in. And just as throwing a couple liberals out a second story window may make you feel good for a while, capping executive pay will also leave you with a big mess in the end, no matter how many times Congress votes to repeal the Law of Gravity. This stuff has been tried before!

In Venezuela economic forces caused milk to rise in price above what most people could pay. Chavez vowed to fix the price at a lower level. People cheered at this idea (people often cheer at liberal ideas when the nasty consequences are hidden or glossed over). Now you cannot find milk anywhere in Caracas or in most of Venezuela. Do you think people would have cheered if he had promised to make milk disappear from the country? Will people cheer when their 401(k) plunges from lack of talented corporate leadership. Will people cheer when their insurance coverage is terminated, their doctor is force out of practice, and the number of years it takes to get a doctor increases as the pool of practicing doctors shrinks?

In the '70s Nixon responded to inflation by freezing wages and prices. The price of beef was set below the market price. Beef produces could not make a profit (there's that awful word again) and rushed their herds to slaughter. For a while the market was awash in beef. Then nothing. With no beef on the market people began searching for substitutions. Toast with peanut butter became known as a Nixon Burger. (Fortunately we were spared the Clinton Burger but I still hate to imagine what an Obama Burger would be made of.)

So Barney, Harry and Nancy, next time you talk to me about economic matters, let's all pretend I am an intelligent human being (i. e., a conservative) and give me the facts. And don't pretend you can squeeze one part of a balloon without affecting the rest of the balloon. Better yet, keep your hands off my balloon and go get your own!

How Could You Be So Stupid?!

2009-07-24T13:36:00.000-04:00

With the launch of Obama's War on Health Care this week we get some more insight into quintessential liberal values that are often overlooked. This week was all about hubris. Hubris is a characteristic that says, “If you don’t think the way I do, you are too stupid for your own good!” Hubris naturally leads to power mongering. If you cannot be convinced to do what is good for you, then I need to take away your power to make the decision.

In the health care debate there are a lot of facts that can be discussed. Facts, such as survival rates for heart disease and cancer are 4 to 6 times higher in the US than in Britain or Canada. Or that the US is where the world comes to get medical care when their socialized systems fail to give quality, timely treatment. Or how about the fact that Hawaii implemented universal health care for its uninsured children in 2007 but abandoned it in 2008 before it bankrupted the state (Too bad California did not wise up in time). But liberal dogma ignores facts. If you do not eat right, exercise, or refrain from smoking, you need to be punished (We may even legalize spanking for such offenses). Liberal dogma says that socialism is good and we need universal health care. The love of socialism inspires stupid arguments such as “We need universal health care because we are the only industrialized nation without it.” This is said as if the US is supposed to emulate Europe. Europe, which is mostly incapable of defending itself, invents virtually nothing, develops neither cures nor new drugs while its citizens die waiting in line for health care and their governments march toward bankruptcy trying to provide it, is to be emulated simply because it’s industrialized (or do they mean because its socialized)?

Cap and Trade is another example of liberal hubris. This is a system where green house gases are capped at levels determined by the government (and I am sure the government will come up with the correct number free of any political bias) and if a company needs to exceed its limit, it trades credits with a company that has not reached its limits. The fact is that Cap and Trade was tried in Spain where electricity rates shot up 80 percent and 2.2 jobs were lost for every “green” job created. Their unemployment is now 18 percent and Obama is well on his way there without any “green” stuff (except possibly what Bill might bring to the White House from his trips abroad). But if you object or suggest that Global Warming is a hoax, liberals scream at you that the debate is over and they are determined to stop you from destroying the planet even if they have to strip you of all your civil rights to do it. Of course, they never explain what the point is of saving the planet if the only ones left with rights are spotted owls and the terrorists at GITMO.

But cramming Health Care Reform along with Cap and Trade down our throats has met with stiff opposition in the political arena. This is why confirming Judge Sotomayor is so crucial. Much of liberal dogma that cannot pass in legislation is thrust upon us by activist judges. Abortion, forced bussing, gay marriage, all are contrivances forced upon us by activist judges. No one in their right mind thinks our founding fathers ever intended any of these practice to be legal. But if you are too stupid to accept them through legislation, we won’t bother to convince you it’s good for you and we will force it on you through the judiciary. Sotomayor, and others like her, have stated that we need to look to foreign law in interpreting our constitution so we ensure we are in the mainstream of international thought. This is most certainly a reverencing of foreign socialism and when she was quizzed on this and other outrages liberal views she has expressed in public speeches, they were erased from history, as if from a page of Orwell’s 1984, as she simply disavowed them with the fervor rivaling Obama’s casting out of Rev. Wright. But when she is in power and free from the control of higher courts, you can bet you will see her liberal bias shine as brightly as Obama let his racism shine this week.

Of course, I refer to Obama’s taking the side of a black professor and would-be criminal over a white cop. In a speech reminiscent of his campaign speeches where he rambled on about nothing until my eyes crossed, the one specific thing he did say is that the cop acted “stupidly.” His natural view, without knowing the facts, is to assume the white guy was wrong (I guess Obama was paying attention in church all those years). His irritation the next day was evident that anyone would question the assumption that the white guy was being racist. How could you be so stupid as to think otherwise? And Officer Crowley had better gear up for a long fight. Just ask Joe, the Plumber, what happens when you cross the President. Next week it will be revealed that Crowley took drugs and while drunk had an affair with an office intern that he left to die in a river after driving his car off a bridge because she was going to rat him out for keeping $90,000 in cash in a refrigerator in his basement that he got from taking bribes from a bunch of rabbis from New Jersey. Now that really would be acting stupidly! Of course, if he lost his job, he could just announce he is a Democrat and run for Congress. With credentials like that, he would be a shoe-in.

Liberal Racism and the Golden Rule

2009-07-06T21:15:00.000-04:00

Another celebration of the founding of the country has made me ponderous of how such a great nation rises. I have concluded that living by Jesus’ teaching now enshrined as the Golden Rule has been key to the nation’s success, it's violation a source of trouble. I have also realized that many of the core tenets of modern liberalism are a violation of the Golden Rule. Nowhere is this more evident than in the liberal approach to race relations.

The founders recognized that while there is much in man that is noble, there is also much that is not. Their genius lies recognizing that there is much in human nature that is ignoble and in combating it. For example, while it is in man’s nature to yearn for freedom, it is also in our nature to conquer. Therefore, they took the Federal government, split it in three, and set it at odds with each other and then made it accountable to us as the governed. But they violated the Golden Rule when they saw American Indians and Black Africans as subhuman, leaving an indelible stain on this great republic. This has created a great quandary for later generations.

Recently, I stayed in a hotel in Atlanta where there was a huge party going on in the ballroom. I was not invited but had occasion to pass the gathering on my way to a restroom stall. As I glanced down the hall I noticed the party goers were all black, not a single white face in the crowd. I recognized that it is human nature to notice that which is different. Whether it is a black face or a boy in a wheel chair drooling from involuntary convulsions, we can’t help but notice that which is different from us. But then do we follow the Golden Rule or do we enslave them or perhaps simply make jokes about them on a late-night talk show. Then in the seclusion of my stall I heard two of them conversing in a language to distant from English for me to understand until one shouted, “You havin’ a good time?” The other replied, “Ya, ain’t seein’ no white folk tonight!”

We all struggle with our ignoble nature to shun that which is different. Our forefathers have not handled this well and as we repair the damage, let us not forget a corollary to the Golden Rule from the Hippocratic Oath for physicians, “Do no harm.” Modern liberalism has clearly violated this in two ways. First, it has engineered a cultural shift whereby racist speech by whites is not ok but fine for anyone else. Second, it has promoted through law a system where white people are injured by discrimination to atone for the sins of white ancestors who are now dead.

Most liberals would not be offended by the conversation I overheard but if conducted by two white men about blacks, liberals would be appalled. And what of Jamie Foxx’s comment that Jackson belonged to black people and was “loaned out.” Can the same be said about Elvis? Typical of liberal lingo are the words of Joy Bahar of “The View,” "Only white people are capable of making racist remarks." The Golden Rule says no one should make racist remarks about anyone. This week the Supreme Court struck down a ruling previously upheld by the activist, liberal Supreme Court nominee, Sotomayor. Because not enough black applicants passed the fireman’s promotion exam, no one got promoted. This reverse discrimination (which is as silly a term as “hate crime”) along with affirmative action, in general, is an affront to the Golden Rule entirely. Why don’t we address the reason Blacks don’t do as well and that is because they are trapped in government run schools beholding to unions? And when we get a voucher program like the one in DC where children (of all races) were excelling beyond their counterparts in the city schools (which spend more per capita than any other school system in the nation), why do liberals want to shut it down? How would you like it if someone did that to you? If you liberals want Affirmative Action, while still keeping the Golden Rule, do as Bernard Goldberg suggests and resign from your job and give it to a minority. Don’t even worry if your replacement is qualified. I, however, prefer Thomas Sowell’s suggestion, “Racism has been shown not to work. So why don’t we abolish it instead of putting it under new management?”

