May 25, 2011

I ran across a 2010 movie the other day titled: I Want Your Money. I haven't watched it yet but the gist of it is a comparison between Reaganomics and Obamanomics. That is, keep government out of our lives or let it completely control our lives.

While looking this movie up on imdb.com, I ran across a series of comments by various movie watchers. As usual, it's hilarious how divided and extreme the comments are. But what caught my attention is an odd behavior pattern of liberals that's showing up more and more.

Now as the liberals see it, conservatives are racist and intolerant of everyone else. I don't hear a lot of conservatives loudly fighting back on that notion so who knows (actually I do but it is irrelevant). The curious notion is that liberals consider themselves open-minded and tolerant of different ideas and behavior. Hmmm... what's wrong with this picture? Liberals seem only tolerant of others that agree with them politically. If they don't agree with someone, they're racists, bigots, war mongers, you name it.

As a reformed liberal, now conservative myself, I do understand some of the ideas liberals have concerning the well being of others. This is what most of the arguments come down to. I understand their sentiments, I just disagree on how to fix it. The key point here is I don't discredit their goals by calling them names and storming out of the room.

So I ask you liberals, what happened to your open mindedness and tolerance of others? According to you, I have an excuse, what's yours?

May 16, 2011

Watched a documentary the other day titled: Mr Conservative Goldwater on Goldwater. Quite interesting. During his time, I knew virtually nothing about him other than some remarks about yet another foolish Republican. Apparently, he had a refreshingly clear view on what a conservative really is. He caused a stir since the Republicans were veering off course and Goldwater gave them a pretty good reality check. It would have been interesting if he had become president.

Case in point: his views on abortion. His conservative doctrine states that government should stay out of the personal lives of the people. Thus, he felt that women should follow their own council in this matter. His catch was that government should also play no part in funding abortions whatsoever.

What's astounding is how the Republican party decided to take a platform stand on the illegality of abortion (or were the Democrats smart enough to con them into it?). Big mistake. They should have stayed out of the issue and maintained the conservative view. Since then, the Republicans fight over this issue and cause themselves more trouble than it's worth. I've heard it said the Republicans are their own worst enemy... it's true.

Don't get me wrong, I think abortion is abhorrent and should be avoided. But that's just my opinion. After all, what right do I have to dictate how others should live?

May 1, 2011

Usama Bin Laden has finally met justice. Good riddance. My only concern has been watching the video footage of the front of the White House which shows everyone partying at this news. I'm remembering the feeling I had when we saw videos of Muslims celebrating the fall of the twin towers.

Sep 15, 2010

There's a religious belief that the "Apocolypse" is upon us. That is, we're currently in the 'End of Days'. One aspect of this is the arrival of the anti-christ... one who speaks with a golden tongue but who embodies the very essence of evil to mankind.

Another theory out there is the notion that the Mayan calendar ends in December, 2012. Doomsday, say some. Others say that this point in time represents the lowest state of human enlightenment after which a new rise to a golden age is to begin.

Hmmm... that's just after the US presidential election in which one Barack Obama will likely be up for re-election. Who else can you think of at this point in time that best matches the golden voice of the anti-christ?

Sep 1, 2010

Aug 30, 2010

Got this email today. Not being a finance wizard, it helped to cement in why the latest finance reform bill does little to help the true failings of Wall Street.

Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit . She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar.

To solve this problem, she comes up with a new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later. She keeps track of the drinks consumed in a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).

Word gets around about Heidi's "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit.

By providing her customers freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Consequently, Heidi's gross sales volume increases massively.

A young and dynamic Vice President at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets, and increases Heidi's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.

At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then bundled and traded on international security markets.

Naive investors don't really understand that the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb, and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses.

One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. He so informs Heidi. Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons. But being unemployed alcoholics, they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations, she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and her eleven employees lose their jobs.

Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The collapsed bond asset value destroys the bank's liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.

Suppliers of Heidi's bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms' pension funds in the various BOND securities. They find they are now faced with not only having to write off her bad debt but also with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds. Her wine supplier claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations. Her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.

Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses, and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion dollar, no-strings attached cash infusion from their cronies in the Federal Government. The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, non-drinkers who have never been in Heidi's bar.

Apparently, the only 'fix' in place with the new finance reform bill is to try to monitor the rating agency that determines the AAA (or not) quality of the bonds. It'll be the government that watches it... I'm sure that's going to work out just fine.

Jun 25, 2010

Try to guess who wrote this newspaper article:

Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office.

Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever.

Wow. Talk about change.

Just one year ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nation’s most inspiring political campaigns, the election of America ’s first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis.

Of course, they don’t see it as self imposed. It’s all George Bush’s fault.

George Bush, who doesn’t have a vote in Congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all.

He broke Obama’s promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.

He broke Obama’s promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.

He broke Obama’s promise to end earmarks.

He broke Obama’s promise to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.

He broke Obama’s promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.

He broke Obama’s promise to make peace with direct, no pre-condition talks with America ’s most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.

