FREEDOMFRONT

Your Election Bible!

2012-01-30T23:00:00.002-05:00

Yes, I'm back! I know you missed me but you can relax, take a breath, and carry on with your life. So, let's jump right in to it, shall we?

Tomorrow marks the final day of the Florida Republican primaries. After several days of early voting we are finally going to settle down for the results. This is important because Florida is the largest state to have a primary to date. We will likely be the "make or brake" state for the so called "second tier" candidates like Paul and Santorum.

Now, ask me who I am voting for.. go ahead, ask.. Well, I will tell you anyway! lets take a look at each presidential hopeful.

Romney: This polished turd is the leader of the "good ol' boys club". If he beats out the others he will be forced to run against Obama who used "Romney-care" as a model for "Obama-care". This is tant-amount to having a violent rapist prosecute Jack the Ripper for rape. To believe that it is okay on a smaller level but evil on a larger level is absurd, insane, and irreconcilable. Beyond health care, Romney has shown us through the years that he is willing to believe and espouse whatever he needs to to get elected. He ran against Teddy Kennedy as a "left of Teddy" liberal, then as an "anti-Reagan" Republican. He ran against McCain as "more McCain than McCain". Now He is running against other Republicans as "the moderate" who can beat Obama by stealing votes from Indy's and disgruntled lefties. After he bastardises the Republican brand, third party kooks would help the Dems take over the whole deal for the next eight years and all will be lost.

President Romney? I expect him to be Clinton-esque, in that, he will likely run the executive branch with a finger on the pulse of the voters in hope's of finishing his term with a solid (yet undeserved) legacy. He will surely turn the economy around but at what cost? Since he lacks a moral compass, there is no telling what sacrifices we will be forced to make to help keep his crap from stinking in the nose of the mindless masses.

Newt: This guy is damaged goods. Don't get me wrong, he is brilliant, and probably a sincerely great guy. But the taste he left in the mouths of his foes in the '90s was so wretched that I can still smell it on their collective breath. I remember him then, in fact, he inspired me more than anyone else to really know my history as it pertains to politics. My problem with Newty is that he is the antithesis of Romney. While Mitt is willing to go to any length to land the title of President, Newt is willing to go to even farther to obtain the power of the Presidency. He admired the tyrannical omnipotence of the late FDR and often speaks of him as the "greatest president since the founders". He reckons that the true measure of a president is not what he can convince congress to do, it is what he can do by himself (regardless of Constitutionality). Newt, like Obama, believes that the good of the people is far too complicated for the low life citizenry to comprehend and that he must act on our behalf. While a good portion of what he wants to do could have been ripped right out of the pages of my own book, it is his righteousness that I cannot subscribe to.

President Newt: In like a lion, out like a lamb! If Newt is elected then it is safe to assume that there will be a congressional Republican takeover as well. I mean, for him to win there would have to be a tidal wave of conservative wannabe's voting and indy's would have to stay home, not likely but not impossible. With his arrogance and attitude, even those who voted for him would tire of his banter. By the second year of his administration he would lose both houses of congress and be stuck in a political stalemate for the remainder of his tenure. Though he would likely be able to stop the disasters set in place by Obama (Obama-care, social uprisings like the Occupy movement, WWIII), the backlash would turn Obama's "new deal" into some kind of prophetic crusade for the left. Between the media mafia and the socio-political ground swell, Newt may very well become the first Republican to be Impeached.. and do so in record time. The pendulum will swing hard to the left but the vacuum will draw it quickly back to the right. We would only be looking at about four years of total Democratic control before people come to their senses again.

Paul: He is just plain weird! However, I can get on board with most (*!!!MOST!!!*) of what the funny little man says he believes. Where old Ron and I part is foreign policy. He seems to think that bullies only bully because they are being bullied. This notion is absurd! When one grows large, others want to take what they have, when one stays small others take what they have, didn't this guy ever go to grade school? Everyone wants to beat up the small guy and everyone wants to gang up on the big guy, it happens in school, at work, in jail, in court, and on the National Geographic channel. It is built in to every life form known to man... except for Ron Paul! To think that one nation could build a giant wall and defend itself from the rest of the universe, while being completely self supportive, is tactically absurd. Military bases exist because we keep bringing the fight to the enemies (in small battles) rather than allowing them to pool their resources and attack us from all sides at once. Next time you play hide and seek, try having everyone hide together and let me know how that works out for you.

President Paul: When Obama swore that he would close Guantanamo within his first hundred days, I told everyone that it wouldn't happen. Once a president gets into office he learns all of the truths that only he is privy to, that much reality changes everything. Doctor Paul will get there and be informed that the military will continue doing as it has done for hundreds of years and Paul will be handed a speech explaining why he has changed his mind about foreign policy. How he does on his fiscal policy will hinge solely on what happens with the congressional election. If he rides in on a conservative tidal wave, he might actually be able to convince the powers that be that his policies can work. Under those circumstances I could see him getting some dramatic legislation passed but it will then get tangled in the deadly web of our judicial system. The backlash would be as fierce as Newts but equally short. In the long view, Ron Paul will some day (long after his passing) be thought of as revolutionary who was well ahead of his time.

Santorum: Steeped in faith, tethered to conviction, and guided strictly to his moral compass, This guy says what he believes and believes what he says. Sadly, many people do not believe as he does. Still, I think that if the media mafia would pull the ball gag off of his face and let him out of the trunk of their shiny black '65 caddy, his ideology would resonate with Biblical intensity. The vast majority of Americans carry some part of this guy within their hearts. He, like the rest of us, tries to consider all of the variables when taking a position. When those variables change, or new ones appear, he re-enters the equation and works to improve his position. Santorum has a fundamental platform with which he builds all of his thoughts. He is a Constitutional Constructionist, and longs for the nation that we would have been not for the parasitic infection of the early progressive socialist movement. The only part of his campaign that casts a shadow is his apparent doctrine of crusade. He seems, to most, like the guy who would force people to be good to each other. As harmless as that sounds, the executive branch is meant to be more limited than that. The governments job is to prevent people from being bad to each other, not force them to be nice. If this seems like I'm splitting hairs, just ask and I will lay out the difference.

President Santorum: His highly religious persona will give the Muslim world cause to ramp up their efforts to take down the great Satan (you know, us). To them it will appear as if we have hired a preached to escalate the God vs Allah cage match and they will respond with something resembling a submission hold. Being a man of faith, integrity, and inner strength, Santorum will be forced to play his military hand and we could just set off world war three. By this time, however, he will have made great strides to repair the global economy by shipping low paying menial jobs to the collapsed Euro-nations and ramping up the free market here at home. Europe and middle Asia will be eager to join and fight with us in order to get a glimpse of our new military technology. We will win the war, renew the long lost American pride, and even future democrats will look like the Republicans of today.

Yes, I am sure you know who I support by now. Since I tend to take the long view at things I have decided that Santorum is the only fellow running that I would cast a vote for. If not him, then Obama! (possibly Paul).. I figure Romney and Newt are simply going to allow the infection to fester within and cause a slow painful death. We might as well push Obama back in to office so that the fever peaks, the wound tears open, the puss flows out, and the disease is exposed quickly and violently so that everyone realizes just what needs to be done.

New Direction

2011-02-02T08:22:00.002-05:00

If you've noticed my lack of blog movement lately, it's because things have changed. I am changing with the times and moving into the future. I am now part of IPN, an internet radio network, and can often be heard on the Fritch Show. I am also working on getting my own show which will totally replace this blog. I ask that you go to WWW.FritchShow.com on weekdays from 10:00am eastern till noon and listen to this amazing new forum. While you're at it, check out all of the programming that IPN has to offer!

Return the Beacon

2011-01-18T08:36:00.002-05:00

Roughly 240 years ago a small group of self educated, self reliant men gathered in pubs to spread an idea. These guys new that their idea would never be accepted by a majority because the necessary action would require a level of bravery and sacrifice unlike any witnessed in recorded history. Another thing these fellows knew, beyond doubt, was that there would be enough rugged individuals who embodied the American spirit and would be willing to pay any price to earn their freedom. A freedom to be responsible for their own futures based on their own merits, this is real freedom. Modern Americans seem to have lost touch with the very same rugged individualism that earned them the freedoms that they have since forsaken in the name of comfort and security.This complacency has been chipping away at everything from education to social interaction and represents one of the biggest problems with modern society.

After winning the Revolutionary War, our founders gathered to create a new style of government. This government would be the first of its kind, in that; the citizens would be the focus of the entire system. They realized that the war would never have happened, and freedom would never have been gained, if the decision had been left to democracy and the majority. The American Revolution was, after all, only supported by about 30% of Americans. Knowing the inherent oppression created by Democracy, our founders turned to a near facsimile of the Roman Republic. In this system, Republicanism, the minority has power equal to the majority rather than being subject to the whim of the masses. In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson said “though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect”. Jefferson also said “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits”. The idea of Americanism, at least until Andrew Jackson introduced Democracy, was that the federal government would have very limited powers and only be responsible (on a social level) for preventing citizens from interfering in each other’s personal freedoms. Under this system our nation blossomed at inconceivable rates and the rest of the world rode on its coat tails.

The global rise of socialism (a byproduct of democracy), at the end of the nineteenth century, brought with it a new sense of entitlement. Many self proclaimed socialists were entering the political horse race with promises of financial security- a chicken in every pot. The cost of that financial security, according to the new progressives, would fall on an unpopular minority; the rich. This oppression of a minority set precedence for future generations who learned that they could forgo their personal obligations as long as the majority had democratic power. With each passing generation the lessons of self reliance slowly turned into lessons on social reliance and the individual grew ever weaker. Ridiculous is the premise that a society comprised of the weak and held together by strict governance is stronger than a society of strong individuals who find communal adhesion through shared religious and philosophical beliefs. America is now following the rest of the world into the downward spiral created by the vacuum that results when productivity is replaced by consumption.

The political battle between the ideologies has boiled to a bubbling head with American progressive leaders claiming that their opponents are “clinging to their guns and religion” while constructionists suggest that the weak and unsuccessful are clinging to social programs and mob rule. The purpose of this essay, however, is much less political than it might seem at this point. The solution to the societal woes, so rooted in political dependency, starts, not with a political movement, but at home. Public education plays a role but a role which is not as vast as most would expect. The term teacher, as it refers to our sanctioned education system, is a colossal misnomer: the better term might be tellers. These are the folks who have generally been taught what to teach, irrespective of their own rational influence. As teachers tell students what is known (or accepted as known) by others, it is up to the student to run the information through his/her own system of rationalization; that system is built at home. Parents have the primary responsibility of creating a foundation for the philosophy of their children and teaching them how to measure new information against their philosophy while measuring their philosophy against the new information. This process defines rationalization and keeps the power of learning in front of the power of teaching.

Past generations, the now relic rugged individuals, learned how to fend for themselves. From a very young age these Americans were exposed to the skills necessary to provide every basic necessity, and thus, were instilled with the confidence that they would always have total control over their own survival. Personal responsibility allowed the individual to assign his or her own worth rather than having the community assign it for them. Parents today could have a tremendous affect on the future of this nation, as well as the world, if they would take time to teach their children self reliance and personal responsibility. By teaching these kids the kind of life lessons that can only be learned through real experience, giving them the opportunity to fail “safely”, and passing on the concept of integrity, the tide of dependency can be turned.

There is no time better than the present to honor that small minority of brazen insurgents who risked everything to lay the foundation for a nation that they would never live long enough to enjoy. As a nation, we should let our children see us as we take care of our neighbors. We should, as families, join social groups and churches and get out of our houses. Expose our youth to nature, teach them to hunt and gather, teach them how to survive as individuals and to thrive in groups. Politicians are subject to the market forces, just as private industry is, so we must stop looking to them to “change” things for us and begin to change ourselves so that the politicians are forced to follow. With a little bit of gumption and some personal responsibility, we Americans can take back our freedom and return the beacon to that long lost hill that Ronald Regan once spoke so proudly of.