So this year as we enjoy the colors of red, white and blue can we not also enjoy the different colors of our American society without having to check a box? And while I am thrilled that a mentally handicapped woman can become House Speaker and a black man can become president, next time couldn't we elevate the importance of qualifications and experience during the election campaign so we don't get six months into an adminstration before they admit they are totally wrong about the economy?

Don't Cry For Me, Argentina

2009-06-25T16:36:00.000-04:00

Mark Sanford, Governor of South Carolina, has admitted to an extramarital affair. As a member of the party of family values, he is about to learn anew the cost of being a hypocrite when claiming to be a conservative. Many conservatives bemoan the treatment of fallen brothers by both the left and right while “Lefties” are given a virtual pass. But we all need to understand that hypocrisy is a core value for liberals while being a despised vice for conservatives. This is just how the universe works and as good will eventually triumph over evil, this quintessential difference will lead to the inevitable triumph of conservatism over liberalism. I think this would be a good opportunity to illustrate via examples how liberals embrace hypocrisy and then explain why.

Example 1:

Nixon used his power as president to cover up a crime. The media reported it that way. One of the articles of impeachment accused him of lying to the American people. When Republicans were convinced the charges were true, they pushed him out of office.

Clinton used his power as president to fix the outcome of a court case in which he committed the underlying crime. He lied to the American people and to American courts. When Democrats were convinced that the charges were true, they urged him to stay on and pledged a dismissal in the Senate, regardless of the evidence. The abuse of power and usurpation of our court system was reported as a boondoggle over an obscure sex scandal.

Example 2:

Rush Limbaugh became addicted to pain medication prescribed to him by doctors. The liberal press excoriated him, calling for him to be fired. An overzealous prosecutor illegally released his medical records to the public. Charges have yet to be brought in as many years but assumption of his guilt for any number of crimes is asserted.

Congressman Patrick Kennedy of RI used drugs and alcohol before driving his car to the Congressional parking lot and crashing. The liberal press pitied him and heralded his courage for checking into rehab. No charges were filed or even considered. His medical records remain private. He retains his seat in Congress.

Example 3:

President G. W. Bush exercised his prerogative to fire federal attorneys en masse, a practice done by predecessors. The press was apoplectic and accused the president of covering up some unspecified crime.

President Obama fired an inspector general after the inspector finds evidence of wrong-doing on the part of one of Obama’s friends and cronies. The firing was done in violation of Federal law which requires a thirty-day notice and a reason given to Congress. Ironically, this legislation was one of very few that Senator Obama participated in and voted for. This illegal act to thwart justice is barely a footnote in the press where Obama’s late pejorative assertions are treated as fact above challenge.

Liberals view life as “us versus them”. Conservatives are more principle driven; you only get to be one of us if you abide by our rules. Liberals have rules too but they are more tolerant of their own breaking them if it’s an established liberal star. For example, polluting the planet with green house gases is bad, but if you are Al Gore, it’s ok to release tons of CO2 in every trip of his private jets. It’s bad to make derogatory comments about handicapped or minority people, but Obama got away with such a comment about Special Olympians after a light apology. VP Biden (aka Gaffe Machine) bemoaned that convenience stores were overrun with Indians and at a NAACP meeting in a hotel joked that he had never seen so many black people in a hotel not wearing maid uniforms. People just shake their head and say “Oh, that’s just Joe!” Don Imus, however, found out what happens when you are not a big enough star. For liberals, as long as you are one of us, we go to the mat for you (Just ask Bill).

Conservatives are less supportive of those that break their moral code. They are more interested in agendas than personalities. Because of the “us versus them” mentality, liberals come quickly to bash the latest conservative fallen hero but better tolerate inaction with their own agendas. For example, the civil rights movement has become a cottage industry where the complaints of the last 50 years drone on unchanging with ne’er a criticism of the so-called “leaders.” But the bloated spending and growth in the Federal government under Bush and a Republican Congress have angered conservatives (and independents who generally lean conservative), causing the power to shift in the last election in a “throw-out-the-bums” fit. Even conservative criticism of the massive Obama spending is rebutted by liberals by claiming it started under Bush (and it did). It is as if they expect us to defend Bush’s fiscal mismanagement with the fervor they defended Clinton's sins. But conservatives do not defend their own when their own stray from the path and liberals are often disappointed when their accusation is rejoined with a “So?” And while right-leaning Independents approved of Obama by about 60 percent in January, his overall inaction on issues they care about has dropped the approval to 40 percent in five months. Liberals, however, still hang adoringly on his promises, hoping he will deliver someday.

Mr. Sanford, I loved you at one point and I feel sorry for the tragedy you have caused for your family but if conservatives do not laud your admission with the fanfare liberals give the latest Hollywood starlet or Kennedy going off to rehab, please understand we have a country to save and our precious trust will have to be re-earned. As for the liberal wolves beating down your door, you heard them howling before you left the country. Yes, don’t cry for me Argentina and Mr. Sanford, I won’t be crying for you.

Dear Mr. President:

2009-06-19T16:01:00.001-04:00

So President Obama, we committed liberals, progressives and assorted leftists have grown impatient with your inaction. Over 10 percent of your first term is gone and I thought by now we would be singing rousing marching songs, praises to the glorious worker state. Even your attempted hand-over of GM to the unions got blocked by Ruth Bater Ginsburg (You know you’re failing as a liberal when you can’t get stuff past a former ACLU lawyer). But what did we get? A media hog, as Bill Mahrer put it, who runs around talking but doing nothing. Sure, before the election you were a media hog who ran around talking but doing nothing (not even bothering to show up in the Senate most of the time) but you promised us change and we thought you would change too. But your inaction, on top of Pelosi’s being a total bimbo, could start making people question the wisdom of putting people in power based primarily on race and gender. If this keeps up, candidates will be placed in positions based solely on qualifications. We could get more minorities like Condoleezza Rice who don’t hyphenate their identities or believe in affirmative action. It may even lead to office holders who actually love their spouse and country (as is), believe that unborn babies deserve protection and think they can actually succeed in life without blaming George Bush for all their problems. Just where would that leave us poor liberals?! For the rest of your term, I have a few poignant suggestions.

• Over-seas Contingency Plan – I like the rename from the “War on Terror”—no sense calling people nasty names just because they strap bombs on their children and blow up innocent people in the name of religion. But some are starting to think that the military action in Iraq worked. The whole “Bush lied about WMDs” thing has kind of worn out. We took what Bush said about WMDs plus what Clinton said and claimed Bush said them but I think that cow has been milked dry. You declared recently that America was a Muslim nation. Now you need to claim that your intense love and respect for the Qur’an as expressed on your last trip to the Middle East is what turned Iraq around (Man, you sound good reading from a teleprompter!) You’ll need to claim the same thing about Afghanistan before Fox News starts harping on the fact that you implemented Bush’s surge strategy there too. I know all that praise for religion sort of burns your mouth but just keep skipping prayer meetings and insulting Christians when you get a chance; we would hate to think you actually became religious at some point.

• Iran – The election there is meaningless because both candidates were vetted by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, their Supreme Leader, a theocrat (Don’t you just detest religious people; why can’t they all talk like Reverent Wright?! Never mind, I just remembered that the Ayatollah hates Jews too.) The real threat to Iran now is that some of the protestors are calling for Iran to be made free. If you want to really get to the Iranian leaders, just threaten to start broadcasting Rush Limbaugh in Persian across their country. For those that still like the Supreme Leader, tell them you despise Limbaugh even more than you despise their mullahs (since this is the truth, you won’t even have to shake you finger when you say it). They will tune in just out of curiosity. All that talk of liberty and self-reliance across the land could really cause them some problems. (This might even work for North Korea too but make sure Chicagoans, New Yorkers and Angelinos don’t hear what Limbaugh is actually saying. Just blow a few kisses at the fawning press corps as you leave on Airforce One with Michelle on date night and they will continue to misrepresent the truth for you). Promise Iranian leaders that if they behave themselves, you will send Stuart Smalley from Minnesota to teach them how to properly steal an election.

• Closing GITMO – So you have had four or five years to come up with a plan and you still have nothing? Your last request for $80 million was turned down by a Democrat Congress because they were not clear what you would do with the money. We liberals love these misunderstood Freedom Fighters and would be glad to have them live in our neighborhoods. Distribute the former detainees among the districts and states that elected Democrats to Congress. Start with Reed and Pelosi. Buy a bunch of ankle monitors and require them to stay within 20 miles of where the member of Congress lives (or at least near Democrat congressional family members). This should not cost very much but don’t hesitate to ask for extra money anyway to create another bloated bureaucracy to oversee the project. Most of these Democrat areas have generous welfare benefits to take care of the Freedom Fighters but many could be gainfully employed by organizations like ACORN (If you learned anything from living in Chicago it’s that you can never have enough fraudulent Democrat registrations). I also hear you may be opening up some positions in the office of the Inspector General. Or maybe your corrupt friends that are using government money for personal services could use a few extra hands for car washing, personal shopping and other stuff. Is your buddy, William Ayers, still looking for some demolition experts?