He broke Obama’s promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.

He broke Obama’s promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.

He broke Obama’s promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.

He broke Obama’s promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.

He broke Obama’s promise to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year.

Yes, it’s all George Bush’s fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending, failed Bush administration.

If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, all of President Obama’s problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel , North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.

Oh, and did I mention what it would be like if the Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didn’t have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks. There would be no earmarks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions), no vote buying ( Nebraska , Louisiana ).

If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, we’d have real change by now.

All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama’s fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Congress. It’s all George Bush’s fault.

Take for example the decision of Eric Holder, the president’s attorney general, to hold terrorists’ trials in New York City . Or his decision to try the Christmas Day underpants bomber as a civilian.

Two disastrous decisions.

Certainly those were bad judgments based on poor advice from George Bush.

Need more proof?

You might recall that when Scott Brown won last month’s election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts , capturing “the Ted Kennedy seat,” President Obama said that Brown’s victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008. People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years, and they wanted change.

Yes, according to the president, the voter rebellion in Massachusetts last month was George Bush’s fault.

Therefore, in retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats.

It is all George Bush’s fault.

Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and change ever arrive?

Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something — anything?

Who wrote it? Newt Gingrich? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? Michael Savage? Nope, it was Chuck Green... a lifelong Democrat who writes "Greener Pastures" for the Aurora ( Colorado ) Sentinel...one of the more liberal papers in the country.

June 15, 2010

As some of you know, I was once a Democrat. But somewhere around 15 - 20 years ago, I simply dropped out of the concerns of politics completely. I had come to a point of view that it really didn't matter who got into the White House, they all seem to act somewhat the same and no one really fixed any of the serious issues of the day. For about 5 - 10 years, I felt this way. Then, I swung right, got outraged as much as I did when I was a liberal, and now I find myself a bit right of center with no love for any political party.

Recently, I got an email from a financal wizard I know that led me down a path of research that is beginning to make me believe I was right some years back. It doesn't terribly matter who's in office but not for the reasons I believed. An incredibly large scam has been and is currently in operation. It, for the most part, controls Washington and a great deal of the news media. We know it as the Wall Street Financial system. No matter how our elected officials try to convince us that they're going to regulate and fix the system, it's all for naught.

The following is the email I received that started this journey. It leads you to the CEO of overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, who some consider a nut case. But as history has been unfolding, more and more people are beginning to realize he knows what he's talking about.

The email........................................................................

Throughout the BP oil spill catastrophe it’s been tedious witnessing government officials’ expressing surprise on learning that the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service has for years held the roles of both watchdog over and business partner with the oil companies in their drilling operations — and that this conflict of interest has kept the MMS from fulfilling its watchdog role effectively.

Well, the theory of “regulatory capture” — which predicts that regulators and the industries they regulate will end up forming intimate relationships — has been in the economics literature for many years. It is most closely identified with Nobel laureate George Stigler, who published his article “The Economic Theory of Regulation” in 1971 (Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, no., pp. 3-18).

Just look at the financial services industry if you don't believe me....
They have been one of the most regulated industries on earth, yet their whole ponzi scheme system came apart, under the watchful eyes of the regulators, and then the government stepped up to bail them out.

If you have interest in this...here is a link to a discussion in more detail...very scary!!

www.deepcapturethemovie.com/

..................................................................end of email

Warning: it's a long presentation, but worth it if you want to know why Wall Street crashed our economy with no one being held responsible and us taxpayers footing the bill. Also, this was produced in 2007, before the crash.

If you'd like even more data and insight on this issue, look up a fellow by the name of William K Black. He's a very bright, non-political, former bank regulator that has a story to tell that is simply chilling in it's message. And it's a message I haven't heard a peep of on ABC, CBS....

...curiouser and curiouser.

May 13, 2010

There is a very interesting study going on that is putting into perspective a lot of observations I have had for many years. Among several topics, it looks at a phenomenon that most of us should be able to see within ourselves if we are brave enough to look. It's the effect on people when they join a 'team'. For example, one joins a sports team and you immediately assume the 'us verses them' stance. "We're the good guys, they're the bad guys, and we need to defeat them". It's usually called team spirit. Most of us have grown up this way... joining groups that compete with others... it's really human nature to prove your team is the better team.

As we grow older, many of us join or affiliate with a political party; and if you're honest with yourself, you most likely have that same 'us verses them' attitude. After all, it's just a bigger team and the stakes are now higher. These days, the ferocity of the debates have polarized the US to an extreme state. So much so that, again, if you're really honest with yourself, you research a topic you're making a stand on by simply finding any piece of data that supports your position. Got it... done... you're convinced... and of course, absolutely on the side of truth. What very few do is research data that opposes your comfortable position and test the truth of it. This is a very closed minded attitude. I should know... for over 40 years I was a liberal California Democrat who was convinced of the evil corporate czars with their gas guzzling SUVs and their ties to the war machine that they so thrive upon. Much later on, I was introduced to Republicans in a more social venue. Weird, but okay, these people are at least civil and don't scream at you. In time, I learned a different point of view and swung hard right. Now it was those stupid liberal tree-huggers that would rather let a forest burn to the ground than to allow controlled cutting for needed resources and thus fire-breaking the forest so the fires leave most trees alive. Different point of view but with the same attitude... closed minded because I was on the good team.