Ballot Initiatives are UnConstitutional!

2010-12-30T23:16:00.002-05:00

Many states have found a way of circumventing their state legislatures and putting bills (laws) directly on the ballot. Florida, for example, has a statewide indoor smoking ban that totally offends me. For the record; I’m not a smoker, nor do I wish to eat my meals where others are smoking.

The problem for me is that these kinds of laws are oppressive to minorities and highlight the fundamental flaw with Democracy as a system of government. I have often ranted about this topic before but the point behind my premise is applicable across the board so I feel compelled to spell it out again.

First let me clarify my position on the specific example of the smoking ban. To take the choice of whether to allow smoking or not away from the proprietor of a privately owned business in the back woods of Plant City and give it to the majority of Floridians who reside in Miami, Jacksonville, and Orlando (people who would never set foot in said business) is simply wrong.

The way these things are supposed to work is based on our free market system, not Democratic “mob rule”. In America (at least as I remember it) we have the right to go to which ever business we choose. Likewise, we can choose to avoid any business for any reason that strikes us. If there is a large demand for places in which smoking is not allowed, that market WILL be met. The beauty of the free market is that a smaller demand for establishments where smoking is allowed would not be denied. This reality is best summed by the old adage: When a conservative wants to stop eating meat he becomes a vegetarian. When a liberal wants to stop eating meat he makes meat illegal.

Beyond the question of right and wrong, there is a Constitutional component to the legality of these ballot initiatives. The concept of bypassing representative legislation and initiating popular government is known as Democracy. Webster’s Dictionary, in fact, defines Democracy as: “government by the people; especially : rule of the majority”.

On the other hand, Webster’s defines a Republican form of government as: “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law”. The difference should be very clear, Democracy allows the majority to have complete control at the expense of the minority while a Republic requires elected officials to act on behalf of all people at the expense of none.

The reason that these distinct differences are important boils down to the legality of State sanctioned Democracy. Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..” . Having seen all of these facts, how is it legal for the States Constitutionally guaranteed Republican government be bypassed by an act of pure Democracy?

If you think that my view of a Republic is flawed then read the words of Thomas Jefferson from his first inaugural address…

“all too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, AND SHALL NOT TAKE FROM THE MOUTH OF LABOR THE BREAD IT HAS EARNED.”

The New Urban Order

2010-12-19T16:06:00.001-05:00

“NO HOME, NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!” These are the words hand painted on a sign in the window of a vacant apartment building that had been forcefully taken over by homeless people in San Francisco. This movement, known as “take back the land”, started a few years ago but has gained much ground (no pun intended) over the past two years. To those who follow it, home ownership is simply a “natural human right”. The contention is that foreclosed homes belong to banks which were bailed out by taxpayers, and thus, owned by the people.

Maybe there is some truth to that statement but there seems to be something missing. For one, I would like to see the amount of taxes paid by the homeless compared to the amount paid by banks. Secondly, these “agents” (who are nothing but liberal activists) are forcing entry into foreclosed homes and showing them to potential squatters without legal authority. The stated intent of these individuals is to create such a huge draw on legal resources, including law enforcement officers, that they create a long term cushion for the squatters. The underlying intent, however, looks a lot more like socialism.

Below is an excerpt from a presentation by one of their leaders, S’bu Zikode, entitled ‘Re-imagining the City: A New Urban Order’.

“It is very nice to re-imagine the city. We can all start to imagine cities with good housing for everyone and then we can imagine affordable public transport and safe streets with beautiful trees, cool shady parks and welcoming schools, clinics, libraries and sports clubs. We can imagine and imagine cities where everyone’s humanity is respected and where everyone counts. It is very nice to imagine a city where no one has to live like a pig in the mud, where everyone is safe from fires, abuse, police raids, disconnections, evictions and political attacks…..Those who are in power today have the power to distribute our land fairly and freely to those who do not have land. Why have they betrayed us today? The answer is simple. If they do so they will be giving away the very power that makes them powerful.”

“In fact of all the people in society our demands are the most legitimat
e and the most reasonable because we are living in the worst conditions. The demands of those with the most money and power are the least legitimate. Logic as well as justice is on the side of our struggle to put the will of the many against the will of the few which is the only way to turn our imaginings of a new urban order into reality.”

If this sounds reasonable to you then there are a few questions you must ask yourself…

1. Do you believe that a house is a fundamental human right?

2. Are you prepared to build this free house yourself?

3. If you cannot build this free house, then who should be forced to build it for you for free?

4. Where do you think the free lumber, hardware, and supplies should come from and who should you enslave to supply them?

5. If you need to relocate, who should be enslaved to help you find a new free house?

6. What happens to all of the Real Estate agents who will now be forced to give away houses? After all, the commission on free is zero.

You see, nothing that must be provided through the labor of another is a “fundamental human right”. That is, of course, unless the provider is not subject to the right of personal liberty. If you are in accord with the ladder then you would have been quite at home in the former Soviet Union. Here in the USA, our personal liberty is guaranteed by the founding documents that form the base of our legal system.

Make no mistake; those who are propagating this movement are violent and dangerous. Although they profess to be a movement of peace, they are taking property from others and refuse to return this property by any means other than a retaliatory act of violence.

Taxes, Taxes, Taxes

2010-12-08T18:18:00.000-05:00

So the tax rate depends on your income? As far as the left is concerned, the rich deserve to be taxed more, after all, they can afford it. By this logic, if someone makes $250k annually then they deserve to pay 10% more than someone who makes $249,999.99 is required to pay. So the guy making a penny more is evil, more evil that is than the second guy right?

You’re right, that’s absurd. Maybe there should be a cushion for that penny difference right? So let’s let that guy slip under the line, and the guy making a penny less than him, and the guy making less than him etc… The fact is: there can be no fair line between the man with wealth and the poor guy making a penny less.

Another way to look at it is like this: it seems fair to think that someone making more than 10 times your annual income is doing ok, right? Let’s say you earn $25k annually, so 10 times that is $250k which fits the liberal idea of “too rich”. Granted, most people earn more than $25k, but we will work from a low income. Well I think we need to raise taxes on everyone earning more than 10 times my income, would you agree? Not so fast, my disability (my only income) is $2,988 a year. This means that everyone earning more than $30k will see an increase in their taxes. Why not? My number is just as logical as Obama’s is.

Obviously our economy would collapse if we cut middle class income by 10% or more. Even the left admits that simple fact. Since there is no fair way to divide one class of Americans from another, why don’t we stop trying. We could abolish income tax and either establish a universal income tax or a value added tax (national sales tax).

Our federal government is working on a boutique marketing scheme when they should be more like Wal-Mart. Boutiques provide tremendous service at a high price and to a niche market. The left thinks they can provide great service, at a high price, for everyone, and force everyone to use this service at their own expense. The right, on the other hand, wants the government to offer the cheapest crap available, at the lowest possible price, and allow you to choose where you go for your product. For the record, very few boutiques (if any) achieve the level of wealth and provide the number of jobs as Sam Walton has.

Thank You

2010-11-02T14:04:00.002-04:00

More than a year ago I introduced my readers to an unknown Senatorial candidate named Marco Rubio. At the time he was hardly a blip on the radar of Charlie Crist, or for most voters for that matter. I walked around preaching the word of Rubio and trying to get the common sense voters to look at him before voting for the liberal Republican.

I just want to say THANK YOU! Thanks for listening to me, thanks for listening to him, and thank you for carrying him up that great political hill.

To read my previous post about Rubio go to http://freedomfront.blogspot.com/2009/07/marco-rubio-effect.html

Presidential Tyranny

2010-11-02T13:55:00.000-04:00

Have you ever considered what it means to be diabolic? By strict definition the word dia-bolic means: opposing pressure. The concept is that contradictory forces are purposefully applied in order to prevent movement. In social cases this is known as “tyranny of the mind”. The military uses this tactic to create “war like stress” during training. Drill sergeants give orders to the trainees and punish them for following the orders, if the trainee refuses the orders he is punished the same. The stress created by this is known to be the closest facsimile to battlefield stress and prolonged exposure to this stress provides an opportunity to teach the soldiers how to react to situations under such stress.

I realize our government is not (necessarily) maliciously creating such stress but they are actively causing this tyranny over the minds of Americans. Take our new health care legislation for example; when asked about how the federal government would enforce the mandate that every American purchase insurance, Pelosi suggested that it would be “strictly enforced” Meanwhile, the administration hired countless new IRS agents in order to enforce their new federal law within the states.

Regarding the Arizona law that enforced federal immigration laws: Obama and his administration spent tax money trying to prevent enforcement of this established federal law because he does not like it.

When it comes to states like California and Arizona and their legalization of medical marijuana: Obama’s administration has promised not to pursue action against states which legalize the use of federally prohibited narcotics.

To sum it up.. Obama does not like federal immigration laws so he is actively preventing anyone from enforcing them. Obama does like the federal health insurance mandate so he has hired deputies to enforce it at the threat of violence. Obama does not like the federal law that absolutely prohibits the use of marijuana so he refuses to enforce the law at all.

The duty of the executive branch of government is to enforce the laws that are drawn by the legislative branch. If we have an executor who has chosen, based on his own agenda, which laws will or will not be enforced then we have a public official who is acting to purposefully contradict his duties. We also have a public official who has breached the Constitutionally provided separation of powers.

Regardless of whether this is an act of ignorance or malice, this is, by definition, an act of tyranny.

Stuck in the Middle Again

2010-10-27T22:34:00.001-04:00

The Left wing mantra, as constantly drilled into our heads by every single self proclaimed “progressive” with a microphone, is wrapped around the “rebuilding” of the middle class. The goal, as I understand it, is to create a nation of laborers so that we (America) can take the throne as the international leaders in industry. If you call yourself a progressive then I would love it if you would either tell me how I am wrong or explain how this works.

Based on my understanding of the progressive goal, I have some questions, accompanied by comments, for you lefties…

1. How do you intend to expand the middle class? The only way to force the expansion of the middle class is to either give money to the lower class or take money from the upper class, or both. This leads to the next question..

2. Who has the right, or power, to force the expansion of the middle class? Having read the Constitution, several times, I can tell you that the official answer is: Nobody! However, obviously the progressives have shown little respect for that particular document. This being the case, the only entity with the power to force an expansion of the middle class is the Federal Government (through the IRS).

3. Why would you want to expand the middle class? I have an answer for this question as well: Power! Other than that, creating a massive middle class makes no sense to me at all. It seems to me that you would want to help raise middle classers up to the upper class, thus expanding the upper class. If the majority of Americans are rich, they would have much more money to dedicate to charity. This would also offer more jobs so that the poor would have more opportunities as well.

4. Why would you want a nation of laborers? I can make $10 an hour building widgets, or I can sell 10 widgets an hour and make $20 an hour without the physical stress. Meanwhile, I can be providing jobs for the 10 guys who are doing the labor in some poverty stricken country, thus helping to create a burgeoning economy where there was none. Where is the evil in that?

You see, the widespread belief is that the right supports the rich and the left stands for the little guy. I am willing to accept this premise, are you? Well, both parties desire power, right? Logic then dictates that, in a Democratic Republic, those who gain power through the support of the little guy would necessarily need the majority to be little guys. Adversely, the group whose power depends on the support of the rich would need a majority of rich people. As one who has spent 40 years as the little guy, I am ready to try that rich thing now, therefore, I will be supporting those who need me to get rich.

We right wing not jobs would love to clear this whole mess up, therefore, I invite you, my political opponents, to explain where I am wrong. More to the point, I would love some justification for your political support.

KEEP IN MIND. This is the arena of ideas, politicians under every label have proven time and time again that they do not adhere to ideology. In this arena, there are no parties, just individuals seeking social cohesion.