• Universal Health Care – You have admitted that taking over the health care industry all at once cannot be done. So here is how you phase it in. Start with all the registered Democrats throughout the nation; you know, the ones that voted for change. Force them all into a single-payer program. If you get any protestors, just call them racist tea-baggers or accuse them of loving guns or God or something nasty like that. You can pay for the program through a windfall profits tax on the TV and movie industries. I am sure those rich Hollywood types would not mind parting with half their wealth or more to help the poor. Start with Michael Moore. Some American doctors and nurses may not be willing to work for the pitiful wages offered after the lawyers take their generous cut via frivolous and abusive lawsuits so you may need to import some medical professionals from India, Mexico or Cuba (Get that immigration reform going). After a while you can just fire them all and let the lawyers run the whole medical industry (Hey, if the unions can run the auto companies…) Soon I am sure the rest of the country will see how wonderful socialized medicine is and will abandon their current health-care options to join such a utopian system.

• Slave Reparations – Now you know there was some concern whether an Ivy Leaguer as President could be black enough. And you know we didn’t vote for you because you had accomplished anything (please, Lewinski had more experience than you and that was before she met Bill). Show you’re down with the folks and help us poor white liberals finally assuage our guilt by ordering decedents of slave holders to pay huge sums of money to decedents of slaves. And hey, let’s not stop with black slavery; let’s fix all injustice for all time. My ancestors are from England. There they were minding their own business when the Romans invaded, pillaging and plundering for decades. Today, Italian-Americans are the beneficiaries of that system and need to be held to account. I think $10,000,000 taken from each Italian-American split among English Americans should to the trick.

Now I could go on about the Fairness Doctrine (aka, get rid of Limbaugh, Hannity and Fox News) and Global Warming (why stop at taxing cow farts when pig poots and kitty crap also threaten the planet) not mention how it’s time to start raising money for your library (I know you have no accomplishments to showcase in a library but that didn’t stop you from writing serial autobiographies. Besides, soaking up donations from liberal coffers will torque off the Clintons and you know much fun that can be.) Just DO SOMETHING!!!

Love and kisses from a concerned liberal,
Mickey Mouse
Akron, OH

The Tortoise and the Hare

2009-06-12T12:12:00.000-04:00

Once upon a time there was a hare. He was a fine hare from a very rich and noble family. His name was General C. Ford, III but everyone just called him Big Three. Big Three could run faster than any other animal in all the forest. One day a small tortoise, named Tony Hondashibi showed up from the far away land of Japan, claiming that he could outrun Big Three in a race. Big Three challenged Tony to race with the winner sharing a huge banquet with his friends. The news of the challenge spread far and wide and soon the king of the forest, King Odamya, had heard about the race. King Odamya was concerned that the race may not be fair so he appointed three commissioners (Lobby-Dee, Lobby-Do and Lobby-Dum, all the king’s friends seem to be a Lobby-ist of some kind) to form huge bureaucracies to write onerous and conflicting rules on how the race was to be run.

The day came for the race and the competitors were ready to start when it was announced that there would be a two-hour delay, waiting for the arrival of the Lion King Odamya and his Lioness Queen Myhell. Since one of the rules that King Odamya had decreed was that each competitor was required to pull a wagon full of food and other provisions, the delay gave them extra time to double check their supplies and no one was really interested in the race anyway. In fact, there was almost no talk about the race at all, but focusing rather on the royal garb Queen Myhell was supposedly sporting that day. Finally, the royal couple arrived, made their way through the adoring throngs (otherwise known as the forest press) and arrived at the wagons on the starting line. The king asked the Lobby-ists to load copies of their freshly written regulations (which nobody had read yet) onto each of the wagons. Unfortunately, neither Big Three nor Tony had counted on having to carry the extra weight and when the King said, “Go,” each found his wagon to heavy to pull. Now everyone knows the warthog to be the strongest animal in the forest and before long both Big Three and Tony had enlisted the help of enough of them to finally get the wagons moving.

The race was going along fine, except for the fact that the extra rules and regulations had made a race, meant for a few hours, drag on for days. Suddenly Big Three felt his wagon get heavier and heavier. Finally, he looked back to find that the warthogs he had hired to help pull the wagon were, instead, riding in it. He demanded that they get out and help pull only to be informed that his workers had joined the United Arrogant Warthogs organization and UAW rules dictated when they worked and when they rode. He threatened to fire them until he found out that the king would disqualify him if he did. Wanting to do his patriotic duty, he trudged on under the extra load, hiring ever more warthogs to take up the slack. Tony, however, avoided hiring hogs from the UAW whenever possible and soon found himself pulling way ahead of the once proud hare.

Then one day members from the “See, I’m an Airhead” Club noticed that there were deep ruts from the wagons running through the forest. They complained to the king who sent the head of the Extra Pomp Agency to alert Big Three and Tony of a new rule. Both competitors would have to race with one hand tied behind his back. EPA studies had shone that this could decrease the depth of the ruts by as much as 0.000000000001 percent. Neither Big Three nor Tony could understand how tying one hand behind their back had anything to do with ruts left by a wagon that King Odamya had ordered them to pull in the first place. But protesting King Odamya’s polices could get them accused of prejudice against lions, a charge that could stigmatize them for life, so they both hired extra warthogs and moved on.

Finally, when Tony had the finish line in sight, word came that Big Three had broken down and could not continue without help. The warthogs from the UAW had eaten all the supplies and their combined weight had caused the collapse of Big Three’s wagon. The king had tapped out his credit line from his Panda bankers to help Big Three and now was ordering Tony to share some of his provisions to aid in the rescue. The Lobby-sists sent by the king made off with half of Tony’s supplies but by the time they got to Big Three, he had starved to death, leaving only his idle warthogs. Much to their relief, the Lobby-ists used the supplies to get the warthogs across the finish line, ahead of Tony. The warthogs were declared the winners and as the promised banquet started, everyone thought that the warthogs would share with them but to their utter shock and amazement, the warthogs made absolute pigs of themselves, leaving nothing for anyone else.

Now I wish this story had a happy ending but the reckless feasting by the warthogs left a famine in the land. Tony gave up and went back to Japan since he could see no point in continuing if there would be no reward and the king could change the rules and take whatever he wanted. Even the panda bankers went home to China leaving King Odamya with no choice but to begin eating the warthogs. Even the warthogs began starving and as they got thinner, the king had to eat more of them until one day, even the warthogs were gone. Now King Odamya only wanted to make the race fair and ensure the underprivileged warthogs got what they deserved, but sadly, here he sits hungry and starving, with nothing to show for his efforts.

P. S. You may be wondering why someone would take what should have been a simple story and make it so complex and convoluted. Frankly, I have been wondering the same thing!

If There Were No America...A Followup Story

2009-06-09T16:15:00.000-04:00

A counterview:

Anyone can do the “what if” game and come up with any number of great reasons why we are the saviors of the world just because “we” exist…….Yippy and Yahoo!

I do think that American’s do tend to get a bit too cocky and arrogant. I also believe that when we present ourselves to the world with facts and reasons for wars and actions that end up being lies, we need to be big enough to at least acknowledge the fact instead of continuing to be the idiots we tend to be. I have no qualm with a highly educated president that is probably one of the best orators of all times smoothing things over in the opinions of the world. Like they say, you get more flies with honey than vinegar. If the world likes Obama, it just makes future relations and even travel abroad for our citizens even easier.

--Name withheld.

My response:

It’s an innate fact that this world is governed by aggression and force. The most powerful nation sets the rules for the entire world. Many candidates have arisen over history. All of them tyrannical, spreading misery and violence without remorse. Then came the United States of America. Missteps and mistakes have been made for sure but what nation would you rather have in charge? Saudi Arabia, where you can be executed for adultery and women cannot drive? One of the European nations? They spend so much on social crap they would not even be able to afford a proper army to defend themselves. Want to give communism or Nazism another try? Could Americans be nicer as tourists? Perhaps, but I have lived in Europe and Americans do not hold a candle to the rudeness of the German or French cultures. But the world has a bigger problem. Our largesse has bread a welfare mentality where, instead of being grateful, the world is jealous. They treat us with the distain that a four-year old has for an older sibling that just got a new toy truck and wants it for himself. We try to teach them how to go out and earn one for themselves, but they will not hear of it. We see the same mentality in our own welfare class in which the “rich” are endless robbed of the fruits of their labors and instead having a national day of thanks for their generosity, they are reviled while one of the major political parties in this country fans the flames of envy.

The Middle East in particular has an overinflated sense of itself. It languishes under ruthless, dictatorial regimes, hoping Allah will one day do what they have failed to do, wipe Israel off the map. Then everything will be alright. Obama’s words of honey mollify their consciences as they justify jihad. His words will not change their behavior but they do offend our staunchest ally in the region, Israel, once the only democracy in the Middle East. Someday when Afghanistan and Iraq have done the hard work to produce “toy trucks” of their own, Islamic peoples will realize that Muslim nations can coexist with Israel without suffering under tyrants. This, not from sweet words read from a teleprompter, but born of a “lying” war.