So here we all are: we're all right. We all know the truth. We all have the answers. We all have the data. And the other guys are all idiots. How do you resolve this? Do you want to?

I strongly believe the best course for America is a combination of both left and right wing ideals. Each has something good to offer. Each is mildly deluded in some areas. I suppose we've done as well as we have for so long just by having this political power swing back and forth which tends to centralize policy over the long run. Liberals want things to change, conservatives want the stability of known paradigms. Change is good but can lead to chaos if recklessly pursued. Stable principles are good but must not be allowed to lead to stagnation.

We, as a nation, need to regain our common sense, step outside of the box of your favorite political party, and start considering that the other guy might actually have a real concern. I also believe the polarization of the voting public dictates the polarization of the elected politicians. After all, they have their polls and researchers to figure out what their guy needs to be so you'll vote them in. I'm reminded of a rant by Nancy Pelosi during the Bush reign when he controlled both houses of congress. She was livid that the Republicans ignored most everything the Democrats proposed. Tables are now turned and how does she act now that the Democrats have full control? Bipartisanship? Equal say? Nope. Polarization in both camps... fully rooted... fueled by a polarized public.

This theory of closed mindedness answers for me the question I've always had as to why I'm so enchanted by the Winston Churchill quote at the beginning of this page. It takes all of us to reach a balance in America as Churchill believed for Britain.

I must give credit to Mr. Jonathan Haidt who gave a wonderful lecture regarding this study. You can watch it here: ted.com. Remember, don't watch it to pick out only what you want to hear. I suspect that I might disagree with Mr. Haight politically, but I also find him refreshingly open minded, worth listening to, and bearing a truth in us all that would benefit this country far more than any mere politician.

May 7, 2010

Heard Obama's glib joke about Arizona's immigration bill: "Adios, amigos". Nice one, asshole.

What is so hard for you to understand about being the leader of a federal government that has two primary responsibilities? One is to manage the US currency; the other is to protect US citizens. People are dying in Arizona due to illegal immigrants. Do your job and stop laughing at the suffering people who live in this state.

Apr 30, 2010

I keep seeing commercials on tv announcing bailouts for people who have credit card debts greater than $10,000.

About 12 years ago I figured out how to pay off my credit cards each month thus stopping the monthly interest fee. It was a simple realization that I shouldn't charge more than I made each month. It wasn't easy... I had to think about what I really needed and where I could buy it for the best price. I transferred balances to new cards that offered a lower interest rate for a short period. Eventually, I got on top of my spending and my finances came into balance. Since then, I have always paid my credit cards off each and every month... No interest charges, ever.

I took the time and effort to change my spending to arrive at a point of no monthly credit card interest debt.

The point of this is why do the people that have failed to control their spending get a free pass to financial absolution and I, who has struggled through a personal path out of this dilemma doesn't receive any reward for having done the right thing?

This speaks to the issue of entitlements... and why it could mean the death of the American Dream.

Apr 27, 2010

I live in Arizona and I get to hear and see local radio and tv coverage of the home invasions, robbery, assault, rape, and even murder committed by illegal aliens in this state. The federal government is apparently too busy spending money and figuring out how to tax us to bother addressing the problems we deal with here. So our state government took action (SB1070) and the shitstorm has begun.

What I can't figure out is why the big deal. Under SB1070, the police CAN NOT pick someone out at random (or for any other reason) and ask for proof of citizenship. Same as it always was. The police CAN ask for identification if, for example, you get pulled over with a blown out tail light while driving. So what? Give him/her your drivers license then fix the stupid light. Same as it always was. I got stopped recently because I didn't cover an expired license plate with the new temporary one... can't have two plates. What do they ask for? Drivers license, registration, and sometimes proof of insurance. Just like they always have... in fact, it's what they do in California, too. Now what happens if you're committing a crime or doing something suspicious? You'll get stopped for questioning and asked for identification. Typically, the identification can tell the officer if there are outstanding warrants out on you. They've been doing this for as long as I can remember. So, again, what's the big deal? The problem is if you don't have any US identification, you will get arrested and most likely deported. What part of the term 'illegal immigrant' isn't clear to people? Illegal means against the law. Doing something against the law gets you a trip to jail. Yeah, I know, that's a cheap argument. Here's a better one: why is it that the Mexican illegals are being considered differently from say a Polish family that wants to immigrate here? My grandparents came from Ecuador and they had to wait their turn, learn English, and pass the naturalization tests to gain US citizenship. So did the Italians, the Spanish, the Swedes, you get the idea. If you want to talk about profiling and racist behavior, I'd be asking why the Mexicans are getting preferential treatment over the rest of the world.