Don't Blame Obama, Blame the Idiots We Elected in 2006

2010-10-22T23:46:00.001-04:00

It’s time I set the record straight for our myopic liberal friends. You morons keep claiming that the mess we are in is because of Bush and that Obama just hasn’t had enough time to fix it. If you are one of these part time, media informed, Dems, I understand your ignorance, but, If you are perpetuating this nonsense then you are a complete dirt bag.

The hard facts only serve to prove just how dangerous it can be to give the left wing nut-jobs control over our media and our economy. While it is true that the economy started its downturn during the Bush era, he only had a small part in the problem. The truth is that the Democrats took over both houses back in 2006 and the president does not write laws, nor does he control the pocket book.

The toughest thing for the left to choke on is the fact that this entire recession happened under their control. I challenge you to look up ANY economic, social or political graph and watch the upward climb shift to a downward collapse upon the election of 2006. Let me give you a couple of examples..

During the republican era, one dollar worth of gasoline got Americans farther than ever before. The price averaged less than $2.00 per gallon and cars had reached new levels of efficiency. Since the Democratic era, gasoline has averaged $3.00 per gallon with marginal increases in fuel mileage.

While the Republicans were in charge, unemployment broke modern era records. After Clinton explained that his unemployment record was perfect, since 5% of Americans would simply never work, the Republicans got the level down to 4.7% by the 2006 election. The following year, after the Democratic congress took control, unemployment began to rise, only to reach levels near 10% (more than twice the worst of the Republican era).

The Republican era also held the record for home ownership at more than 70% but averaged 69%. Since the election of 2006, home ownership has fallen steadily to 66%. The left wing attempt to recover this loss by making credit easier for those who did not earn it was, in fact, mostly responsible for the credit collapse that led to this recession. Their other responses, borrowing money from Americans to give money to Americans, have served as the driving force for the continued collapse of our economy.

This goes on forever, the facts do not lie. I admit that things are a bit more complicated than I’ve explained but I am willing to debate the details if you dispute me. So, as for you lefties, you have tried your ideas for four years, since things were actually good, and you have screwed up everything. Just take some friendly advice and SHUT THE HELL UP!

The other thing I get a kick out of is the “Progressive” mentality that the right is trying to knock America backwards 100 years. For you progressives, this seems like the opposite of progress so you think it would be horrible. Well, let’s look at things 100 years ago compared to what you’ve done to us today.

During the beginning of the 20th century, immigrants were flooding into our country at a rate of roughly 20% per year. Almost 2,000,000 legal immigrants entered in 1909 and we, as a nation, still maintained 3% unemployment. Now the number of unemployed is 300% higher.

GDP was on an unbelievable incline during the early 1900s and has only fallen during periods of total Democratic control; including the great depression and our current recession. There were no income taxes during that time and America became the only country in the world to farm millionaires, that is, more were made here than in the rest of the world combined. Today, the Dems have created a tax system that punishes that kind of success and they proudly work toward forcing anyone who is successful back down to the middle class.

The truth is that left wing ideology has failed everywhere, and every time, it has been tried. Just look at Europe, Canada, South America, and the rest of the world who has run out of other people’s money to spend and are looking at us for help. In fact, look at the Democrats in control who have done exactly the same thing.

SERIOUSLY?

2010-10-15T22:27:00.000-04:00

Today I decided to risk my sanity and subject myself to a full day of left wing talk radio. I tuned in to American Left on my satellite radio, duct taped my head, and began to work on a few of my projects. Needless to say, my neighbors frequently felt compelled to remind me that the morons talking on the radio could not hear my arguments, regardless of how loud I was.

Since I was unable to convey my ration, reason, and logic to the intellectually challenged elitists who preached their common senselessness, I’ve decided to vent my grievances here. If I have learned anything, however, I have a better understanding of how the libs feel when Rush glosses over the in-depth explanations of his ideology.

There were many statements made that made my skin crawl but one penetrated me like no other. There was a long conversation about the new Tea Party movement and the rise of neo-conservatism. These self proclaimed progressives were convinced that the right wing surge was a “NAZI-like” build up of “fascist socialism”. Yes, the leftists think that Republicans are like Hitler and that they crave socialism. HAVE THESE IDIOTS BEEN PAYING ATTENTION?

It’s not as if their own literature is loaded with socialist propaganda or anything, wait, it’s just like that. Well, it’s not as if the progressives have ever shown any appreciation for Marxism, in fact, they are rooted in the writings of Marx and take pride in being “anti-capitalist”. So clearly the Republicans favor the Hitler campaign agenda which included; nationalized public transportation, heavy federal funding for education, single payer health care, renewable energy, abortion rights, tax increases for the rich, strong labor unions, and social justice.

Seriously, how can these so called intellectuals profess that the right wing is working toward fascist socialism with a straight face? It is freedom, liberty, and opportunity which we crave, not fascism and defiantly not socialism.. morons!

So if you call yourself progressive, liberal, independent, or even conservative, I challenge you to explain and defend your ideology against me. After all, if you support Obama and his agenda, you may have very good reasons for this, but, you are very much un-American! If, on the other hand, you call yourself conservative, you need to know why and be prepared to defend that stance as well.

Food Stamps: Setting the Record Straight

2010-10-10T09:36:00.000-04:00

I understand (and share) the commonly held level of disrespect for those who live their lives as wards of the state. That is, those who refuse to pull their weight as they collect welfare, food stamps, and even child support. I also share the desire to force welfare recipients to pass the same drug tests that working folks are subjected to in order to receive the desired benefits. For that matter, I agree that WIC recipients should be held to a certain level of nutritional value as they are being partially supported by taxpayer funds in order to feed their children.

Where I differ from those who I would otherwise agree with is in the area of food stamps. Currently there is a movement towards forcing nutritional value on food stamp recipients. The first step is to ban the purchase of “sugary soft drinks” on the IBT card. I feel that this attempt to control the diets of food stamp recipients is asinine.

In order to support my case I must first explain something that most people do not understand about food stamp distribution. For a great number of the food stamp recipients, the stereotype of “ward of the state” applies, however, this is not nearly universal. Food stamps are also allocated to disabled veterans. In cases where a veteran is in the process of rehabilitation and unable to work, the state provides food stamps as part of the package.

Think about this; for roughly twenty years I was paying into the tax base, handing a portion of my meager earnings to the government as part of the huge safety net. At one point I was making better than $60K annually while paying one third of my income into taxes and one third into child support (neither by choice). The remaining pittance covered my basic needs and left virtually nothing to put away for a rainy day.

As the government ripped one third of my check out from under me, I was given no power over what they did with the money. I could not tell the IRS that certain expenditures were potentially hazardous to our economy or even our collective health. They invested poorly and grew an unprecedented level of debt.

Meanwhile, I enlisted in the military, was seriously injured, and was medically separated. My injury prevented me from working in any field where my skills and experience would provide an opportunity. As a result of this disability, I am enrolled in the Voc-Rehab program and currently working toward an engineering degree. Once I have achieved this degree I intend to re-enter the workforce and once again become a contributor. In the mean time, I am receiving state food stamp benefits in order to help the ends meet.
Is it fair that the government can store my earnings, against my wishes, and when I need some of that money back they can tell me how the money can be spent. Had I been allowed to invest my own money and build a nest egg, I would not need food stamps and I would be able to eat as I choose. So how long will it be before our government decides to take everyone else’s money and allocates their own idea of a healthy diet to you?

Latteral Blast

2010-10-05T13:43:00.002-04:00

For most of America, politics is something that other people worry about. The changes in laws and policies, as laid out by our governing body, have a very gradual effect on normal people. So gradual is this effect that most people cannot identify these changes other than by expressing how different things were when they were young. Much like the tremors that emanate from deep inside the Earth along various fault lines, political tremors usually get some amount of public attention but only for a very short time.
These subtle shifts take place as political tectonics create pockets of pressure and then release only to temporary settle until pressure rebuilds. As with our continental plates, the political landscape bears the scars of generations of social upheavals and powerful opposing forces. Where our nation holds the evidence of this constant geographic struggle in the form of mountains and fault lines, our people also carry with them the results of every decision ever made on a governing level.

You see, rarely does one generation get to actually witness the creation or destruction of a mountain. This is a slow and constant process that seems nearly invisible to the untrained individual. Scientists, on the other hand, know what to look for and are watching carefully as the Earth changes shape right before their eyes.

Politics work the same way. For those who know not what to look for, things do not seem to change much. For those who are tuned in, things seem to be changing relatively rapidly. In fact, the minor tremors and subtle shifts seem to be hitting at a record pace.

When Mt Saint Helens erupted back in the 1980s, it had been dormant for quite some time. As the eruption approached, the tell tale tremors and the burps of smoke suggested that something was about to happen. Suddenly the signs began to slow down significantly and volcanologist David A. Johnston was sent to investigate. With Johnston on the mountain, the massive volcano gave way to the pressures beneath it and the giant mountain blew itself apart. Mr. Johnston’s camera was found and pictures of the approaching pyroclastic flow were developed but as for David Johnston, well, “Vancouver!, Vancouver!, this is it!” were his final words and his body was consumed by the Earth.

So the question is: Do you want to be David Johnston and have a building named after you? Or do you want to be the guy that sees this thing coming and pushes others out of its way? The tremors will slow, the smoke will thin, and the noise will fall silent just before the landscape undergoes a catastrophic change that will alter the political landscape forever. Please spread the word, let your friends know that something is brewing and things may soon be different. Pay attention to the signs but may more attention to the signs that seem to go away!

My Dictionary

2010-10-04T21:53:00.002-04:00

We hear a barrage of terms thrown at us like FREEDOM, LIBERTY, CONSERVATIVE, LIBERAL, REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, and many others, but do we really understand what they mean? One of the big ones is “anti-American” and this term is embraced by all side every political debate as a weapon against the others.
Having spent a short time sitting at a bar debating with the lovely young lady sitting next to me, I realized just how muddy political terms really are. I feel compelled to try to filter (or at least skim) some of this mud out of our political pool. Please allow me to define, in my own words, some mainstream political jargon..
These definitions are strictly traditionalist and do not apply to the bastardidation perpetuated by our current political parties.

REPUBLICAN: A government in which a constituency chooses a representative who will make government decisions on behalf of the people, regardless of the popularity of said decisions. This is an outcome based system where the representative is given the benefit of the doubt during his term but is held responsible for his decisions during the elections. This is how most corporations are operated as the boss makes executive decisions but can be deposed if the company shows a loss.

DEMOCRATIC: A government in which each decision made must be done so with popular approval so that everyone takes part in running things. One problem with democracy is that only the majority gets the power. I have never heard of a successful business that is run as a democracy. Imagine if the employees of your company had the right to vote for the rules, the pay would be high, productivity would be low and vacations would be long, but the profit would never be made and the place would collapse.

FREEDOM: If you think you are a liberal then you totally misunderstand this principle. Freedom means that you get to choose how you want to live as long as you do not impede the freedom of someone else. You are not guaranteed the freedom from insults, failure, homelessness, poverty, illness or ignorance. You have the freedom provide a service for whatever price you and the consumer agree on without a portion of that money being taken from you to provide for any other citizen. You also have the freedom to be as useless as you might choose to be.

PATRIOTIC: No, dissent is not the highest form of patriotism. Your forefathers gave their lives to give you the freedom to screw up your own, it is far from patriotic to give up that freedom in the name of security. Patriotic means loving all that your country is made of and working to keep it that that way. Progressives need not apply, you are far from patriotic.

UNAMERICAN: To be “Americanistic” you must be willing to get your hands dirty but eager to find an easier way. You must be willing to accept that score must be kept or the game is not worth playing. You must know that companies are not greedy, consumers are. No company can force you to buy their product without government involvement and the American government is not supposed to have that much power. You must acknowledge that no amount of money is “too much”, and that we all have the same chance to go get that money. You must see that you have no right to anything that must be provided by someone else, that includes health care. If you disagree with any of these premises then you are probably UnAmerican.