If There Were No America...

2009-06-08T12:19:00.000-04:00

As Obama completes another successful “I’m sorry for America” tour, I began to wonder as George Bailey did in the Christmas classic “It’s a Wonderful Life,” what if America did not exist? America, like any great person, has sins and regrets but having to overcome faults is what makes a person great, and likewise, makes a country great. To be sure without America, there would have been no evil white people destroying the planet, no Viet Nam war, no black slavery on this continent. But what else?

If there were no America, would there be a Europe? Or would 9/11, 2001 have been a massive military invasion by Jihadist. As France begged for peace, would their women have been massacred for not covering their heads? Or would Soviet communism long since have locked the continent in malaise and oppression. Perhaps Hilter would have taken Britain down without hope of rescue from a non-existent America, gripping the continent in cycle of paranoia and violence. Without the example of throwing off kingly malfeasance for liberty and justice perhaps Europe would have continued, as it had for centuries, conducting wars of hegemony every time a spoiled prince got it in his head that he needed to conquer another plot of land, wars that spread pestilence and death to millions. Without America would there be a Europe?

If there were no America, would there be an Africa? Without countless billions of dollars in aid, would Africans have long since died from hunger and disease? Would apartheid still grip South Africa without America’s voice of conscience? Would Africa still be a patchwork of colonies, dominated, exploited and fought over by European powers? Without America overcoming its sin of slavery, and making slavery illegal world-wide, would African tribes still be enslaving each other? Would Obama have ever been born or would his ancestors have long ago perished? Without America would there be an Africa?

If there were no America, would there be a Middle East? Would there ever be cars needing billions of barrels of oil per day, a trading partnership that has relieved millions from the hardships of nomadic life. Would Saddam still terrorize Iraq? Would Israel exist as a shining democracy or without US-supplied weaponry would she have been destroyed by her tyrannical Arab neighbors? Perhaps the Nazis would have wiped out all the Jews in the first place. Would Britain have even ever allowed self rule in the region if America had not set the example of a mighty nation without imperial colonialism. Without America would there be a Middle East?

If there were no America, would there be an Asia? Or would communism have spread throughout the land, unchecked by the non-existent US? Would Malaysia be able to call on Belgium when struck by typhoons and tsunamis? Would Sweden keep China from invading Taiwan? Or would imperial Japan still be in charge, slaughtering anyone it sees as a threat or ethnically impure? Without America would there be an Asia?

If there were no America, would there be a Western Hemisphere? If Columbus never came, would native tribes still roam and raid, killing each other and enslaving one another? Would blood sacrifices still be offered to non-existent deities? If colonists did come but never revolted, would kings still vex the land with their whims? Would Spain still rule and oppress South America if Latin people had not seen there was a better way without the mother land? Would Santa Ana’s decedents still rule Mexico with an iron fist? Who would protect Canada from invasion as their liberal peaceniks sang “Kumbaya”? Or where would they go for medical care when dyeing in the clogged queues of their universal health care system? Without America would there be a Western Hemisphere?

If there were no America, would there be Internet, medicine, airplanes, cell phones, cars, steam engines or a myriad of other inventions contrived through or improved by the unleashed potential of American capitalism? In a world whose historical scrap pile include the likes of Rome, Assyria, Babylonia, USSR, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and a host of other failed empires, the United States of America stands as the only super power to ever question the morality of conquering everything in sight and wondering, instead, if helping its global neighbors for free might be a nobler endeavor. As George Bailey discovered that without him, the mighty Mr. Potter terrorized the once sleepy Bedford Falls, I wonder without America, what horrible monster might have risen in her place? Without America Obama might not have anything to apologize for but who would be left to apologize to anyway?

Pelosi Flubs Her Liberalese

2009-05-26T11:05:00.000-04:00

So Nancy Pelosi is in trouble. But for what? Telling lies about what she knew about water boarding? No! She is guilty of what conservatives are, not speaking liberalese fluently enough. Liberalese is a complex language spoken primarily in Washington but also the preferred language of cocktail parties throughout the northeast and California. Chinese is a distant cousin where what you say depends on the intonation. The exact same phrase spoken in two different intonations in Chinese can be the difference between “I want to buy a horse” and “I want to sell my mother”. Liberalese is more confusing because it sounds just like English but it’s meaning depends on how the speaker feels in his/her heart. Prerequisite to speaking liberalese well are desires such as wanting the extermination of unborn life that has become inconvenient to the mother, a need for the American military to lose wars, and an unrequited guilt over the ill white people have brought to the world, especially by way of the USA. Here some examples about how two very different meanings come from the same phrase when one is speaking liberalese and one is not.

Example 1:
President Obama: “I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman.”
Liberalese: “You know I can’t offend 90 percent of the country in one statement but you also know I love you all anyway.”

Miss CA: “I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman.”
Liberalse: “I am just a dumb !@*# blonde who hates gay people.”

Example 2:

Secretary Clinton: “I deeply admire Margaret Sanger.” (Sanger was unrepentant eugenicist who advocated abortion to exterminate the poor and lower class. Her organization morphed into Planned Parenthood.)
Liberalese: “I only admire Sanger’s actions that led to abortion on demand which everyone knows has made all women free and happy in this country.”

Trent Lot: “I admire Strom Thurmond.” (Thurmond was a long-term senator from SC who long ago recanted his segregationist views.)
Liberalese: “I wish black people were still enslaved.”

Both speakers later followed up:

Clinton: “I also admire Thomas Jefferson. That doesn’t mean I admire everything he did.”
Liberalese: “I only admire the good stuff Jefferson and Sanger did.”
Lot: “I was being nice to an old man on his birthday.”
Liberalese: “I still wish black people were all enslaved.”

Example 3:

VP Biden not only admits there is a super secret bunker where the vice president can go but reveals its location.
Liberalese: “I just want an open government for the people and I won’t need the bunker anyway because I plan to speak words of love and peace to the jihadists.”

Someone outside the Bush administration reveals that Valerie Plame works for the CIA. VP Cheney’s assistant, Scooter Libbey, misquotes a long-ago conversation during the investigation of the leak and is sent to jail for perjury.
Liberalese: “I may not have revealed Plame’s name but I wanted to so let pretend I did. Cheney ordered me to do it because he hates women and minorities.”

So know we find out that Pelosi found out about water boarding and did not object. This is tantamount to loving her country (sort of) and not feeling guilty for being white (if only for a moment). Never mind that her statements go back and forth like a washing machine headed for the spin cycle; will she at last be tossed from her chairmanship (not for lying but for being stupid) or will the liberal translator simply tell us that everyone lies about water boarding along with having sex with an intern, keeping $90,000 dollars cash in the refrigerator, and how one really feels about Hilary Clinton after appointing her Secretary of State. Meanwhile, I think she should keep working on that finger wag.

Swine Flu: An Opportunity for Liberals to Shine

2009-04-29T18:05:00.000-04:00

A hundred days into the Obama presidency and now he has a crisis where he can really shine: swine flu. Now he can show how liberal principles can be used on this critical situation. As a fellow liberal, I would like to suggest the following approach.

1. Announce that swine flu is a result of the reckless policies of the Bush administration and that Obama inherited the situation. Imply that it has become rampant in Mexico because Bush hates Mexicans and wants them all to die.
2. Announce a guest-worker visa program for Mexicans suffering from swine flu to come to the US for free health care and voter registration.
3. Sue all schools that have shut down for violating the civil rights of those that have contracted the disease. Parents who insist on keeping their kids out of school should be called racist germaphobes.
4. Pass out masks in school and spend $10 billion to educate students on safe breathing practices and how to use the masks correctly. Have them practice putting the masks on cantaloupes or watermelons until they get it right.
5. Sue the swine-producing industry for manufacturing such a deadly disease. Some may argue that pigs have nothing to do with it but we know Big Swine is behind it!
6. Tax and regulate the swine-production industry into financial ruin and then propose universal pig care as the solution to the nation’s woes.
By the time we are done the disease will have run its course (same as if we had done nothing) but we will have nationalized yet one more fine American industry and put the ownership of all pork right where it belongs: Washington!