As for police profiling, I heard a guy on the radio make a brilliant observation: right now, there are probably a few officers that practice racial profiling but the majority of officers do not. I'll bet you can say the same in any state you live in. After the new law kicks in, nothing will change. The same profiling officers will continue being bad and the rest will follow the letter of the law as they always have. This is simply the human nature of each officer and that is not easily changed.

All that changes is that more illegal immigrants will be caught and sent back to their country. This is a great benefit to Arizona simply for the drop in crime (I'll ignore the financial drain it causes). Now many argue that the crime caused by illegals isn't significant. What about the family of that rancher that got murdered? It's pretty significant to them. I ask you: exactly how many murders can you justify before you consider it a problem?

Oh... on a related issue, it's been two months short of a year since I spoke about Sheriff Joe and the rage directed at him. All those legal attacks, a DOJ investigation or two, ACLU on the warpath, Al Sharpton... guess what... he's still the sheriff. Doesn't that tell you something? Sure, he's a bit of a pisser when he's making statements or being interviewed (after all, he doesn't have that smooth teleprompter voice we all know and love), but so far no one can find anything illegal about his management and the actions of the Sheriff's Office.

Apr 26, 2010

My apologies to the left wing. I seem to be hammering you guys almost exclusively. If the great bi-partisan promise had been kept, I'd be yelling at both sides. However, the Republicans have been rendered somewhat useless and the only ones left to blame now are the Democrats... after all, they are calling all of the shots, correct?

As always, though, the tides will once again change and the Dems will lose control. I will then be able to balance these comments and hammer the Reps... though they seem to have learned how to shoot themselves in the foot pretty effectively over the years.

Apr 15, 2010 (tax day!)

Just saw the website created by Jason Levin, the teacher at the Conestoga Middle School in Beaverton, Oregon. His aim to promote anti-tea partiers to infiltrate the tea parties wearing Hitler costumes and brandishing hate signs in contrast to the Tea Party's actual premises.

Once again, a shining example of what should be an educated man (he's teaching children in a public school) with the ridiculously ignorant notion that right wing extremists are Nazis. No, Jason, Nazis are far left wing. Did you fall asleep in your civics and history classes? Or has the school system finally rewritten enough history to make you believe you're correct in this matter? If you really want to make your point, dress your crashers as gun toting, anarchists. That's the extreme right. But I'll bet that image doesn't carry enough of a stigma... so you chose Nazis... a close cousin to the socialistic liberals. Not too bright, Jason.

By the way, I'm not a tea partier. I don't have the luxury of free time to stand around at rallies. I have to work for a living and pay those taxes so people like you can teach our children such high standards of education.

Mar 29, 2010

My heart goes out to the victims and families of the bombings in Moscow. I grew up in an era that the 'Russians' were evil, but I have traveled our world enough to know that the people of a country don't hate the people of other countries... only the governments hate each other. Moscow... I am from the USA and I stand with you in the belief that you've been unjustly punished.

Mar 23, 2010

The House of Representatives has passed a health care bill that, in time, will dramatically change the very nature of the United States. I don't know if this will remain as it stands... I don't know if it will be tossed out as unconstitutional... I'm not sure how much it really matters. Don't get me wrong, the implementation of this bill will cripple this country possibly beyond repair. What I'm saying is if one looks back through history, all great countries come and go. The United States won't be an exception. It's only a matter of how long will it last.

When the original settlers came to America and later the founding fathers of this country fought and gained independence, entitlements were at a minimum. That is, people were here to work for their survival and enjoy a personal freedom. The only welfare was the good nature of one's neighbors that would lend a helping hand when someone was in dire need. The good aspect of those times was that one could work as hard as one wanted and reap the rewards accordingly. Thus was born a country of motivated people striving to improve one's wealth and security with the option to pass on to one's offspring the fruits of your labor. Thus, their children had an advantage in their efforts and were in a position to gain even more. The American Dream.

In time, America has become the richest nation on the planet. This greatness comes with a problem, though. A nation, such as ours, gives back to society to help the less fortunate. This is simply good human nature. Over the years, more and more immigrants come here for their American Dream, but as the population grows, more and more don't make it. Also, people come to this country simply because of the handouts. This portion of the population is growing and their children, if not properly motivated, will learn the ins and outs of the welfare system. They also find out that it's the liberals that are quick to promise them more and more entitlements if they simply vote them into office... and they do.

I believe this is inevitable for any country that finds itself in a position of power and wealth. Again, it's only a question of how long before the entitlement mindset of the masses becomes so large that the direction of the elected politicians swings to their desires. Though the United States is a republic, eventually the false hope of democracy takes over and changes our fundamental principles. This sends us down that decline that every other great nation has traveled.

My only hope is maybe not this time.

Feb 23, 2010

Let's wander off the political path for a moment... we'll get back to it soon.