CONSERVATIVE/LIBERAL: Conservatives want to make laws telling you what you cannot do, Liberals want to make laws telling you what you can, and must, do.

LIBERTERIAN: These folks just want to be left alone. I lean that way but I feel we need a small amount of governing to keep things working.

LAWYER: One who cannot add 2 and 2 so they have the second two stricken from the evidence and win by default. These guys usually become Democratic politicians.

Feel free to ask about any other definitions in which you may not be clear.

The "Electable" Candidate

2010-09-18T20:22:00.003-04:00

Listening to talk radio, I have heard conservatives on both sides of the issue. I am glad to finally hear some sense of reason slowly take over the "party first" mentality. There are, however, many morons who are still stuck on the idea that electability is more important than core principles. Sadly, some of these morons are very high profile.

I understand the view, held by these partisans, that a candidate who supports some of your ideals, and has a chance at winning, is better than losing to one who totally disagrees with you. It makes perfect sense to consider a grat, but "unelectable", candidate a non factor and choose to vote against the worst of the evils. This is especially true when the elections are permanent.

The problem comes when these elections are short term, as in our political system. The current state of our country, both socially and economicly, is a direct result of this mentality. Hopefully I can clearly explain my position on this debate, I will try. I will also use conservatism in my example but I would like for you liberals to apply the same logic to your side as well.

Starting with Ronald Reagan, since he represents the closest thing to the perfect Republican, and following through to today, we have seen a stady movement towards the left from Republicans. This has happened because voters have allowed it to.

Think about this, after Ronald the great we had to choose between George H. W. Bush and Dukakis. Nobody knew anything about Bush, other than his having VP to Ronnie, but Dukakis was an easy target. Republicans learned that conservative ideology did not win elections, the fear of liberal ideology wins elections.

In 1992 we saw a three way race involving Bush, Clinton and Perot. Perot drew votes from both sides but mostly the right. This split gave a very narrow win to Slick Willy. This became the "posterchild" election for those who fear a third candidate.

The following election had a Bill Clinton who had suffered the first loss of both houses of Congress in several decades and was presenting himself as a moderate. This crowded Bob Dole and Perot into a small corner of the electorate and taught the Republicans that elections are won in the middle.

After Clinton, Republicans chose a moderate to go against Al Gore, giving us George W Bush. He ran, not as a right wing conservative, but as a compassionate (progressive) conservative. Republicans learned that Unhappy right wingers would hold their nose and support a potentially liberal Republican over a left wing Democrat.The strategy worked and republicans eventually gained both houses as well as the presidency.

As Republicans moved leftwards they gained votes. They only needed to stay just right of the opposition. Whilst many right wingers were vocal about their opposition to this method, they continued to throw their grudging support behind the Republican with the best chance of beating the Dem. This showed up in internal polling and only served to encourage this leftward slide.After all, as long as we keep accepting progressive Republicans at the threat of losing to the socialists, why would the party look for true conservatives?

This phoenamena has a natural oscillation to it. As the over confident Liberals move to the left they will begin to lose votes to the right. When they finally notice the trend they will push back towards the center and the Republicans, who have been easily winning, will start to slide to the right. This cycle will repeat until, either the end of time, or everyone starts reading this blog.

I want to force the tide. We can stop this cycle if we just vote our conscience. If the Republicans start losing two things will happen. First, they will start looking at where their votes are going. When they realize they are losing a great deal of votes to conservatives they will be forced to move towards that direction and regain their base. Meanwhile, the left will be screwing things up so bad that even the moderates will be compelled to try voting for the right wingers.

It will suck during the short term but our kids will love us for it. Oh and I don't want to hear about Supreme Court Justices. SCOTUS can only review law, not make it. The liberal weenies in that branch of government cant force socialism, they can partially stifle capitalism but that is still a short term problem. As time passes, so will the hippies in our Judicial branch.

Back in business

2010-09-05T08:41:00.002-04:00

Finally I've got my new computer! Now I am immersed in school and doctors appointments but I will try to post more often now. Thank you for your patience and stay tuned!

The Face of Islam

2010-08-09T12:30:00.002-04:00

It seems like every time we turn around some Muslim group is making a great effort to piss us off. Meanwhile the other part of the Islamic world, that is the majority, stands by and quietly condones their actions. At least, that is the way it feels.

Just Imagine how you would act if you were a Christian and small but powerful factions of Christians were sweeping the world and forcing, at the point of a sword, every group they encounter to convert to your religion. I would think you would be torn, enough so that you begin rationalizing your response (or lack thereof) in order to ease their conscience. Part of you is afraid of becoming a target of those who are spreading right through wrong. Another part of you may want to stand up for the victims and fight for their right to deny or even hate your religion. For most people, they would turn their eyes from the evils and accept that the ends justifies the means.

This is exactly what happened roughly 500 years ago when the Christians did exactly that, they ran around the world forcing their religion on everyone they met. Meanwhile, millions of "real" Christians stood by and allowed virtual genocide. It is a part of our history that we are afraid to think of because it is downright shameful, at the same time, most of us are kind of, for lack of a better term, happy with the results. The international acceptance of Christianity feels pretty good compared to what people must have experienced a thousand years ago.

Nearly 500 years after Christ brought his message to the middle east, another great profit unified the religions of that territory. The Muslims believe that their profit was sent by God to bring peace to the world but that he was merely human but nearly as perfect as any human could be. They worship his actions not his divinity. Their Bible is very similar to the Christian Bible and they believe in all of the same things, in fact, they consider Christ to be an important profit as well. They are not much different than Christians were at the same time (roughly 1500 years) in their history.

Some time in our future, the Muslims will come to accept Christians as brothers, just as Christians consider Jews to be our brothers now. While Christians have added Christ and his teachings to the Bible of the Jews, Muslims have added their own profit to our Bible. The fact is; we are all in this together, Christians, Jews, Muslims and nearly every other faith that celebrates a single God came from the Zoroastrians that were handed the very first instruction manual so long ago.

Knowing this, it is time to reconsider a few unfounded and unreasonable opinions. First of all, we tend to look at all Islamic people with some level of suspicion. It is hard to tell the good from the bad just by looking into their eyes. Imagine again what it must have been like for good Christians during the Crusades. Maybe we should consider the often repeated phrase "trust but verify" when confronted by this suspicion. It is wrong to condemn people for the actions of those who claim to lead them.

Regarding the proposed building of the Islamic worship center near "ground zero", I refuse to make any effort to stop them. I would be violently opposed to anyone who would prevent me from expressing my right to practice my religion in any place where I choose under the guise of hatred for the actions of some radical christian group. This freedom is Guaranteed by our Constitution and I am not one to pick and choose which rights we protect based on popularity. Having said that, I think it was a senseless move by those who intend to do it. If my religion had been hijacked by a group of radical thugs and crashed into Mecca I would certainly avoid rubbing salt into those wounds. These morons must know that they are starting something with this and it is only driving a bigger wedge between the two cultures.

If you are Muslim I want you to know that I respect your religion but you need to work towards a change in leadership. Believe me, I feel your pain... I would hate to be judged, as an American, by the actions of President Obama and it is very difficult to bring society to help me make that change in leadership. It is, however, vital to the future of America for me, and others like me, to work tirelessly to bring the necessary cultural changes to our nation. It is equally necessary for you to do the same.

Half Cocked

2010-07-28T22:41:00.002-04:00

First, I must apologize for my absence. My computer screen is broken so I have been without for a while (which is not all bad). Soon I will get back to writing.

Considering my computer issue, I have also been subjected to no other source of information, other than TV news and Talk radio. Neither source provides enough real information to make a complete analysis of any topic. So, rather than going off half cocked, I will ask some basic questions that, for me, came to mind when listening to local news reports.

BP..
Is BP responsible for paying Florida for advertising that the oil has had no effect on most of its beaches?
Did BP do anything to drive busines away from Florida?
Did the media portrey massave oil slicks on all of the gulf beaches, even though the mass majority saw no effect at all from the spill?
Should areas who have been economically devistated by the perception of the disaster look toward BP (who did nothing to spread fear) or the media who showed us every drop of oil that touched a grain of sand?

Arizona..
Did the federal government just tell a state that it was not their place to enforce federal laws?
If the fed starts passing laws matching state laws will it become illegal for the states to enforce them?
Is this a pathway to total federal control over the states?
If the federal government has laws that protect states, but refuses to enforce them, while preventing the states from enforcing them, what should the states do? What can they do? How can they protect themselves if the Fed binds their hands?

I am going to look into these and other questions and you are free to shoot me your answers or maybe even ask better questions. So, until I get this screen fixed, consider the possibilities.

PS: I cannot see my screen so if there are errors in my writing, ignore them... Or, close your eyes and post a response of equal length and tell me how hard it is for you!

God, Freedom and America

2010-07-09T08:42:00.005-04:00

As I wheeled myself out of the Ambulitary Care Unit and toward the pick up point in front of the James Haley Veterans Hospital, I started to come to a realization that I did not like.

My surgery was very basic, a soft tissue removal from my left foot. I will be back on my feet in a week or so, however, many at the VA are not so lucky. They are bound to their wheelchairs for the rest of their lives.

Rolling through the halls, I noticed the civillians looking away, acting as if I did not exist. I don't know if it was guilt or something else but people were very uncomfortable with my presence. I had two bum shoulders and a seriously bandaged foot, and no offers for help. I had to use short strokes in turning the wheels of my chair and it really hurt.

The designated pick up point was overrun with first timers who had no idea what to do so I decided to go down hill to the SCI (spinal cord injury unit) where my wife could pick me up without waiting for the crowd. It was there where I found God. Not that I did not know him already but it is at the SCI where he lingers with those who had given the most to protect our freedom. You see, many of our veterans have lost the use of their legs, arms and even their ability to speak. In my mind, a lifetime of painful memories and no way to share them or replace them with better ones, is far worse than giving ones life.

Now that I've gained a "Criple's eye view" into the souls of the speechless vets, I understand that, if not for God, they would have no one to talk to at all. Only faith keeps these fellows going. When you are at eye level with these guys, you cannot look away. You are forced to read their eyes and hear the longing for a simple conversation from the heart of a broken soldier.

I saw the local news guy talking about how the supreme court, along with the Constitution, has given every American the right to posess a firearm. He was so wrong! It is God that gives us our rights, all of them. It is our military who puts everything on the line to protect those God given rights. Then, it is our Constitution which prevents our government from taking our God given rights away from us.

Read your Constitution and look for anywhere where it gives us any rights. Our founders were careful to state that our rights were "inalienable" and each amendment points out what rights cannot be taken from us.

The point is.. You have your rights because God gave them to you. You keep those rights because American soldiers sacrifice their own on your behalf. So if you pass by a Soldier or a Vet, and you choose to ignore him rather than look him in the eye, what does that make you? Please, for God's sake, thank them! I don't care if you simply look them in the eye and smile or you reach out and hug them, just show them that they have not given everything for nothing.

Gun Control?

2010-06-29T22:53:00.002-04:00

The recent SCOTUS decision regarding gun bans and the 14th amendment, along with the tragic murders of two Tampa police officers last night, has driven me to reconsider my position on certain things. I realize this may come as a shock to my right wing brethren but I am ready to support a ban which could drastically decrease the number of innocent Americans being killed at the point of a gun.

Mayor Daley, of Chi-town, made a great case for a ban when he pointed out that 100,000 Americans are shot each year and eight die each day from gunshots. From that I decided to look into Chicago's crime statistics. I found that more than 77% of violent deaths, including domestic murders, shared one key ingredient. I also found that the same ingredient played a large role in forced robberies and personal crimes.

To know that, in the case of robberies, we could have prevented deaths for all but 4% of the victims by simply placing a ban on the specific cause of those death, it helps me put aside my concerns regarding the constitutionality of the ban. In fact, I am willing to forget that little part of the Constitution and enforce a Nationwide ban that would serve to put a stop to the vast majority of crime around the country.