When Liberals Get Comfortable

2009-04-23T06:42:00.000-04:00

“Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologized yesterday to U.S. military veterans who took offense at being mentioned in a domestic intelligence report that concluded that a declining economy and the nation's political climate could fuel a resurgence of right-wing extremism, saying any slight was unintended.” – Washington Post, April 17, 2009
Of course she meant no slight. She was just revealing how good liberals see the military. Is she sorry said it? Probably. Does that means she disagrees with the statement? Are you kidding? Every once in a while liberals get comfortable and some of their less tenable values slip out. It’s not just tax-and-spend that makes up their core. Here are three other quintessential liberal values.
1: The US military is a source of evil in the modern world.
President Clinton summed it up best: “I loathe the military.” People who serve in the military are not patriots, but victims of Bush’s “Worst economy in 80 years.” Having no economic opportunity they go into the military. There they are disillusioned by war and so become vulnerable to more manipulation. The military should never be deployed in war anyway because Ahmadinejad and Chavez are just misunderstood. A couple of glasses of Champaign and some nice dinner conversation ought to turn the whole thing around. Hey, it seems to work on a lot of Republicans in Washington. Let’s save the vitriol for real enemies like Rush Limbaugh.
2: Liberals are smarter than everyone else.
When gasoline was over $4 per gallon, Republicans proposed relaxing off-shore drilling restrictions. Pelosi was worried that this would increase gasoline consumption. Rather than let the vote come to the floor, she said “I have a planet to save.” Rather than present evidence that you are harming the planet with your lifestyle and convincing you to stop, she knows you are too stupid to get it. Car manufactures, now driven to the brink of extinction, have been forced to make cars you would not otherwise buy because, like a little child, you do not know what is good for you. You don’t want universal health care or cap-and-trade. Tough, we could never explain it to you because you are just too stupid to understand. Bush is despised for being too plain spoken, while Kerry is lauded for speaking in sentence so long that you got lost before finally hitting a punctuation mark. And President Obama can read from a teleprompter like nobody’s business. The measure of your intelligence is based on your aptitude for sciolistic rhetoric even if it lacks inculcation of substance. Take that!
3: Keep racism alive.
The Voting Rights Act of the 1960s was the last major piece of legislation to help minorities. This was passed with a majority of Democrats voting against it. Yet minorities in general, and blacks in particular, continue to complain about the same things for the last 40 or 50 years in spite of voting overwhelmingly for Democrats. Liberal papers publish cartoons depicting Secretary Rice as a mammy while the leader of the democrat party jokes about how 7-11 stores are overrun by Indians. Even Biden was shocked when Obama emerged as an “articulate black man.” Boy, that’s something you don’t see every day. (Maybe someone should introduce Biden to Professor Sole. That would really blow his mind.) But finally we have a black president. But why this black president? We have Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton with a ton more experience who have tried for years to win the office. And lack of experience is precisely the reason. An experienced black man could not be manipulated so easily. Do you think those white liberals on the Hill are actually going to let Obama run the government? How giddy Pelosi must have felt to realize the first major bill of the Obama administration was hers to write while Obama’s only role was to ram it through before it could be read. When Obama leaves office, the economy may be in shambles and terrorist attacks may have wiped a few more liberals off the planet but at least minority citizens will finally be happy, right?

Obama Saves the Military; Obliterates Pirates

2009-04-13T14:08:00.000-04:00

President Obama orders the military to take out the Somali pirates and, boom, they’re dead. No such thing could have happened if Obama had not been there. When Bush was President, the surge in Iraq under Secretary Gates and the military leadership was a complete failure. Candidate Obama educated us at the time that violence ceased only because of factors having nothing to do with the military. Now that Obama is president, the military is being redeployed to Afghanistan under the direction of Secretary Gates and the exact same military leadership. However, with Obama in the White House, we all know that the surge will succeed this time, quelling recriminations and attacks throughout Afghanistan, Pakistan and maybe even the Clinton household in upstate New York.

North Korea under Bush thought nothing of building facilities to produce nuclear weapons and testing missiles. Now they have taken Obama’s lead and appointed a committee to look into perhaps closing down their nuclear facilities someday, maybe. Their report is due out shortly after Obama’s committee reports on looking into perhaps closing Guantanamo prison someday, maybe. And instead of testing a missile they opted recently to launch a satellite into space to study global warming. Don’t tell me it doesn’t exist!

And now those evil pirates have been dispatched without so much as a Hilary-Clinton/Barney-Frank committee looking into the pirates’ feelings to determine what the Bush Administration did to make them act this way. Don’t tell me that taxing your great-great grandchildren into oblivion doesn’t have its benefits. Just wait until we get Cap and Trade. The pirates have vowed revenge. Perhaps they will send us a letter on UN letterhead tell us how upset they are at us (I’m sure there’s a lot of UN letterhead floating around Somalia). You know how devastating this kind of tactic has been to Iran. Or maybe they will send us a video tape from a cave threatening us with eternal damnation, or worse, universal health care. I hope not. The last video tape scared the French so much, they almost withdrew from Paris. Chirac would be so upset that the next time Obama visited France, he might actually have to kiss the prime minister’s wife.

Forget Lincoln, Obama Should Emmulate Clinton

2009-04-06T13:59:00.001-04:00

Now Obama tells the French that the US is arrogant. Meanwhile, Russia suggests that we decrease the size of our nuclear arsenal. And then it occurs to me. Both problems could be solved with the same solution using an unlikely model: Clinton. Seriously, we’re in this military alliance with Europe, right? But how many of the member nations are strong enough to repel an invasion from a country like North Korea, for example. Obama stated that the main reason for pulling out of Iraq is because Iraq will never defend itself if you do it for them. All the European governments are at least as stable as Iraq (even France now that it’s on its fifth republic) but we have made them in to military welfare wards. It’s US arrogance that makes us think we have the right and responsibility to defend Europe. Clinton told welfare recipients in this country that they had three years and the payments would end. Iraq only has one year to fend for itself. The Europeans may need time to readjust budgets (since they have the pesky “Don’t borrow trillions of dollars” rule), so maybe they get five. Obama should take the missiles Russia wants us to get rid of and give it to the Europeans as our final welfare payment. Then all the soldiers come home. Half of them could be deployed along our northern and southern borders to stop the flow of illegal human and drug traffic. The rest can find jobs in the newly stimulated economy. The savings could be used to pay for that socialized medicine the Europeans have been lecturing us about. We will announce that if war breaks out, we intend to follow the Clinton model. We might lob a few missiles at the aggressor, fly a few sorties overhead, and maybe even bomb the local Chinese embassy, but that’s it. Unless you are like Rwanda and we really don’t like you, then we will just let the UN take care of it. The North Koreans are selling weapons to all their friends; why can’t we do the same? Besides, we need the money to fund all that cool socialism the Europeans have. Now I don’t expect the Europeans to take us seriously at first. Maybe they need Iran to bomb them a couple of times while we stand by (Call it tough love. Hey, it made Monica a stronger person). But wouldn’t it be great to turn on the news just once and learn that Belgium had just tested a missile?

Just Another Summit

2009-04-06T13:09:00.000-04:00

Secretary Clinton held out an olive branch to the Taliban saying that we need to understand and address their concerns. The Taliban responded by vowing to attack Washington soon. Now, I didn’t expect them to come away singing the “Star Spangled Banner” but didn’t the liberals promise us that all we had to do was speak nice to these people and all our problems would go away? Hum, something must have gotten mixed up in the translation. Considering how hard Liberal to English can be, I imagine Arabic to Liberal can be tricky sometimes.

The president is flying off to another summit and as usually the peace-loving tree huggers of the world have gathered to shout absurd slogans, throw beer bottles and overturn cars. When Bush was president, the press referred to them by their official title “Protestors”. But now in the liberal zest to rename things, the media is simply calling them anarchists. Now I ask you, just because it’s Obama they are protesting, is that really fair? Next they’ll be calling those valiant Taliban freedom fighters vowing to blow up the White House, “Terrorists”!

And in an effort to save the planet from water pollution, the wise state politicians in Washington (the state) have banned phosphates from detergents. Sanctioned substitutes are ineffective in getting dishes clean. This has led to a slew of caravans smuggling Cascade from neighboring Idaho. So now if you live in Washington and want clean dishes, you either do them by hand (throwing your dishwasher in the landfill) or burn extra gasoline making trips to Idaho. Someone must be taking environmental lessons from Al Gore! State officials vow to crack down on the smugglers. And no doubt they have the manpower to do it now that law enforcement agents not longer have to go after drug dealer and pot smokers.

Democrats Stem the Tide of Violence in Iraq

2007-11-16T12:59:00.000-05:00

It’s absolutely brilliant! Harry Reed declares that the war in Iraq is lost. Nancy Pelosi travels to Syria and praises the insurgents. And now violence in Iraq has dropped precipitously. What happened?! Simple. We all thought they were serious about their blather. Bush is a criminal; get out off Iraq now...; blah, blah, blah. They had us all going but you have to imagine what it must have been like for the terrorists to find themselves on the same side as Democrats! These poor religious fanatics found themselves on the same side as godless baby killers. True, terrorists have killed their share of babies but at least they wait until the babies are born to determine if they are infidels. Liberals, of course, can’t wait to suck the broken remains of innocent life from the womb and flush them down the sink, simply because these potential humans have come at an inconvenient time. Next, Kucinich goes over there and talks about how Bush should be impeached and we need to get out of Iraq right away. How embarrassing to find yourself as a devout terrorist on the same side as a man who claimed on national TV that he had seen a UFO. Not even Ahmedinijad wants to be associated with someone that nuts. The last straw was when a tape reported to be from Bin Laden had him parroting what could have come from a Clinton campaign speech. Terrorists began quitting in droves. Now violence is dropping at a rate so fast that the war may be over by the time Clinton takes office as President. She, of course, will justly claim responsibility on behalf of all liberals for ending the war. Unfortunately for the terrorists, Clinton finally came out this week saying she would not support giving them driver’s licenses even if they move to New York. No word, however, on whether she supports granting licenses to the pilots of Kucinich’s UFO.