During my 'wild youth', I had the great fortune of playing rock star for a period of about 5 years. Granted, the bands I played in weren't household names, but we made records on top US labels, toured North America endlessly, and even shot a few tv show spots. One aspect of that business that I've always felt deserved some sort of psychological study is the effect of living your life with everyone you come into contact with praising your every move. This tells of the nature of the business that isn't very pretty. While you're successful, almost everyone wants to be your best friend. This is fine for awhile, but eventually, you can begin to lose perspective about your own self worth and your relationship to those around you. Not every musician comes under this spell, but most do, and there are some that go overboard, trying to live up to an image that isn't possible to maintain. In extreme cases, this can be a contributing factor to suicide. I'm sure you've heard of a few.

This effect is not something one can have explained and truly comprehend. One can only live it to know it. Where I'm going with this is this: if such a phenomenon can sway even the most grounded of musicians with their limited world, can you imagine what being the president of the United States would be like? His huge world is made up of like-minded folk that must keep him happy or lose their job or be read the riot act. Worse, they are out to get something and will do anything to stay on his good side. The whole mind set of any administration probably runs a bit like this. Sure, there are always some critics that rattle the cage of the White House, but within those walls is an army of servants ready to console and debunk any critique. Lately, the word is out that Mr Obama is not in touch with the voice of the American people. Whatever his true agenda may or may not be, this isolating affect of a self-serving entourage must be taking it's toll... whether he knows it or not.

Jan 28, 2010

Geeez, where does one begin after this month's game playing? The Cornhusker kickback, special exemptions for only union workers healthcare, backroom deals not televised on CSPAN as promised, the nuclear option of ramming the healthcare bill through to avoid the annoying loss of the 60th vote in the Senate... it never ceases to amaze how far politicians will go to push their idea of how things should be in spite of the majority wishes of Americans. There used to be this idea that we elected politicians to represent what we the people want. When did that get lost?

Anyway, there's hundreds of very bright minds writing hundreds of great articles explaining all of this a lot better than I can. So now it's time for a curious notion that I've seen for years that deserves a bit of clarification. It's a statement that many people use when trying to bad-mouth a Conservative or a right wing extremist. They mistakenly refer to them as Nazis. Even our brilliant Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was complaining that those right wing tea baggers were brandishing swastikas. She of all people should know better than this.

Basically, there are two extremes of government: the hard left which desires complete and total government control and the hard right which wants anarchy or no government whatsoever. On the left resides socialism, communism, and various totalitarian formats. On the right resides a bunch of people stockpiling guns and ammo to protect themselves and their property. The point of this is Hitler's rule of Germany was definitely a totalitarian system on the very, very far left. Thus, right wingers have no relation to Nazis at all. In fact, they're complete opposites. So the next time you hear someone call a Conservative a Nazi, realize the stupidity of that and understand that they obviously have no idea how the various forms of government are related.

If you have about 10 minutes to kill, the following video does a very good job of detailing this idea:

So again, Ms Pelosi, time to brush up on your basic civics class.

Nov 7, 2009

I was about to get into a dialog about the campaign promises of Obama and his subsequent failures regarding such and the conflict between Obama's advisor General Kristol and Obama's lack of leadership regarding military support in Afganistan as well as the $1.2 TRILLION price tag on the latest version of health care about to be inflicted on the majority of Americans when I suddenly began to appreciate the fundamental issues separating the libreals and the conservatives and the ultimate lack of reconciliation between the two philosophies.

Forgive me as I know there a few of you that don't fall into these two catagories (but currently you aren't significant... sorry) but there are two points of view in America that probably won't learn to compromise... The Liberals and The Conservatives.

Right here and now, the Donks have passed the $1.2 TRILLION health care bill. Next step... the Senate. God help us..

I have traveled many lands of planet earth and I have believed that The United States Of America has always been the best place to live. But now, I'm beginning to look at Australia as a substitute.

Sep 18, 2009

Just got back from a short vacation in Great Britain. Had a chance to ask a few English and Scottish residents about how their socialized healthcare system is working. Understand that the people I talked to were simply gainfully employed... not rich, not poor... like most of us.

Across the board they all say that their system isn't perfect but everyone's medical needs are taken care of. Problem is, if one needs a heart bypass, for example, it can take between 1 and 2 years to get the surgery done! Their government isn't pleased to admit that kind of delay so they've adjusted the numbers in a rather amusing way. They now state that a heart bypass takes about 3 to 4 weeks from the time you are aware of the problem until you see the heart specialist. Sounds good, right? The catch is, it still takes about a year or 2 after seeing the specialist before the operation actually takes place. Government spin is everywhere.

My next question was whether or not private health insurance/doctors/hospitals still exist. Yes they do, and at least one bus driver I spoke with has private insurance since he's getting older and the government plan isn't so quick to treat him. Thus, private health insurance is beginning to gain ground in Britain as an incentive from employers. This is partly due to the fact that with the latest economic downturn, the government health system is dealing with budget cuts... that is, public healthcare is getting worse. Heaven help you if you need something so frivolous as a hip replacement!

The ridiculous aspect of all this is that now more and more Britain's are paying out of their own pockets for private healthcare as well as being taxed heavily for the shabby public option.