Yes, it is time to put aside your own reservations (as freedom loving conservatives) and stand up for a complete and total ban on African Americans! What did you think I was going to say, ban guns? That would only invite new crimes. The fact is that Blacks commit more crimes than whites. It's true, in Chicago, only 4% of the murders committed during robberies are by white guys. At the same time, more than 77% of all gun crimes in Daley's little corner of Heaven were initiated by the squeeze of a black man's finger on a trigger.

Now back to reality.. For you morons who think that it is okay to forget the second amendment in order to quell crime, you are wrong! For any twisting of evidence that you can show me which gives some level of credence to your theory that gun bans lower violence, I can show you indisputable evidence that banning colored people would have a far greater effect. Let me say that BOTH IDEAS ARE RIDICULOUS!

I know for a fact that guns are no more responsible for crime than the color of a fellow's skin is. People pull triggers, not skin color, and triggers never pull themselves. There is a violent culture out there that has been adopted by the majority of young, poor urbanites. Most of them are black but that is a result, not a cause.

The left has proven to me that they can significantly change the political and economical landscape through social movements so why don't they spend some of that energy in changing the cultural landscape the same way. It is the left that glorifies the "gangsta" lifestyle, it is also the left that celebrates a culture of ignorance on MTV, BET and other social outlets. Seriously, they've convinced kids that capitalism is evil but murder is cool, WTF?

HEADLINE NOVEMBER 3: Republicans Suffer Unexpected Defeat

2010-06-25T22:30:00.002-04:00

I am hearing the pundits predicting a strong presence by the Republican challengers to the Democratic congressional majority this November. It seems reasonable right? I mean, between the Tea Party movement and the clear "anti-incumbent" movement in the electorate, the Republicans are sure to win.

Not so fast! Sure it looks good for the right today, but what is coming down the pipe? Well, let me "splain" it to you.. This current movement towards the right is very similar to that of the first term of the FDR administration. He and his congressional majority had marched in to office and begun chomping at individual liberties (in the name of civil liberties) at a record pace. They pummeled the legislature with law after law in response to a chain of events that added up to a defined National Crisis.

At this point in the FDR years, he had created a huge recovery fund under the promise of fixing the economy but had only spent a portion of it. The conservative momentum from that huge spending bill seemed unstoppable and polls around the country reflected that momentum. As the mid term elections neared and the campaigns shifted into high gear, something started to change. FDR began to filter that un-spent money into strategic places, thus giving him and his party an un-noticed advantage.

It is my contention that our current administration is following the same playbook and will get similar results. Sadly, I predict a great disappointment after the November elections and I fear a much greater crisis in the coming years. Yes, Obama is going to get help on multiple levels and, like FDR, he will come out smelling like a rose. I know you think I'm crazy but let me explain my theory.

First, the economic indicators.. Unemployment, GDP, and inflation are three major economic indicators, in that, they seem to be directly attached to the state of our economy to the public at large. You can expect Obama to strictly monitor these indicators and use federal programs to artificially enhance them. The new banking control, for example, gives the government a great deal of power over interest rates, thus allowing control over inflation. They also use short term infrastructure projects (funded by the stimulus package) to lower unemployment for the near future. That is, at least until the projects are finished. New federal mandates regarding pollution, green jobs , and real estate can force a spike in the GDP and reflect well on the policies of the left.

Second, tactical windfall spending.. Obama and his minions have, no doubt, analyzed the state of the political arena. They know which markets are very unlikely to support a Democrat, very likely to support a Democrat, and those who are undecided. For those areas where Obama is sure that the Democrats will hold their seats, there will be very little stimulus money to go around. It will be the "swing" areas who get the most money. Obama will funnel money into local economies to make it appear that everyone else is getting the same level of help and thus, voters will be convinced that his programs are working for everyone. As for the strongly conservative areas, the battle between the RINOs and the Tea Parties will likely leave liberals with the plurality and the victory.

Third, the Bush Tax cuts... The Bush tax cuts are expected to expire next year and the wealthy are no dummies. If they can find a way to make their money this year while they can still keep it they will. The sudden increase in reported income will give the appearance that the economy has gotten better and even the rich will seem to be feeling the benefits of the Obama policies.

Finally, catastrophe... The Gulf Oil disaster is only the beginning, something else is on the way. It may be natural or it may be man made but the next tragedy is in the works. More than likely it will be much smaller than the media will make it out to be. It could be an illness, a death in the family, a riot, maybe an attempt on his life, who knows? Whatever it is, Obama will find a well timed burst in popularity because people will see a new level of humanity from the exalted one.

The trouble is that, next year, the wealthy will show less profit. They will be afraid to spend what they do make for fear of whatever socialist policies are yet to come from the still powerful Democratic majority. After the election the stimulus money will run out and in the beginning of next year they will have to address that shortfall. Soon after that, the short term projects will start wrapping up and unemployment will start to rise. This is what happened when Clinton provided short term funding for law enforcement across the nation. That funding stopped and cities were left unable to pay the new police and they were forced to let them go. The control over economic indicators will slowly slip through Obama's fingers and people will find themselves locked into another great depression.

This is why the recession of the 1920s became the Great Depression of the 1930s. This is also why we are facing the hardest times of our lives. I'm not trying to scare you, in stead, I'm trying to warn you. The only way we can prevent the repeat of this cycle is through education. Call out the left as they do the things that I've predicted. Remember this post and return to it in October. Show your friends just how things have gone as I've said and how they will continue as they have before. Now get out there and do your part, do it for those who do not see, do it for your children!

The Carrington Flare

2010-06-18T21:24:00.002-04:00

It was late August, in the year 1859, many Americans were sitting down to read the newly published "Tale of Two Cities" when suddenly the night sky began to glow red. The fire in the sky drew attention from people all around the world but there was very little panic, in fact most were just fascinated.

By September 2nd, the telegraph machines in boston were so overwhelmed with power that the operators actually unplugged their batteries and allowed the system to run only on the power provided by the atmosphere. The better part of electrical consumption in those days was the widespread and international use of the telegraph, which was visible by the rats nest of wires that ran through the cities.

The curious wonder of the event was short lived though, as electric wires all over America and Europe started to burst into flames. Homes and businesses were destroyed and lives were shattered. Named for the astronomer who first recorded seeing the event unfold weeks earlier, the Carrington event was never considered a catastrophie but would be recorded as the weirdest solar event ever. The lasting aurora was visible as far south as Cuba.

The strongest solar flare in modern history occured in 1989 and cut power to an entire Canadian Province. The 1859 Carrington event was at least three times stronger. While normal solar flares take about four days to reach earth, the Carrington flare took just less than 18 hours to impact our fragile planet. It was that intense speed that allowed it to penetrate our natural magnetic defenses.

Now fast forward to today, a time when electromatic energy (in the form of electronic circuitry) provides us with almost everything we rely on. Todays electronics are far more sensative then the rough wires of the 1850s, and far more integrated into our lives. Just think about our communications, climate control, food storage, cars, airplanes, military weapons and nearly everything we touch in our daily lives. Imagine if every chip in the world failed at one time.

Well, if you haven't heard, the cycle has come back around. Scientists at NASA have established a cycle for this type of radical solar regurgitation and, according to them, that cycle repeats around 2013. Yes, three years from now we might be cutting our lawns as planes start falling from the skys. Fires might spark up all over the world and computer controlled weapons could do... well, who knows what could happen.

If you have not read my warning to prepare yourself for the worst, you should consider it now. This could be another Y2K style empty threat or it could be the biggest thing since global warming. Now that you have read a little history about the damage caused in 1859, you can decide for yourself just how valid the threat really is.

Dead Beat Dad PAC

2010-06-09T22:56:00.002-04:00

Dead Beat Dads... it sounds so dirty. The evil of being a dead beat dad is so obvious to all on the outside but is it deserved?

Clearly there are those who earn good money but hide it from their former spouses for personal reasons but what about the rest? I have found that a great deal of great fathers have been forced into dead beat status by the very system that punishes them for that title. It's complicated but let me try to explain..

Imagine having a good solid career in a luxury industry, something like a pool salesman or a consumer electronics retailer. You find yourself working lots of overtime so that your wife can stay home and take care of your small children.

During this time, to your dismay, you find out that your loving wife has been loving someone else. You enter into a divorce and a child support obligation is assigned by the state that reflects your past income.

Now that you are divorced, and lonely, you drop a few hours to try to rebuild your life and try to re-establish social interaction. The state continues to force you to pay as if you were still working the overtime hours because "you chose to lower your income".

As time goes on, the economy begins to slump and the sales of consumer electronics takes a dramatic nose-dive. Along with this, your income splits in half. You go to court to try to lower the support obligation but the judge decides that you must continue to pay the original amount because he feels you are still just as capable of making money but you are intentionally lowering your income in spite.

When you make $50k and pay $13k, everyone is happy, but when you make $25k and are still required to pay $13k it gets real hard to pay your bills. Suddenly things are being taken from you, your car is re-claimed by the bank and your home goes into foreclosure. There is simply not enough work to make all of the payments and, with virtually no other experience, it is nearly impossible to get another job. Even fast food restaurants turn you down because they consider you "over-qualified".

Losing your vehicle and being forced to move in with friends or family, you find increasingly difficult to get to work and your paychecks start to suffer worse. Now you are making less than your support obligation and accruing debt with the state while barely making enough to get by. Now think about this, back when things were going great you met a perfect girl and married her. Before the economy turned bad, you decided to have a child with your new wife. Having lost your car, your home, and possibly your wife and young child you would be willing to do anything to make things work.

In desperation, you take a huge risk and enlist in the Military. Knowing that it would be years before you could make the money you once had, you accept the fact that your bold risk would be difficult for your family but could bring a basic sense of stability.

Then it happens, you find yourself in the troop medical center being told that you have sustained an injury that would permanently restrict the use of your dominant arm and that they would be discharging you as a result of that disability. Now, back at home, having endured painful surgery and nearly a year of rehabilitation in hopes of regaining some use of your arm, you are ready to re-enter the work force.

It is difficult to find work when 70% of the consumer electronics companies in your area have closed down and you are forced to compete with hundreds of unemployed applicants, who have no physical limitations, regardless of how good you once were. During the 18 months since you have returned from the Army, you have earned nothing and thus, paid nothing in child support. Just as you finally find a job, the state sends you notice that they would suspend your license if you do not pay the $17k owed in back child support. Well, so much for the job.

In the end, you have given every ounce of yourself to a system that has made it progressively more difficult to meet your obligations. You have sacrificed your home, your car, your wife, your children, your dignity, and even the use of your right arm in an attempt to do the right thing. Imagine, if you would, what it is like to give all of this up only to be tagged a "dead beat dad."

Obviously this story is not a random example of what might happen, it has happened. In fact, since I have forced myself to work harder to try to rebuild my life, I have seriously re-injured my right arm and will require another attempt at surgery. Beyond that, my left shoulder has suffered from the overcompensation and might require some amount of surgery as well.

Yes, this is my story. I know, from talking with others, that I am not alone. Many men are beaten down by a mixture of circumstance and a ridiculous system, and those men are living with the stigma of being a dead beat dad.

Now I am asking for help! I don't want your money, I want something else, something bigger. I suggest that, with more than half of Americans being divorced, there has to be a way to fix the system. I want to start a Dead Beat Dad PAC. Imagine how powerful we can be if we unite and offer political backing for those who would stand up for us. I have several ideas that would make it easier for the man to succeed while the mother gets what she needs rather than driving the father into the ground and hurting everyone.

Please send this to every divorced man you know and help me unify a group of good people who just need a little support so they might support their own.

Stock Up!