Are Environmentalists Bad for the Environment?

2007-11-04T15:17:00.000-05:00

At the end of a hot summer, environmentalists are once again debating global warming. They proclaim that man-made global warming is a fact. Like medieval popes, they threaten excommunication and banishment to any heretic that crosses their world point of view. In the 16th century, over a thousand years of study of celestial bodies had led to the scientific consensus that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun went around the earth. In fact, anyone with any intelligence could see this was true. When Copernicus proposed that the the earth went around the sun, Pope Clement VII had no choice but to threaten him with excommunication. Copernicus recanted under the pressure and the world lived under this misperception for hundreds more years but at least the scientific consensus was unanimous. Today, Heidi Cohen of the Weather Channel, calls for the revocation of meteorologist credentials for anyone disagreeing with the theory of man-made global warming. Over 400 years after Clement's declaration, Pope John Paul I declared that Copernicus may have had a point. Ya think?! Do we need to wait 400 years to question the veracity of environmentalist dogma and ask if environmentalists might even be bad for the environment. Here are the facts.

Scientists tell us that the earth has gone through ice ages where the average surface temperature was possibly a hundred of degrees lower. According to the experts that helped Al Gore make his award-winning movie, man's activities could raise global temperatures as much as 0.07 degrees. Man-made emission of green-house gases has steadily increased over the last century but global temperatures have not. Global temperatures in 1900 were much warmer bottoming the the 1970s when scientists predicted we were entering a new ice age. Natural sources of green-houses gases, such as volcanoes, can emit century's worth of pollution in mere months. The admonishment to "Go green" is a bit like saying "Don't spit in hurricanes" for fear that it might increase flooding.

Medieval papal abuses and hypocrisy did great harm to the medieval church. This led Martin Luther and others to question if the pope even knew what he was talking about. Today, Al Gore preaches conservation for every one else while he spews tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from his private jets. The garbage created by his concerts to bring awareness to global warming (as if not everyone knows already) will last centuries longer in anaerobic landfills than the radioactivity of spent fuel rods from your local nuclear plant. Environmentalists have done great damage to the environment over time. They declared that coal burning was bad. We put in scrubbers and built hydroelectric plants. But the scrubbers have highly toxic chemicals, such as palladium, which we have to encase in cement to dispose. And, now they have decided the carbon dioxide is given off warms the environment. The hydroelectric plants kill fish so we need to use more wind power. But wait, that kills birds. Let's use less energy by driving hybrid cars and using fluorescent light bulbs. But electric batteries are high in cadmium and the energy needed to produce hybrids far exceeds the energy the car will ever save in its life time and the fluorescent bulbs contain high levels of mercury. I can just hear the whining now when they start polluting the landfills. Do these guys even know what they are talking about?

So I ask, are environmentalists bad for the environment?

We Need Undocumented Appropriation Reform

2007-06-12T14:04:00.000-04:00

It’s time we show some compassion. There is a group of patriotic Americans that endure derision simply because they appropriate funds from banks without proper documentation. Hateful bigots among us call them thieves and bank robbers. Such despicable names are racist and do not take into account the plight of these needy people. How desperate must these people be to leave their friends and family and live in the shadows of society by appropriating funds from banks without proper documentation! Sometimes they even have to enlist their families in what should be a perfectly legal activity just to make ends meet. It’s time we stop the insane rhetoric about shoring up bank security and just recognize that undocumented appropriaters are living among us. It's not realistic to round up thousands, if not millions of appropriaters and throw them in jail, leaving their small defenseless children at home to fend for themselves. The vast majority of appropriaters are law-abiding citizens that have never hurt anyone. The stories of people getting shot during bank appropriations (what you racist call robberies) are just over-blown hype coming from Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing talk radio. We are a nation descended from appropriaters. When our ancestors arrived in this country, they started by appropriating land and other resources from the Native Americans to build this great nation. Besides, appropriation is good for the economy. Undocumented appropriation provides billions of dollars to the economy every year while doing a job that most Americans will not do.

But I am a reasonable person. To solve the problem of undocumented appropriation I call on Congress to pass a law to make all appropriaters in this country legal after paying a $10 fine and promising to learn how to balance a checkbook. Then Congress should create another massive bureaucracy to take over bank security just as they did with airport security. Call it the Bank Security Agency. The BS Agency will rip out all the security cameras in all the banks to end the unfair practice of facial profiling. Die packs will, of course, will become a thing of the past because they are bad for the environment. The BS Agency will not waste time and taxpayer’s money tracking down alleged appropriaters, but more wisely spend its billions on TV ad campaigns talking about the dangers of undocumented appropriation and urging people to apply for benefits offered to former appropriaters. Then Congress should promise that at some future date they will build a bank security system that has not been invented yet. This is how we can treat undocumented appropriaters humanely while banks across the country can rest assured that there will be no more undocumented appropriations.

I Support the Terrorists!

2007-05-26T10:20:00.000-04:00

Rosie O'Donnell and Elizabeth Hasselbeck got into this week. Apparently Rosie made disparaging remarks about the military and then was angry that Elizabeth did not defend her in the media when pundits claimed Rosie did not support the troops. Rosie's claim that she supported the troops made me wonder what that meant. What does she actually do to support the troops? Also, fresh from the campaign trail where Hilary Clinton and Barach Obama claimed to support the troops while making anti-American speeches and demanding we surrender and leave Iraq, they showed their support for the troops by voting against the money needed to fight the war in Iraq. And fresh from his vacation in Iran, arch-terrorist, Muqtata al-Sadr returned to Iraq to make anti-American speeches and demand the US surrender and leave Iraq immediately. He also showed his support for the troops by organizing more militias to go out and kill them. That's right; I realized that al-Sadr supports the troops too. When a liberal says they support something (like the troops) that means they speak against the job it's doing, do everything they can to demoralize it, and do whatever they can to ensure its swift and inevitable defeat. So let "Muqi", Rosie, Hillary, Barach all the other liberals support the troops, I support the terrorists!

Sharpton Insults Democrats; ACLU Defends Terrorists' Rights

2007-05-09T18:27:00.000-04:00

Well, Sharpton has got himself in some hot water again. Concerning Governor Romney, he said, “Here we have the only Mormon candidate running for president. Don’t worry about him; those who really believe in God will defeat him.” When Romney was asked to comment, he said he was surprised that Sharpton would make such a bigoted comment. Now I think Romney is really out of touch if he is just learning that Sharpton is a bigot. Or perhaps he was just goading Sharpton into clarifying his statement. In the most convoluted parsing since “is” was redefined, Sharpton claimed that he was not implying that Mormons do not believe in God but was referring to Democrats that believe in God would vote against Romney. That comment sparked outrage among the ACLU, the Center for Understanding Islamofascists, dead people, Rosie O’Donnel and other core Democrat groups. Spokesman Bill Mahrer said, “I am deeply shocked and greatly offended that Sharpton would imply that Democrats believe in God.”

A terrorist plan was uncovered when an alert video store clerk noticed that some middle-Eastern men wanted several copies made of videos instructing how to use certain weapons. The plan to attack military installations in New Jersey was subsequently foiled. The six defendants will now be represented by the ACLU in a multimillion-dollar law suit that claims these individual’s rights were violated. The ACLU claims that the clerk had no right to report them when they were only exercising their first-amendment rights to have such material and it is their religious duty as good Muslims to blow up Americans. The ACLU was also asked why it was also asserting that their second-amendment rights were being violated since the ACLU has long stood for gun control. A spokesman stated that, “Although we generally think citizens should not have weapons, the Constitution clearly makes exceptions for terrorists and bodyguards of abortion doctors.” A spokesperson for the anti-war group Pink Ladies said, “This never would have happened if George Washington hadn’t gone into New Jersey to begin with. It was an illegal war and I hope President Bush takes advantage of the Queen’s current visit to make things right.” When it was pointed out that loosing New Jersey means losing a state that votes largely Democrat, the spokesperson responded, “The Iranian government is mostly Democrat but I don’t advocate occupy it either. Besides, we will never run out of new Democrats; that’s what illegal immigration is for.”

Liberism: Africa's and New Orleans's Common Ailment

2007-04-29T21:57:00.000-04:00

So I admit, I like to watch American Idol. But I don't want to comment about Sanjaya's hair or whether Ryan Seacrest will ever admit he has a secret crush on Simon Cowell. Rather, I was a little annoyed by their recent charity night, "Idols Gives Back". This was a fundraiser for combating poverty in Africa and New Orleans. Now I know you do-goody liberals might bristle at my conservative audacity to be annoyed at the so-called attempt to improve the lives of the poor. The host of the show waives a packet of pills that cures malaria and states that ten dollars would cure twenty children. Naturally, we conclude that we should send the money to cure the kids. Why don't the kid's parents shell out the fifty cents themselves? No, really? Because, as you might say, they can't. That is the real problem to be solved. So why do liberals not address that? For decades, we have been shelling out billions to Africa with no end in sight and no improvement either. Liberals not only do not want to look at the underlying problems, they seek to bring the problems to America. Let's take a closer look.