I forgot to mention: Britain started their socialized healthcare when World War 2 ended... that's over 50 years... and they still haven't gotten their system to work? How long, America, are you willing to be taxed to death to try a failed experiment? You think we can do any better? Do you really think the people of Britain are any less smart than us?

As I heard a while back: "If you think our healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it's free".

Aug 13, 2009

Party lines aside, there's really a serious problem in Washington DC. It's called career politicians. These are the Senators and Representatives that live to be re-elected. Since there are no term limits for them, they can run for office until they die. The problem here is that they lose their passion for representing their constituents by succumbing to the lure of big money to keep them in office. After all, the very nature of elections these days is how well saturated a candidate is in the media. This takes a lot of money. Thus, the politician's priority tends to shift from the will of the people to the bankrolling of special interest groups that put out the real money.

The catch-22 here is that only Congress can change this... and they are the ones that are least likely to make this happen. Somehow our forefathers missed this issue. Perhaps another day?

Aug 7, 2009

Here's something that obviously doesn't make sense. I just read on abcnews (just to make it fair), that the new unemployment rate is 9.4... slightly better that the previous 9.5. They go on to say that from May to July job losses averaged 331,000 a month but July's losses were far lower: only 247,000.

How is it that 247,000 more jobs were lost in July and yet the unemployment rate got better? That would imply that more than 247,000 new jobs were created and filled in July to improve the loss rate. I think we would have heard about that, don't you?

Talk about your 'fishy misinformation'.

Aug 6, 2009

Just an observation: the top 10 'clunkers' traded in are all American made. Of the top ten cars bought under this program, six are foreign.

Wonder how that sits with the US car parts industries?

Aug 5, 2009

Why are we so anxious to completely restructure the American system of health care? And so quickly as well. I recall a video of then senator obama complaining to the Republicans at how fast they were pushing bills through. Anyway, I understand that health care insurance is pretty costly. I also understand that a major part of that cost is the result of malpractice insurance. Ask your doctors... I did.

Why can't we simply reform and/or regulate the ridiculous payouts in trial cases? You know, those cases where if one cries well enough and your lawyer is sharp, you'll get many millions in a quick settlement. Well, actually you won't get that much... your lawyer does. In any case, if the legal system can just get back to common sense renderings of justice and limit the payouts of frivolous medical lawsuits, the malpractice insurance to the doctors drops... and guess what... in a competitive market economy, the costs of medical insurance to us drops. Simple. At least for a start.

But there is a problem. You don't hear much about this approach. Why? Many members of our government ARE lawyers and are heavily supported by lawyers to watch out for their interests. That's the problem of biting the hand that feeds you. How does one fix that? I don't know.

But what's most disturbing about this debate is the latest white house directive: email all 'misinformation' to flag@whitehouse.gov to let the administration know who is dissenting the Obama health care mission. Two questions: 1) exactly what is the white house going to do about it (the end of free speech?) ...and 2) what would you have said if George W. had issued this request?

Why is it that the radical left are always screaming about the Republicans squashing our civil liberties and yet the Obama administration can effortlessly issue such a directive without complaint? Boggles the mind, it does.

I am waiting to see if this website gets targeted, what the response is. And if I get censored... I will let everyone know exactly what happened on YouTube, FreeRepublic.com, etal. ...if the black vans don't get me first ;)

Jul 24, 2009

Got the following joke link today. It first showed up a year or 2 ago. Note who posted it: the ALCU. The funny part is I suspect they were targeting Bush... but today it's much more on topic, don't you think?

http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

Jul 20, 2009

You do realize that all this uproar over Sheriff Joe of Maricopa County, AZ has nothing to do with racism... nothing to do with profiling... nothing to do with the neo-nazi thugs.

It's all to do with who is fighting him. Phil Gordon (mayor of Phoenix), Janet Napolitano (former governor of Arizona), Al Sharpton, the White House, and our hard working majority Congress. What do all of these have in common? Democrats.

All of the attacks on Sheriff Joe are purely political.

The Democrats thrive on one thing: power. They get this power by being elected into office. The game plan is to make sure there's enough poor and downtrodden voters to listen to their promises to pay their mortgages, pay for their gasoline, pay for their health care.... on and on. What better new source of voters than the many millions of illegal aliens currently in this country. The catch is, it's of primary importance that the 'poor and downtrodden' DO NOT succeed. If they did, they would start paying a high tax rate and begin to rethink their allegiance to the Democrats. Thus, if you haven't noticed, the soaring unemployment and the home foreclosures haven't been fixed in spite of all of the money spent and the promises made. It's just going to get worse.

Just ask yourself who benefits by allowing illegal aliens to vote? It's really not rocket science.

Jul 6, 2009

You just have to ask yourself one question: why after after all this time since the election of 2008 is Sarah Palin still under constant bombardment?

STOP... think about it...

She's a threat. 'They ' are afraid of her. Who is afraid of her? THINK ABOUT IT!

Sarah Palin isn't one of the elite. She isn't one of the Bush family. She isn't a lawyer (Obama). She IS middle America. She doesn't have to talk down to us... she IS one of us. She understands what "we" are dealing with.