2010-06-01T22:28:00.003-04:00

The faint smell of gun control is not from a distant memory but a warning of things to come. With the increase of border violence, the pain of the economy, and the power grab by our government, we are fast approaching a major movement against firearms. Like the stench of a coming storm, we are about to be hit by an anti-gun tsunami.

Think about it this way; The president of Mexico just passed through and blamed their violence on our lack of gun control (Obama agreed). The "state" of Chicago is about to test the recent Supreme Court decision on the D.C. gun ban. Liberals are feeling very powerful right now and, once the next election surprises the conservatives by going more liberal, the left will start pressing the issue.

Now is a good time to prepare for the storm. The wise thing to do, assuming you're a reasonable human being, is to arm yourself. I'm not suggesting that we prepare for some kind of war or anything but there are several good reasons to get ready.

First, we had a cold winter this year and a mild hurricane season last summer. This does not necessarily mean anything but it could be an omen. If the storm of storm comes through, especially with the flood of oil in the gulf, things could get ugly. It is reasonable to assume that the Katrina incident might be relived in your town. If so, there may be problems getting food, water, and fuel into the affected areas. Gangs of hungry, desperate people might come looking to relieve you of your supplies. It might come down to you or them.

Second, the terrorist potential. Never underestimate the possibility of a major terrorist attack, one that would bring the better part of the nation to a complete hault. How long would you last if the stores close down for a couple of weeks?

Third, civil unrest. With the virasity of today's political conflict, we could be edging toward a major event that might cause mass riots. A Boston Tea Party type of event or something like the Kent State shootings could spark major upheaval. Furthermore, what if, God forbid, some idiot takes a shot at Obama? Having seen what happened when a thug like Rodney King gets beaten by a few white cops, imagine what the riots would be like if the first black president is assassinated. You might be at work when the news hits and, on the way home, some thug pulls you out of your truck and beats you to death.

There's also the possibility of a global conflict. It's not far fetched to imagine an invasion, especially with the collapse of the global economy. We are the sole nation of wealth. Not so much the money but the resources. We would be an inviting target to a gang of failing countries, especially if we are politically divided.

The point is: Hope for the best but prepare for the worst. There is no harm in being ready. Go out and get yourself some food, water, fuel, and bullets.. Turn them over once in a while but keep a stock of those things that are important. Don't forget to consider the little things... diapers, toilet paper, soap, bug spray (when power goes out the bugs come in). Keep your Ice maker and gas tank full, make friends with your neighbors, and have a plan.

Splii Baby Spill!

2010-05-26T19:14:00.002-04:00

I don't know if you've heard but there was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. While the news is telling us about every single bird, turtle, and fish that has been affected (along with unfounded estimates about how many others might have been), we hear little about the Humans who died in the accident.

Let me be the first to say to the families of those who died that my heart goes out to you and I consider your lost family member to have been a hero of sorts. They worked a very tough job so that we would not need to rely as much on imported oil from those who would intend to harm us. Thank you for your great sacrifice!

As for the media, the politicians, the oil companies, and damn near everyone else whose talking about this disaster.. Go F**k yourself! As far as we know, it was an accident. These things do happen. Nobody at BP wanted to pump countless gallons of potential profit into the gulf. Nobody in the government wants the oil to harm the environment. Nobody in the media wants to walk up and down the shore in the stench of salt, dead fish and crude oil. No body who kissed their husband goodbye that day wanted to spend the rest of their life dealing with their loss.

So why has this become a political issue? This is not Obama's fault. This is not Cheny's fault. It was a tragic accident that should have no effect on whether we continue drilling or not. Let's stop trying to blame people, stop using the incident for political capital, stop overstating the impact on the ecology, and start working to fix it.

I, for one, feel for the people at BP. They have been made to be evil, heartless, hatemongers by the media and our President. I think the proper response is to support BP in their time of need. My response has been simple.. For the last month I have purchased all of my gas from BP stations. This is my show of support for everything they are doing to try to make ammense for their mishap.

If you are a reasonable person you should consider doing the same!

The Evil of Obama's Democracy

2010-05-16T17:54:00.002-04:00

Everywhere I go, I find myself explaining to another undereducated political ostrich what Democracy is and why we are not democratic. Usually, when explaining the part about our being a Republic, these lost souls reply with "oh yeah, like in the national anthem". I realize they are talking about the pledge of allegiance but, well, at least it's a step.

The reason socialists are attracted to democracy is because it is inherently evil. Democracy is basically "mob rule", in that, the majority holds all of the power. The reason there are no democratic businesses is that they would collapse from within. If a business was run by all of its employees then the majority would inevitably vote for more money and demand that the minority take on the responsibility of meeting the budget. In time, the minority would join the majority or simply stop producing.

This is why Jefferson said that "in this republic"..."the majority must always prevail, unless it is at the expense of the minority." The problem we have today is that the majority is voting for things at the expense of the minority. Things like welfare, health care, energy, food, transportation and virtually anything else that our government can claim in the name of social justice. Not only is this anti-American but it is downright evil.. and it must be stopped.

The way I see it we have only two choices, revolt or secede. The former would involve a violent uprising against those who are working to redistribute everything through the power of the majority. This would be very bloody and would likely become a world war of sorts. It is safe to assume that the vast majority of our soldiers would come down on the "Right" side of the battle, as would much of American industry. The capitalists would probably concentrate into the middle of the nation leaving the southwest and northeast to the socialists.

The socialists would need to force themselves on the capitalists. After all, socialism breeds reliance and without the taxes of the wealthy they would need to invade. Many other socialist countries would gladly supply the left with weapons and soldiers to help overthrow the producers in the heartland. For us, the right, it would be very hard to find allies. Only a small handful of countries who rely on our productivity would stand with us so the battle would be he artful but nearly impossible to win. Regardless of the outcome, it feels better to fight to the death in the name of America than to just fold to our conquerors.

The other option, my favorite, is to secede. The left is doing everything they can to take from the rich and give to the poor. At the same time, they are working on amnesty for illegal aliens. So here's my thought.. If all of this nations producers liquidate their possessions and convert them to "tangibles" that can be kept in a protected place outside the reach of the U.S. government, then they can renounce citizenship.

Once they do this, they can take advantage of the movement towards amnesty. This would allow them to stay in the country and drain the government without contributing. With the serious drop in federal income on top of a new class of immigrants draining the social network, the federal government would be forced to fail. The American Socialist Democracy would suffer a complete economical collapse (much like Greece) and the door would be open for those who can rebuild the free market through tangibles.

This is effectively a hostile re-takeover, with no shots fired. Once the nation is back under the rule of the Constitution, we can punish those who led it astray. If you are reading this and considering me seditious then you are confused. I am patriotic, I love our country and swore to defend its fundamental document, the Constitution. It is the movement in support of the Obama doctrine that is seditious. I simply want to put the saddle back on democracy and put the American citizenry back into its rightful place.

Teacher Shmeacher

2010-05-12T23:24:00.002-04:00

If there is one thing that I have learned in college, it's that teachers really believe they have all of the answers. To have a sociology professor claim that my logic is flawed and direct me to a University of California paper describing "Fallacy of Logic" is laughable. This professor acted as if anyone who had not graduated from college with a history degree had no place referring to history. This is the definition of "intellectual elite".

I have stated my position on teachers and lawyers before but let me do it again. MOST (not all) teachers became teachers because they were good at going to school but had no idea how to apply knowledge in "the real world". They usually have no real skills but think of themselves as brilliant because they outscored their peers when tested.

There are exceptions to this law. My English Comp professor, for instance, was passionate about teaching. He loved writing and was good at it so he felt obliged to impart his skill on anyone who would choose to learn. He is the teacher by which all others should be gauged,

As for the other kind, they are a joke. Just because you know all of the answers that the book has to offer, you think you are smart. The problem is that teachers NEVER experience the test of application. For the most part, teachers have been taught, they have not learned. Someone can teach you that steel is hard or lead is heavy but you never really learn until you break a few drill bits or drop it on your foot. Working knowledge is almost always better than the theories you've learned in your books.

I frequently hire people from trade schools who can recite all of the rules of electricity and acoustics. I have yet to keep one though. The better employees are the ones whose minds have not been guided, nor restricted, by formal education. They can do the things that "aren't supposed to work" when the educated guys refuse to try.

This applies to everything. There are many history majors who have been taught how our founders were and what they believed so they think they know them. I, on the other hand, chose not to read about our founders, I chose to read their own work. I have read thousands of letters written by Jefferson, Madison, Benjamin Rush, and several other great Americans. I have read letters regarding politics, religion, and even plain old family letters. I have learned their personalities and how others perceived them. I doubt many History teachers have the same knowledge as I but if you ask them, I am ignorant.

The fact is that: if you ask 30 soldiers how a battle went, you will get 30 different answers. The guy in the front might say that it was fast paced and scary but successful. The last guy in might say that it was a bloody failure and that it took forever. Chances are, the last guy left the Army to become a teacher.

The point is: Don't expect me to respect you simply because you have completed the necessary tasks to earn a teaching degree. I will respect you as a person until I see you using your position of authority to propagate your political opinions, at that point, you become my ideological enemy.

Laws Illegalizing the Breaking of Laws

2010-04-25T09:31:00.002-04:00

Are you freaking kidding me? Is this some kind of semantical April fool’s joke? To hear the news babe say that Arizona passed a “law that criminalizes illegal aliens” made my head spin. Have we, as Americans, reached the point where we need to make laws that make breaking laws against the law? So, by that logic, maybe we should start on a new law that illegalizes the breaking of the law that makes it illegal to break the law!

I do understand that the lack of legality, in a free nation, does not, by default, make an action illegal. Stay with me, this gets pretty confusing. What I’m saying is that: There is no law written which makes it legal to walk slowly in a crowd. By definition, illegal means that something is either prohibited or not authorized by law. So the slow walker could be construed as an “illegal walker” but not a criminal offender.

When applied to our immigration laws, there are laws that state that one must go through specific channels in order to enter our great nation. Anyone who chooses to circumvent these laws has chosen to become, by definition, a criminal. Now back to my original question; are you freaking kidding me?

Not only are there morons who are opposed to this new law (for reasons other than its redundancy), but these heathens are rioting over it. They have taken it upon themselves to destroy property and attack policemen over a political disagreement. I will say it now, without reservation; if you disagree with my politics and choose to destroy my property or attack innocent Americans, prepare to find out what peace really is! I will send a piece of lead through you at around 3500 feet per second and you will rest in peace for eternity.

To support illegal immigrants means that you would be ok with me, and 10 of my friends, entering your home with the permission of someone whom you’ve never met. We would eat your food, wear your clothes, and even fix a few things around your house. Of course, one or two of us would rape your daughter, steel your money and leave your kids with some highly contagious disease and you will never know who it was because we have no identity.

This is what happens, the illegals are generally decent people who mean well but they refuse to separate themselves from the hard core criminals. If you work hard to make ends meet, is it any less legal to have your life destroyed by a mugger who wants to feed his family than one who simply wants to buy drugs? If you are so consumed with “compassion” that you think it is, feel free to walk around the ghetto with all of your money clenched in your fist, otherwise, get off of your high horse and face reality.

Minds Full Of Mush

2010-04-23T00:04:00.004-04:00

Sitting around with a group of twenty-somethings, some college graduates and some still students, the topic of politics came up. Imagine that, me talking politics at a party. I was as impartial as I could stand to be, for as long as I could hold my tongue, and even when I objected, I was nice about it.

I asked these kids what they thought about Obama, hoping for some insightful response. One "kid" stood out as the talker and said "we rocked hard when he was elected but now he ain't so great". As insightful as that was, I had him elaborate. He went on to tell me that Bush was an idiot so he was glad to see an intellectual get elected. To this the others agreed and he continued, "we thought he was going to get us out of Bush's war but I guess nothing changes".