The underlying problem is that people have lost their ability to take care of themselves. In Africa, this is largely caused by their governments through war, slavery, corruption, and high taxes. Prior to the arrival of the Europeans, African tribes made war on each other and made slaves of one another (ya, that's right, you liberals out there, Africans employed slavery long before the Europeans arrived.) Through institutionalized racism, blacks were barred from opportunities to take care of themselves. Education and equal employment opportunities were kept from native Africans. In South Africa, a minimum wage was employed with the stated purpose of making is prohibitively expensive to higher blacks with an exception for menial jobs such as gardeners and maids. In this country liberals promote the same thing by supporting raises in minimum wage with opposing illegal immigration which carves out and exception for gardeners and maids. With the end of colonialism, the black Africans have majority rule. Yet democracy has brought them no relief. They have elected people who thwart the rule of law, taking through corruption that which is not rightfully theirs. People who cannot count on planting crops and raising cattle and having is for themselves later, simply stop. Business cannot start because credit markets and and stock markets cannot count on a return without someone stealing it. The result is an economy that collapses. Governments that rely on economic activity for tax revenue react by raising taxes, which, of course, hastens the collapse. Heavy government borrowing robs the countries' citizens through ever-increasing interest payments. Government services slow and even stop. Desperate, some turn to war and even outright slavery. Human capital is wasted in a literacy dearth and made dependent on international relief aid. So instead of improving life, these aid shows perpetuate the problem.

So what is the solution? Unfortunately, it's like the old joke: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? Just one, the bulb has got to want to be changed. Corruption and high taxes can only exist if people put up with it. In this country, we constantly fight with liberals who want to raise taxes and protect corruption. Every time taxes are cut, revenue to the treasury increases (unfortunately, government spending increases more along with government borrowing). And the recession that came at the end of Clinton's last term that was supposedly talked into existence by Bush, was just Clinton's tax policies finally taking effect. Just once, I would like the moderator in a presidential debate to ask whether it's more important to maximize revenue to the treasury or "soak the rich".

And corruption is the liberal stock and trade. When it was clear the Nixon had become corrupt, the Conservatives joined in drawing articles of impeachment, including one accusing him of lieing to the American people. Ultimately they asked him to resign. Clinton, whose smallest sin may have been lieing, sought to use his power as president to fix the outcome of a court case in which he was the misdoer. Liberals insisted on keeping him so he went on to pardon Mark Rich and Dan Rostenkowski. New Orleans, famous for corruption and Democrat rule, had a separate government agency for each levy. Did they spend the money on the levies? No, the commissioners squandered funds on expensive luncheons and monuments to people you never heard of.

And New Oreleans knows its share of slavery and war. Trapped in schools that do not teach, liberals fight resident's attempt to flee through education vouchers just vigorously as illegal slave holders in Africa guard their human livestock. People's ability and will to provide for themselves is robbed through welfare payments and empty promises to make things better. Desperate, some have turned to drugs and the ensuing crime and gang wars have made life miserable. Businesses flee and the economy collapses. And liberals keep the wars going by opposing long prison terms that would otherwise separate the waring factions for the citizenry.
So maybe next year, Ellen DeGeneres will come on American Idol and announce they have plan to rescue Africa by exporting capitalism and save New Orleans by getting more Republican elected. Until then, my wallet stays closed and the clicker stays in hand to fast-forward past her diatribe. Gee, I hope I don't sprain my thumb in the meantime.

If I were a racist, I'd be a liberal!

2007-04-16T21:26:00.000-04:00

Well, another liberal is in trouble for making racist remarks. Why are we surprised? Political philosophies throughout history have fostered racism. Misguided beliefs in white supremacy led to this country's most horrendous war to date to redeem us from America's "original sin," slavery. But Senator Biden's comment expressing how surprised he was that a Black man could be articulate and more recently Don Immus's comments disparaging Black women are just another in a long line of racist remarks made by liberals. Like the slave owners of old that looked benevolently at their slaves at a group of people that needed taken care of while demanding their servitude, liberals today have pretty much the same attitude, demanding votes in lieu of picking cotton. While it is a gross exaggeration to claim all liberals are overtly racist, their political philosophies attract racists and even foster a soft racism among those that do not realize they are being morphed into racists. In fact, if I wanted to inflict the maximum misery on a group of people, I couldn't come up with a better program than that used by liberals to reek havoc in the Black community. Indeed, if I were a racist, I would be a liberal and here is how I would do it.

Let's go back to 1968, the dawn of modern liberalism. Blacks throughout the South are trapped by Jim Crow laws and not much better respected in the North. But Black families are intact and largely reaping the rewards of living clean, Christian lives. In the sixties we have an overwhelming Democrat majority in Congress and a great liberal icon, Kennedy, elected president. He continued the policies that kept Blacks in their place. Then Johnson sides with the civil rights movement and tries to empower blacks through the Voting Rights Act. But we have the overwhelming majority in Congress and great liberals such and Senator Gore from Tennessee and the Klansman and Grand Wizard, Senator Bird from West Virginia; they will help us block the legislation. But then tragedy strikes. An overwhelming majority of the Republicans join a small minority of Democrats in Congress to vote for Blacks to claim their rights as citizens and the legislation passes. Blacks, in deference to their liberator, Lincoln, vote en mass for Republicans. This will not do. We need to come up with a plan to destroy the Black community while getting them to participate in their own destruction by making them think it's in their best interest to vote for us Democrats. I know, let's promise them stuff if they vote for us that looks good but is actually to their detriment.

Let's start by exploiting their weaknesses. Years of segregation have left them largely ill-educated and unprepared for employment. But some are getting jobs at wages lower than whites, gaining needed experience and working their way up. Without segregation, they make integrate and work up to the level of other groups within a generation or two. That is what Jews, Irish, Germans, Poles, Italians and countless other groups have done, in spite of prejudice. Let's have a minimum wage law. We will tell Black folks that we are forcing employers to pay them the same as white folks just to be fair. But we know that if employers must pay the same for an ill-prepared Black person as for a well prepared white person, the Black person will not get hired. This should keep the unemployment rate higher among Blacks and this poverty can be exploited later. And we need to raise the minimum wage often so the pay will always be beyond the worth of their average skill level.

Now we address the education situation. There is a danger that Blacks may become as well educated as whites, eventually. We need to get them stuck with rotten teachers who teach poorly or not at all. But if teachers do a poor job, they will get fired. How do we keep bad teachers from getting fired? Of course! Let's support teacher unions. Unions are all about job preservation, not job performance. We can spew more of our nonsense about fairness while picking up campaign cash from yet another group. But how do we keep this plan from affecting whites? Well, whites can escape our strongholds, such as inner cites, while we trap Blacks there with high unemployment. Maybe they will even become discouraged enough to drop out at a high rate.

But a minimum wage will not be enough. Black men can be quite resourceful in providing for their families. We need to put a wedge between Black men and their families. How about welfare? We can pay women for having babies when they have no husband. The disproportionate unemployment we caused among Black men will encourage them to flee their responsibilities, especially if they know the government will take care of their families for them. Black women may even see having babies out of wedlock as way to get money. Nothing says poverty like an unwed, drop-out, single mother. Then they will have to vote for us because they depend on us for their very survival.

But they will never go for that; they are good Christians. That's it! Too much Christianity! Let's get prayer out of schools along with any reference to religion or moral judgments. We will allow anti-God, anti-Christian things such as Evolution Theory and Halloween but take out things like Bible Study and Nativity displays. We will attack people of faith, accusing them of being wackos while defending sacrilegious displays of a naked Jesus make of chocolate or a crucifix in urine as expressions of free speech. Heck, we might as well fund them with Federal tax dollars. And if all this godlessness spawns a culture of violence, perhaps Blacks will start killing each other. Perhaps an environment of hopelessness will push them into a culture of violence and drugs to destroy themselves. We will be as soft on crime as we can so that the drug dealers and the criminals stay on the street as much as possible. And if anyone tries to put the thugs responsible in jail, we will accuse them of being racist. Maybe Blacks will have such a low respect for themselves that they will start using racist epithets on each other. How about that for a twist!

Now we may have some hard cases that try to rise above their circumstances. We will constantly remind them that their ancestors were abused and that because of this, they are victims of the society and that society owes them a living. That way they will wait around for the justice we promised that will never come instead of striking out to make something of themselves. Bestowing them with victim status will keep them helpless while talking about how lousy a job this country has done with race relations will keep them angry and prevent them from joining and enjoying the benefits of the society they hate so much. Maybe some non-racist whites will even belief this blather and join us in our quest to "help."