That is why the liberal media is still, after all this time, is trying to hammer her down. They are afraid of her. She speaks the truth that you and I feel.

Don't be afraid of the simple truth that she speaks. Just think about what she says and what it means to you!

It's just that simple.

May 29, 2009

Heard an interesting item today. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a staunch Republican until the the day of his death. Never knew that. Wonder why?

Here's why: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500

What is the US debt up to now? $11 trillion? The worst it has been before a year or two ago was $8 billion in the 1980's. That's well over a thousand times higher. I've been trying to wrap my mind around this number but it just reminds me, as a child, of trying to imagine the universe and the distances involved... can't do it. Then I started to relate this to the impact on future taxes. With a simple mind on such matters, I imagined my yearly taxes 1000 times more than they are now... not a pleasant thought. In fact, it would be impossible.

Then a financially brilliant person told me that it's not that simple. Of course the people of the US can't pay those taxes... and there's certainly not enough "rich" people to cover it. What the government will do is sell US bonds to countries such as China. Then, we as tax payers, are simply covering the yearly interest payments on those bonds. Not bad, I thought, but when the bond matures in 20 or so years, we need to pay the principal loan in full. Hmmm... 20 years later and we still have that same debt. So we just sell more bonds to cover those previous bonds and start the clock again. No problem.

But during those first 20 years, what have we done? Spent more money on the latest whims and paybacks for election donations of the politicians we so happily voted into office. This means some more bonds and interest and future debt.

So what begins to happen is that we start selling bonds just to cover the interest we now owe on the current bonds. But in the meantime, if the principal isn't being paid off quickly enough, we eventually have to default. Game over.

At this point, the name Bernie Madoff should come to mind. Tell me... what's the difference?

Ooops... the following video has been removed by youtube due to a terms of use violation. Interesting. It was a 5 minute speech on the House floor by a Congressman from Texas. I thought such things were public record. Anyway, he said that an upcoming law that will force America to only use compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) is a major intrusion on the American people. Furthermore, if one breaks, the hazardous nature of the mercury inside the CFLs warrants extreme measures for safe cleanup. The final kicker to this is that due to the issues of safety using mercury in the CFLs, there are no American manufacturers of the CFLs, only China! There's a well thought out piece of legislation that's really going to help America.

Ok... found it again...

I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool-California-Democrat... hug-a-tree, save-the-owl, a musician son of a musician family, the whole nine yards. Funny what growing older, struggling to earn a living, and learning a little bit does for one.

So now I'm a Conservative.. note that I'm not declaring Republican simply because the Reps aren't always on target, either. But the traditional Republican fiscal ethic makes perfect sense: they want to lower our taxes and reduce the spending of our government. That means we get to spend more of our money locally to support those businesses and people in our community. The law of evolution, folks.

My former Democrats want to take more of my hard earned income and spread it around nationally on God knows what. That's the road to Socialism. Redistribution of wealth has a fundamental flaw... just ask yourself the question: "Why should I work hard if the government only takes it away to give it to someone that doesn't want to work?" I hope you can see how that's been working out around the world.

Don't get me wrong... there are people who really need a hand. I was once on food stamps for about six weeks. That really helped me through a difficult time and I am grateful and not opposed to doing the same for others. However, I found work and have never since burdened the welfare system again. My problem is with people who find it easier to simply live their lives on welfare when they are perfectly capable of earning a living. But then, these are some of the people the Democrats cater to... it's in the best interest of the Democrats to keep these people on welfare as it guarantees their vote to help maintain the Democrat's power. There's a brilliant quote below that says: "It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats ... yet they are still disadvantaged." In all of my 58 years of life I have always heard of the woes of the poor and how the Democrats have the plan to fix it. When are they ever going to make good on that promise? They've certainly had enough chances! Now my Democrat friends argue that the Republicans have had a lot of chances to help the disadvantaged, too... why doesn't their system work? Simple, the Republicans only provide the opportunities to succeed, it's up to the individual to make the effort. If you don't want to make the effort, well... you never will. You'll just have to keep voting for the Democrats so the welfare doesn't run out. Yes, that's cold, but that's how it is. If you really can't make the effort, help will be there, that's the original purpose of welfare.

One of the more interesting ideas I've heard of is the complete removal of Federal income tax altogether. Replace it with a sales tax just like we currently see in our states. Allow certain items to be exempt: food, medicine, etc. so that the truly needy not be burdened. In this fashion, the rich pay a lot (well, they have money and spend it), the middle class pays a bit (need that new car), and the poor can get by (no frills, but no taxes either)... without any game playing of tax sheltering. There is one problem with this approach: the politicians... yes, both Dems and Reps will have problems with it simply because so much campaigning is done based on taxes. Wouldn't it be interesting to remove that cloudy issue from your choice of candidates? Think about it.