I asked them all what Bush did that was so stupid but the only evidence they had was something said by the Saturday Night Live rendition of him. I asked them why they called it Bush's war and they had no concrete answer except to repeat some idiot on the Comedy channel. I asked them some civics questions about how congress works and what the duties of the president were and only one young lady could answer any of them at all. I asked about the Constitution and heard short phrases like "separation of church and state", "freedom of speech", "some gun thing" and other disturbing sentences.

I asked them, as I always do, if I could use their words in my blog and, in embarrassment, they asked that I leave out their names. This was not the first time this has happened, in fact, it happened a couple of weeks ago as well. I only hope that my little quiz, and the resulting insecurities, led these future leaders to learn about the very system that allows them to be so ignorant. I only pray that you go out and challenge the minds of the young, MTV activists to actually understand the nonsense they spew.

Conservatism on Fags Adopting Kids

2010-04-10T20:23:00.003-04:00

Lately there has been a lot of local noise about Florida's law banning adoption by "same sex couples". I think it is my responsibility to weigh in on the subject. Before I do I want you to be sitting down and I would like you to think before you fly off the handle.

Websters Dictionary defines "Disease" as: an impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning. Most diseases has a negative effect on the reproductive system in some way or another. If you are strictly religious then you may believe that this is God's way of preventing generational spreading of these diseases. If you are an atheist then you may think that this is Mother Nature's way of accomplishing the same goal.

Regardless of your theology, nearly everyone is happy that science has led to new opportunities for those whose disease would have prevented them from raising children of their own. As for those who cannot be helped by science, there is adoption, which provides for those children who might otherwise have been aborted.

Let's be honest, homosexuality is a disease! It is a condition of abnormal function that directly effects reproduction. It is not an act of evil nor is it a social choice (for the most part), it simply exists as part of ones inner desires. Seriously, if you're a straight guy, do you really think you could simply start liking your sphincter getting reamed out. I know that gays don't like to be considered diseased but too bad. We call alcoholism and sex addiction diseases and we all know that's a crock.

So if we are to agree that homosexuality is a disease, and unlike cancer and MS it is not debilitating, and that it is wrong to prevent sick people from the joys of raising children then what's wrong with "queers" raising kids? It's not like they're going to teach their sickness to a child any more than a parent with cancer would wish their illness on their own offspring.

If you are just offended by their "lifestyle" then you have a huge battle ahead of you. A great number of people who are able to create life have no business doing so. There are many "lifestyles" into which many of our children are born that I disagree with but only God has the right to decide that. I think that God would much rather give a diseased couple the opportunity to raise and love children then have orphans rot away in some halfway house or be aborted by a hopeless mother.

If you are a true conservative then you must put away your disdain for the act of homosexuality, you must ignore the loud minority of overtly flamboyant sissies that try to paint a bold picture of what it is to be gay, and you must accept that the vast majority of homosexuals are just like you and me. They are everyday folks with everyday jobs and everyday problems. They only wish to find love and to live life as normal as they can while they struggle with the social misunderstanding of the disease that makes them desire whomever it is that they desire. It is time to take a better look at what it is to be a freedom loving conservative and stop trying to govern morality while ignoring morals.

Social Responsibility

2010-03-30T22:26:00.001-04:00

Recently I received an email from a friend. This friend is a teacher of teachers, that is, this person travels from district to district and teaches other teachers how to teach students. As a high level educator my friend has a finger on the pulse of the public education system as much as anyone could. So you have to understand my concern when I received a link from this friend with a message attached begging that I get this information out to the public.

Our founders told us that we needed two separate systems of education, “one to teach us to make a living and another to teach us how to live.” The intent was for our families, churches, and social groups would teach us the latter and they would create a public education system for the former. This separation between moral and intellectual training was considered vital to social cohesion. Even now most public administrators want to keep religion out of school.

All of this being the case, how is that our public educators are taking it upon themselves to decide, define and provide the morality to our children? It never has been, nor is it now the job of the crappy public school system to teach morality or “social responsibility” to our kids. Frankly, I don’t see that our school system holds the moral equity to pass on their flawed ideology to my children.

Having looked over the link that my friend sent (http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/may09/vol66/num08/toc.aspx) I must say that I was rattled, to say the least. It seems innocent enough when you read “Shouldn't we also expose economics students to the humane, religious, and ethical ways of thinking about economics? The standards and texts ignore poverty as a moral issue, are silent about economic and social justice, fail to even mention charitable giving, say nothing about work as a calling, and avoid any mention of the effects of economic growth on the environment (Nord & Haynes, 1998)”, but read it again.

If you are a liberal then please consider the same written like this.. “Shouldn’t we also expose economics students to the vast rewards of the capitalist system while teaching them to live as children of Jesus Christ? The standards and texts ignore poverty as a personal responsibility, are silent about the basic truth that there is no such thing as economic or social justice, fail to mention that poverty comes from either laziness or a series of bad decisions and that churches and families are the sources of charity, say nothing about work as a decision, and avoid any mention of the effects of economic growth on improving the environment.”

How does that make you feel? You would consider it propaganda right? Well it is, and it’s all true, but it has no more place in our education system then your socialist propaganda does. It is only because you think you have some kind of moral and ethical high ground. The fact is that the public education system is a shining example of how government can screw up anything. You teachers feel smart because you went to college and received a document that says that you have been taught enough to teach children. This does not make you smart, in fact, chances are, you chose to teach because you had no marketable skills, talents or knowledge to help you succeed in “the real world”. So you went back to school, the only place you had ever been. You now have a sense of intellectual superiority (because your peers are children) and a job for which you are required to show no merit to succeed.

Yes, I realize that there are some teachers out there who are actually doing it for the right reasons but then, you’re not the one’s pushing this socialist agenda. You see, public education is a socialist environment. Teachers are paid to show up! If they keep showing up, year after year, they keep getting raises regardless of their “productivity” (or lack thereof). They receive benefits of the highest order, they get tons of holidays and they qualify for tenure (meaning they cannot be fired without an act of congress). I know, I know.. Why EARN a living wage when you can just vote for it.

It’s easy to see why these people support socialism, after all, the money for schools is handed to them by the almighty government and nobody has to actually sell anything. The public is forced to buy their product by law while truancy officers force customers through their doors. What they do not understand is that the same system cannot work if all receive and there is no one to give. But then, most teachers only know what they were taught and their teachers were never taught to teach them that stuff.

Again, I encourage you to look over the site linked above and if you see nothing wrong with it then please.. Smear some environmentally friendly, non petroleum, Government Issue, union supported, high viscosity lubricant around the pointed top of your long haired, pot stinking, Stalin loving melon and cram it up your free market hating, MSNBC watching, Obama worshiping rectum.

Joining the rest of the Modern World?

2010-03-25T00:23:00.001-04:00

I’ve brought it up before but I feel I must briefly visit the topic again. I keep hearing leftist idiots say that we are “finally joining the rest of the modern world” by installing socialized medicine. I decided to do the research and I was kind of surprised. I always knew that the majority of medical breakthroughs owed their existence but I didn’t realize just how right I was.

If you look up a list of the top 5, 10 or even 100 medical breakthroughs of all time you will find… wait.. Instead of telling you, I want you to figure it out for yourself. This way you can’t just call me a liar.

I will give you a hint. Every single one is the direct result of FREE MARKET CAPITALISM. I dare you to prove me wrong. If you consider Aspirin, a German invention which would (according to their own historical account) have never reached widespread availability had they not procured a US patent. In 1919 the Sterling Products company of West Virginia (that is in America for you liberals) risked $3 million on the development of Bayer’s Aspirin. This risk would be illegal under the new health care law.

Penicillin was discovered in Europe but the economy of the socialist European nations was prohibitive for the production of the necessary quantities for clinical trials. They “turned to the United States for help” and through private contributions Howard Florey and Norman Heatly were able to develop the life saving antibiotics that we rely on today. Again, the private funding would not have existed under the new Democratic health care bill.

I would argue that; if the progressives had forced this bill in the beginning of the American experiment then we would not have Aspirin, Antibiotics, anesthesia, artificial hearts, and most other advantages that modern medicine has brought us.

So, with this undeniable evidence to support my case then we must consider the next logical thought. What new breakthroughs will be restricted by our joining the rest of the modern world in adopting socialized medicine. What cures? What advancements? What treatments? What is the real cost of the destruction of the free market. What is the cost to your life and that of your children in the name of “punishing” successful companies for having a better idea and wanting to be paid for it?
I’ve said it before and I will say it again… If you don’t like America then leave it, don’t change it

Enimy at the Gate

2010-03-21T15:46:00.002-04:00

Today we sit and wait for the verdict. Are we going to remain a nation of free people or have the majority figured out that they can vote away their freedom for a paycheck. As you leftists sit and cheer for this legislation, there are a few things you should consider.

First of all, the government has no power to produce! This means that it can only consume. Let me explain.. For the government to give something to someone they must first take it from someone else. As the government takes from one it divides what it takes, keeping its share and distributing the rest. Like any engine which is doing well to convert 60% of the energy it consumes to forward motion and losing the rest to heat, a government is perpetually inefficient.

Secondly; the harder you try to make all people equal the more you highlight their inequalities. The only way to provide universal equality is to ensure that all are equally without, that is, to strip everyone of everything. The movie "Enemy at the Gate" provides a subtle yet powerful example of this fact. The Soviet Union struggled with this paradox as it tried to create a universal utopia.

In a socialist society there is one constant and we are beginning to see it now. Each time an action or idea proves to be successful that success is equally divided throughout society. In financial terms, if the average income for 1000 people is 100 dollars a week and someone figures out how to double his money, that extra 100 is divided out 1000 ways. If you can't do the math then turn off your computer and go watch American Idol. With that incrimental increase resulting from doubled effort, why would anyone ever double their effort. And thus... equality through governmental interdiction.

Each time a socialist gets ahead there is a new law written to keep that from happening again. This is undeniable, look at the laws that govern your precious European nations. If this is the life you want then just hop on British Airways or build yourself a shotty raft and head to some other country. Please stop trying to destroy this great nation.

We are on the edge of a total loss of everything our soldiers have sacrificed for throughout time. I, for one, will not let this happen. We will fight this socialist takeover on a political level for as long as we have the means to do so. If, at some point in time, we lose the freedom to battle in the arena of ideas then we will take this fight to our death and defend the American way, by all means necessary.

I'm not suggesting we turn to violence in this battle, but rest assured... If you socialists think you can tread on us you are sadly mistaken!

Fundamental Right?

2010-03-11T18:25:00.002-05:00

While listening to the Schnitt Show, this afternoon, I heard another moron call healthcare a fundamental right. Please... let me vent!

Nothing that must be provided by one human being is a right for another human being. We, as humans, have a hand full of rights that are fundamental but can be taken from us. Let me give you the short list.

1. You have the right to life. You may live as long as you are capable of keeping yourself alive and no other person has the right to take your life.

2. You have the right to liberty. You can make your own decisions as long as you aren't stepping on the liberty of another, regardless of whether the decisions help or harm you.

3. You have the right to pursue happiness. You can offer up the product of your labor in trade for the product of someone Else's and the price is between the buyer and the seller, not society and the government (minimum wage?).

4. You have the right to think, feel or say anything you want about another person. If some idiot wants to run around calling everyone a "nigger" then let him. Just don't listen to him whine when he loses all of his friends.

There are a few others I'm sure, but the point is... If every doctor or medical professional in the world decided to quit their jobs one day then who would provide this, so called, "fundamental right"? You see, that's what makes it more of a responsibility then a right.

We cannot force responsibility through government. If we did, it would resemble slavery and we don't want to go back there. I personally think that anyone who thinks healthcare is a right should be forced to give up the product of their labor for the common good. This might change their mind, or we might find that those who think that way are the ones who produce nothing to contribute.

Our Education System

2010-03-03T23:10:00.002-05:00

After reading posts on my school discussion board I am a bit shaken. What is happening to our society? When asked how to solve a drug problem in our society it seems most of the youth in my area think the solution is in regulation of corporate entities. That is, they think that pharmaceutical companies are responsible for the Meth problem.