Now what if some Blacks do manage to get through the system and get a college degree. I don't mind if they get college degrees as long as they do not actually get educated in the process. The help we offer will not be to improve schools. Not after all the work we did to trap them there to begin with. No, we will lower standards in admittance to college and lower standards in college graduation and professional programs. We will get them that piece of paper without the risk of their actually becoming educated. And if we do get the occasional well-educated Black, he/she is likely to go to the other (i.e., conservative) side anyway. We will just accuse him/her of not being black enough or not being the right type of Black. Heck, we might as well vent our racism toward them through hateful speech and ugly cartoons. After all, as a racist, we need to vent at someone. Surely we could get a pass if our racism is directed at Conservatives. Some of these smart Black people may be allowed to become mayor of Atlanta or Secretary of Agriculture but never chair of the Democrat Party, and heaven forbid, a Black ever becomes Secretary of State or President.

Suppose some Black people succeed in building wealth through successful business. We will have taxes as high as possible, regardless of how devastating these taxes are on the economy or the overall flow to the treasury. The important thing is to keep people from rising into affluence by increasing taxes as their incomes rise. And lest they pass their businesses on to the next generation, we will have an estate tax so high that it will destroy the businesses and send the next generation back to the poverty to which they belong. Whites, like the Kennedy family, have enough money that they do not need to run businesses and can just avoid the taxes by putting their money in trusts.

But will the American people let us have enough power to inflict mass malaise on an unsuspecting group we hate so much? That remains to be seen. We are and will remain the power brokers in the urban areas where Black populations are concentrated. And if the Conservatives are in power nationally, we will blame them for the chaos we have caused. We will make up lies of how electing conservatives will cause black churches to burn and children to starve. We will even go into Black churches and campaign for them to elect more of us. We will promise to make things better while things get worse. We will teach everyone that this is a rotten country and blacks can only be delivered if they vote more liberals in power. And if other groups come to this country, we will trap them in the same system. If they do not speak our language, we will promote education in their native tongue to discourage them from assimilating either. Maybe we can convince them they are victims too, expanding our voting base. Everyone who opposes us will be accused of being racist.

And after we have spread our death and misery, we will send a white liberal president to a Black community, like Harlem, to declare that he sympathizes with Blacks so much he considers himself to be the first Black president. How poetic is that?! The ultimate insult of how they will never rise to our level and they will see it as a compliment.

Yes, if I were a racist, I would definitely be a liberal!

Gore Glum over Feline Flatulence

2007-03-27T09:58:00.000-04:00

Global terrorism, Iran with nuclear weapons, Russia pealing back democracy! What a dangerous world in which we live. But do these even rate among the concerns of Democrats? What do they see as the greatest threat to the planet? Global warming, of course. That’s right, the global devastation being reeked by feline farts and puppy poots. Never mind that a score or preeminent scientists say that the evidence does not support his outlandish claims. And the left-wing press showed up in droves to cover Al Gore’s bloviating over the subject. This after CBS told us that they will not air their interview with the Iraqi ambassador who says the situation in Iraq is getting better, because CBS claims it’s boring and we have heard it all before.

And what about the tons of carbon dioxide released by Gore’s private jets as he crisscrosses the country to sound the alarm, not to mention the voluminous amounts of heat and excess carbon dioxide he himself releases into the atmosphere every time he launches into his diatribe? Well, he buys carbon credits to make up for the fact that he produces 14 times the amount of green-house gas than that of the average person. Carbon credits, of course, are contracts that countries like China sell, promising to offset a certain amount of green-house emission in their part of the world to allow Gore to devastate his part unabated. Carbon credits are sold on the open market, brokered by a company like the one Al Gore owns. Under the terms of the contract, China will demolish, for example, a coal-burning power plant. And what does China do with the net profit after demolishing the power plant? You guessed it; it builds another coal-burning power plant. Now you see why it is so vitally important that China remain exempt from the Kyoto Treaty. I got to hand it to him. Supporting Chinese communists is no big deal; all Democrats do that. But making a profit at the same time is brilliant. Wait until he unveils his Universal Caron Credit program whereby the Federal government funds carbon credits for everyone. This pipeline from the Federal Treasury to Gore’s pockets (after an obligatory stop in Beijing) will supply him a campaign war chest ten times the size of Clinton’s Swiss bank account. Gore can just buy the presidency without having to ask Buddhist monks for campaign donations this time.

No Mormon President for Me!

2007-03-13T18:44:00.000-04:00

There is shocking news that Republican contender, Mitt Romney is descended from polygamists. Although the Federal government marched into Utah to force Mormons to give up polygamy about 30 years after it marched into South Carolina to force Southern Baptists to give up slavery, being descended from slaveholders like George Bush is one thing but being descended from polygamists is quite another. Have you ever heard of anyone good descending from polygamists? Ok, so there was that Jesus fellow who performed a lot of miracles but aside from rescuing the Salt Lake City Olympics and getting Massachusetts to vote Republican, what miraculous things has Romney done? Ok, so maybe he is a bit of a miracle worker, but can you imagine him as President? Sure he might balance the budget, win the war in Iraq, bring peace to Palestine and convince Leiberman to see the light and finally switch parties, but what then? Edwards might realize that the only reason there are two Americas is because he and his trial-lawyer buddies sued the crap out of one them. Can imagine how bored you would be without the warning labels to read while you enjoy a hot beverage or apple turnover at McDonalds. Barach and Hilary might start getting along, again. How dangerous is that? Or worse Bill and Hilary could fall in love for real and take to dancing on the beach again! Yuck! I couldn't take it the first time. No, thank you! No Romney for me. I wonder what McCain's and Julianni's great-grandfathers were up to.

And a new study out today reports that liberals that go into science are 50 times as likely to suffer from hyperopia (that's far-sightedness for those whose brains have been burned out by too many Kerry speeches). A spokesman for the study said, "Liberal scientists seem to be able to see far into the future or far into the past but are otherwise clueless concerning more recent events." As evidence researchers point to a recent announcement that liberal scientists have found the tomb of Jesus and a child said to be Jesus' son from some 2,000 years ago. This while they have no idea where to look for former Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa who disappeared just thiry years ago and the paternity of Anna Nicole Smith's baby is a total mystery. They also point out that these scientists can predict the climate 100 years from now while weather a week from now is still quite iffy. And while liberal scientists can tell us that people came from apes, much to Hilary Clinton's chagrin, Barach Obama seems to have come out of nowhere.

I Love Geffen

2007-02-26T13:54:00.000-05:00

[Quotes in bold are not satire but actually uttered as claimed.]
Sadly, things are not well in the land of America today. David Geffen, a Hollywood Executive and long-time supporter and contributor to the Clintons said “Everybody in politics lies, but Bush does it with such ease, it’s troubling.” Senator Clinton has long denounced the politics of personal destruction and when asked what she thought of Geffen’s comments she stated, “Well, I have nothing but respect for the US military. I suppose David Geffen has an issue with how Bush is running the War, but it has nothing to do with my campaign.” James Carville, who would like to see a speedy end to the war, gave the same advice he gives all citizens of this country. In an on-camera interview, he said, “People should open their mouths and shut down this war.”

And sadly, things are not well in the land of Democrats today. David Geffen, a Hollywood Executive and former supporter to the Clintons and contributor to Barach Obama said, “Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.” Senator Obama has recently denounced slash-and-burn politics and when asked what she thought of Geffen’s comments he stated, “Well, I have nothing but respect for Senator Clinton. I suppose David Geffen has an issue with the Clintons, but it has nothing to do with my campaign.” James Carville, who would like to see a speedy end to the Obama campaign, gave the same advice he gives all citizens of this country. In an on-camera interview, he said, “Geffen should open his wallet and shut his mouth.”

Last Fall it came to light that Democrat congressman, William Jefferson, had $90,000 in stored in a refrigerator in his house with no tangible explanation where it came from. At the time, Nancy Pelosi had him removed from the Ways and Means Committee (WMC). “Hiding money in a complicated land deal is one thing, but..” she said, “Any congressman who has $90,000 stored in a refrigerator has a problem with this caucus.” Mr. Jefferson was apparently admired for his fund-raising prowess by his constituents in the great city of New Orleans and has been reelected. In a town known more for making money disappear into thin air, Mr. Jefferson finds, however, that Speaker Pelosi does not admire his ability to pull money from a hat, or even a refrigerator as the case may be. Pelosi has decided that since Mr. Jefferson cannot be trusted on the WMC, which controls vast sums and money and power, both of which Democrats crave to control as much as possible, he needs to be placed on a committee for which Democrats hold no esteem whatsoever. Now what committee would that be? The committee that oversees the dog-catchers union? No, unions are too important. How about the committee that oversees free trade. No, better not tick off the Chinese, their campaign donations may be needed again later. But of course, how about the committee for Homeland Security. What could be more insignificant to Democrats than that? Peter King, the ranking Republican has blown a gasket but Pelosi is defending her choice. “Mr. Jefferson has shown no inclination to use banks and who can better teach him the ins and outs of covert banking and money laundering than terrorists? Though he may never learn to hide payments for pardoning international arms dealer, or raise vast of campaign donations from impoverished Buddhists monks, he must at least make his bribes look like it’s the Republican’s fault.” When asked about Jefferson’s latest requisition for 52 refrigerators, Pelosi had no comment.