Let's play with another thought: say Obama gets put into the White House. A Democrat House of Representatives, a Democrat Senate, A Democrat President, 1 or 2 judges away from a Democrat Supreme Court, ACORN happily supporting the Democrats in voting fraud, and the left biased media of ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, etc. Hmmmm... does that sound like a good check and balance to you? I suspect the great people of America won't let this get completely out of control... or will we even have the chance? And if they do get everything they want, how long will it take to ram the "Fairness Doctrine" down our throats? That's the legislation that will basically silence the conservative news talk radio system. Who will be next to be silenced? Fox news? This isn't simply the road to Socialism, it's the road to a dictatorship! So you better hurry up and watch these videos... you might not get the chance later.

One observation: having been on both sides of this argument, I've realized a curiosity. As a liberal, I was horrified at what I saw on the media and how we were always in dire straights due the to the sneaky games the Republicans were playing. Now, as a conservative, I feel exactly the same against the Democrats! Though this time I finally understand that it was the mainstream media (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS...) that was poisoning me with one-sided information. Now the sad part of it all is that I only have Fox news to watch. Well... at least now I do have something to watch! Many of my liberal friends complain how biased Fox is to the right, but have they heard of Hannity and Colmes? Colmes is hard for me to listen to at times, but I do hear him. Even OReilly puts BOTH Democrats and Republicans on for a good old shouting match. Think carefully about this: what point of view do you get to hear on ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS? There are ALWAYS two sides to an argument! How can you make a decision based on one side of a story? The answer for me had been: because I grew up on one side, that is, I thought as my parents did. I thought as my friends did. Later, the educators overstepping their bounds and promoting one political party was another influence that kept me in the dark. Ring any bells? Thank God I grew out of it.

One final thought: isn't it curious that no matter which side of the aisle you're on, ABC, CBS, NBC is always bad news??? Be that as it may, the obvious bias in the media news networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS...) became so frustrating that I simply needed an outlet to vent frustration due to the sheer religious fervor surrounding the news reporting of one Mr Barack Obama. The slice and dice dissections of John McCain and Sarah Palin were beyond count and yet Mr Obama stands beyond inspection. Who is this guy? What has he done? I keep hearing about Palin's lack of experience and yet she's at least governed a US state! All I hear is that Obama was a lawyer, is a senator without much distinction, and once performed some local function that's way below even a town mayor's position and responsibility. Oh... that's right, Palin WAS a mayor. The media keeps comparing McCain and Obama for suitability as President, yet as I see it, Palin herself is more qualified than Obama!!!

Got this in an email today:

Who Am I?

I am not yet 45 years old;
I love the outdoors; I hunt;
I am a Republican reformer;
I have taken on the Republican Party establishment;
I have 6 children;
I am on the Republican Party's National Ticket for Vice President of the United States;
I have less than two years in Office as A State Governor. Did you know, guess, or figure it out ? Answer is at the bottom of this page...

Got another one in the email:

What do the top ten poorest cities have in common?

Each August, the government releases detailed estimates about poverty. This report is called Income, Earnings and Poverty Data from the 2006 American Community Survey. The census data can serve as a snapshot to show how a large city is faring. The ranking, including the percentage in poverty, is as follows:
1. Detroit, 32.5
2. Buffalo, 29.9
3. Cincinnati, 27.8
4. Cleveland, 27.0
5. Miami, 26.9
6. St. Louis, 26.8
7. El Paso, 26.4
8. Milwaukee, 26.2
9. Philadelphia, 25.1
10. Newark, 24.2

All of these cities have an interesting thing in common. Again, answer at the bottom of this page...

Jun 17, 2009

I was born in one country, raised in another. My father was born in another country. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with numerous women.

I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me. My mother died at an early age from cancer.

Later in life, questions arose over my real name. My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.

I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was widely accepted in my country, but I practiced non-traditional beliefs & didn't follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny.

I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them.

That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career. I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.

I became active in local politics in my 30's then with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s. They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything. That reinforced my conceit. 

I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet.

I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances. This bolstered my ego. At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy... I was very critical of my country in the last war and seized every opportunity to bash my country. 

But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better and every poor person would be fed & housed for free.

I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess. It was the free market, banks & corporations. I decided to start making citizens hate them and if they were envious of others who did well, the plan was clinched tight. 

I called mine "A People's Campaign" and that sounded good to all people.  I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics & was able to gain widespread popular support. 

I knew that, if I merely offered the people 'hope' , together we could change our country and the world.

So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include "persecuted minorities" like the Jews. My true views were not widely known & I needed to keep them unknown, until after I became my nation's leader.

I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with.

I'm glad they didn't, because I became the most powerful man in the world. And then the world learned the truth.

Who am I???

Adolf Hitler

Who were you thinking about?

This is a link to the page I had during the election of 2008. I keep it here for posterity so someday I can tell you "I told you so"... oh, looks like that ship has already sailed.

The 2008 Election

I feel another topic coming on...

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."

Don't believe it? Look here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

I'll pick this up again when the latest mess calms down... it gets pretty interesting.

If you think many millions of dollars of campaign funding was impressive, wait till you hear about...