Seriously? That's tant amount to blaming metal companies for gun violence. The Idea that some kind of government intervention on the supply of medicine would prevent people from distorting the intended use of that medicine is absurd. Frankly it frightens me that people are more ready to blame "greedy capitalists" then greedy consumers. Where do people get the idea that capitalism is bad?

Think about it, if not for capitalism then we would still be living in the eighteenth century. We would have no medical system to speak of, we would be confined to small areas and we would be ruled by tyrants. Is this really the solution to our little problems today?

Is it not evident that it was the introduction of governmental politics that ruined the free market? How can someone say that it was the philosophy that one gets what he earns rather than having to share what he earns with one who only wants is really going to work out?

I'm hoping that some of my classmates are willing to move an improperly placed political debate to this forum and continue unrestrained for the benefit of enlightenment. I am willing and eager to engage in a debate between Americanism and progressivism with anyone who is willing to accept the challenge.

The New Left

2010-02-28T22:44:00.003-05:00

What if I were to say that I want to kill all jews and you thought there were better ways to fix the economy. And then I said that the fair thing to do is to come together and decide the best way to kill them as a bi-partison effort. This is the mentality of the left.

They insist that bi-partisonism is agreeing with how to do what they want to do. This president of ours does not get that he has no right to take over health care, energy, education, the auto industry, banks and corporate wages. He actually says we need to come up with a bi-partison way of doing all of these things.

I have always maintained that to follow Obama makes one either unintelligent, uninformed or unAmerican. So this being a fact, what does this say about him. Clearly he is intelligent right? he went to an Ivy league school and has a law degree.

He professes to have a clear understanding of the Constitution, enough so that he said that it was a flawed document that restricts government rather than empowering it. This tells me that he is informed (although badly, I believe)so that can't be the problem right?

That leaves us with the hardest fact to accept. I still like to think that his un-American foundation is a result of bad information and more credit for his intellect then he really deserves. After all, to be that un-American would be downright evil.

If he really believes as he has acted and stated, this means that he thinks the Constitution needs to be replaced with some kind of manifesto. He would have to think that anyone who has not completed the necessary schooling to acheive a law degree has gained no usefull knowledge from which to guide his life. He might insist that the power of elected office supercedes any market forces, that is, no matter how successful one business is our politicians have the right to dictate income, profit and lifestyles of those who have worked for that success. He sees the federal government as the great equalizer who can divert taxpayer money from one man to another based ethnicity rather than merit.

There are many other ideas pronounced by our President and his appointed representitives that are just as frightening as these.. but you should think about this... Every thing I've listed are ideas that I can prove have been forwarded by this administration, they are also ideas that were offered in Hitler's "Mein Kampf". Open your bi-partison eyes and look at where your support for the left is taking us.

I just want you to learn about the leftists in our history and look (objectivly) at what the new left is saying. You could argue whether it is purposful or not but you can not argue that it is wildly anti-American .

Get it Straight

2010-02-21T15:19:00.002-05:00

One of the greatest misunderstandings as well the strongest weapon for the left is the belief that the right is against regulation. They act almost as if we (the right) are all fanatical Christian anarchists. This is completely untrue but it keeps the ignorant masses from supporting our philosophy.

Let me fix this mis-representation for you. Yes, most of us are Christians cut we only hope that you join us in our faith. We try to convince you and we beg to "save you" but we will NOT force you. It is not the government but the governed who decide religion.

Secondly, and most importantly, We do understand the need for regulation. In just the same way that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison learned that the states needed to be held together by a strong government with limited powers. The free market must be regulated to be free.

Think of it this way... College football teams are free to market themselves to potential players however they choose. They are also allowed to design their own plays and practice how they choose. However, when it comes to gametime, they must adhere to a basic set of rules so that they are playing the same game.

The left seems to think that the players should be matched by skill, the plays must be consistant and the score ends up tied so that all is fair. This is the difference between us and them. We want the government to allow GM to fail, not to own them and use their power to attack other companies through legislation in order to guaruntee success.

The federal government is very important and its duties are clearly defined in the Constitution. They are not even remotely responsible for who fails and who succeeds, nor are they responsible for any facet of my health or the availability of health care.

While I'm at it.. Please stop trying to guide my life through legislation and taxes. If I want to get married I will do it because I want to, not for the tax break.. The same goes for charity, children or property. Plus, I will smoke, eat fatty foods, drink, and buy an SUV if I choose so stop raising my tax as a way to stop me. It's time for a single tax approach that does not allow our elected officials to modify our lives through the IRS!

What an Abortion!

2010-02-07T23:17:00.002-05:00

We have all heard the whole dispute over the anti-abortion add and I'm floored. I was listening to the "woman show" on the local communist radio station and I couldn't stop laughing at the stupidity. These moron pro-abortionists have lost their minds.

Don't sit there and call yourself pro choice while protesting those who chose life. Seriously, think about it moron! Pro choice means that people should get to choose whether to have an abortion or not, not that they must choose abortion.

Anyway, when I hear these hags talk about how each person should have the right to do whatever they want because it's their "own body" and it's a "victimless crime", I go nuts. Let me help you gather a few thoughts before you make yourself sound any stoopider!

1. The moment you let a man plant his seed inside your body it becomes a three person deal. If society decides that this is not the case then every man who has ever paid child support needs a refund immediately.

2. life starts at conception, here's proof. To be a legal father there must be a legal child right? If I impregnate a woman and she sues for the medical bills, the court will label me the "father" and the responsibility will be assigned starting with the very first pregnancy related doctor visit. By the definition of every court in America the father is known as the father from the moment of conception. Sorry ladies, you can't have it both ways.

3. The Constitution, under which we are all protected, states clearly that we are guaranteed the RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT... so it is un-Constitutional to take a life (as described above) for your own convenience.

4. If, for some crazy reason, you are willing to ignore the Constitutional protection then where do you draw the line? If you "choose" to end the life of your child because you will be inconvenienced by trying to raise them then at what age should a mother lose that right to do so? The first trimester? the last trimester, at the age of adulthood? Your ability to take part in creating life does not afford you the right to take it. If it did then any soldier who has taken part in protecting you should have the same right to kill you.

5. STOP FLIPPING THE ARGUMENT! Don't fight for a woman's right to unrestricted choice by arguing with stories about "medical necessity". Most of us are willing to come to some agreement concerning the definition of medical necessity and are prepared to accept those situations but that does not give you the right to use it as birth control.

If you are still against me on this topic then I have either failed to simplify it enough for you or you have failed to reach the minimum mental capacity to qualify as a human. My thoughts on the realistic and legal aspects of abortion are presented in the Jimmy Strawn plan and I encourage you to check it out.

The Sobering Prophecy

2010-01-25T21:24:00.002-05:00

I had planned on writing about the Supreme Court decision that has everyone buzzing but something bigger came up. I will, however, summarize my opinion on the decision for you. I think I like it but I'm not sure. I think it's fine for corporations to throw support behind politicians and it is equally fine for us to support or boycott those companies based on that support.. But then again, I'm not totally sold on that opinion yet.

Yesterday I was helping move things out of my grandfathers home (he passed away back in November) and my brother came across a book. The name of the book.. THE PLAGUE OF THE BLACK DEBT, how to survive the coming depression. Wow! this guy nailed it.

In the book, which was published by Agora inc back in 1993, the author predicts what is going on now with inconceivable accuracy. He predicts a terrorist attack in New York (8 years before it happened), the credit crisis, a collapse of property values,, high unemployment and social distress and he predicted this to take place in the beginning of the new millennium.

It wasn't luck. He defined a 60 year cycle of depressions which had been consistent since the 1600s and happens to land around 2005. He also defined a 500 year cycle that has been accurate dating back to 50 BC. That "long cycle" suggested that the new millennium would bring war, depression, leaps in communication technology and great upheaval.

Since the beginning of 2000 we have entered into the most widespread war in our history where fighting is taking place in all corners of the earth. We are in the worst depression in 60 years. We have seen the home phone fall to the cell phone which can now send information (sound, pictures, video) around the world in seconds. We have seen an exponential increase in political activism and interest.

Just like the building of the great Roman Empire 2000 years ago, followed by its replacement by the dark ages 500 years later which was replaced by the middle ages 500 years later and the modern age 500 years later, we are facing a change in the face of humanity today. The question is, what will the new face be and how will we adapt.

If there has ever been a compelling reason to prepare yourself for the worst case scenario, this is it. I feel it is better to have and not need then to need and not have. At the same time. I think it is important for us to get on the same page and work to make this a positive transition rather than a negative one.

Some of you disagree with my ideas or the ideas of the tea party movement or the republican party while also distancing yourself from the Obama doctrine. I ask that you join me in rooting out those who stand to fundamentally change the politics of our nation by forcing us into a big government socialist society. Much like our founders, we have lots of opinions on how to make this a better country but we know that the system we left behind 200 years ago is not for us. Let's get back to fighting over the balance between freedom and security and push out those who promise security in place of freedom so America can once again be the shining beacon on the hill!

Also, make sure to pick up that book, it's worth reading!

Haiti

2010-01-19T20:09:00.002-05:00

I have been away from my blog because I have been monumentally busy as I have been emmersed in our haitian relief effort. I am also a full time student and father, as you can imagine, I have little time for this blog this week. I do intend to return to the blog next week with much to say! Please keep posted and get ready for some great debate.

If you are interested in helping Haiti (on a long term basis) please contact FTTR.ORG . We were working in Haiti before the quake and we'll still be there when everyone else has gone home.

The Disconnected Right

2009-12-29T09:43:00.003-05:00

As I look through the countless Blogs and web sites that claim to be conservative while spouting a fountain of restrictive and oppressive thoughts and ideas, I am beginning to see the real problem with today's politics. It is not that the left has gone too far socialist but that the right has redefined conservatism.

At first I began to question my own position but having learned so much about our founders I know where I stand. It is the backfire of the leftist takeover of our education system that has created this disconnect between the conservatives and what it is that they wanted to conserve to begin with.

Our founders saw marriage as an act of religion, not of government. If the religion of a gay man supports marriage to another gay man then it is not for any other man (or government) to pass legislation that restricts or discourages that marriage.

Our founders believed in the right of a man to fail as much as his right to succeed. If one man wants to destroy his own life with drugs then it is between him and his family, not the government.

Our founders encouraged the belief in God and would not have condoned drug use or gay marriage. They were both charitable and compassionate but they they sought to spread their morals through teaching rather than through legislation.

I am a conservative but many who wear that shirt are not. When you begin to consider a solution to a political problem you should stand back and ask yourself "what would Jefferson do". Sometimes you might not like the truth but it is necessary to face it to keep our individual freedoms intact. Once the right learns to protect personal freedom again you will find that the vast majority of Americans will gladly huddle under the conservative tent and any politician who holds true to our founders will find great success. It has happened before and can happen again, do it for the Gipper!

Street Light Politics

2009-12-20T10:48:00.003-05:00

Many people think that conservatives are opposed to government, they are wrong. The fact is that we want to keep government as small as possible, to oppose it would be anarchy.

Think of it this way... Every street corner is an open door to a serious car accident. The government puts signs up at those intersections in order to help prevent those accidents. This is good government because it provides the greatest amount of help with the least amount of interference.

Some intersections get very busy and a simple sign becomes restrictive to those who travel in one direction while encouraging others to pass in the other. The solution for this imbalance is to provide a signal light at that intersection, this allows equal opportunity for those who wish to choose their own direction. Again, this is good government.

The hard part for this government is deciding where those traffic lights should be placed. Politicians (of both parties) tend to want to place signs and lights where they are most likely to guide traffic to that destination which favors their own agenda. They are often inclined to make passage difficult for those who oppose them by putting up stop signs in strange places and call it "necessary for the betterment of society".

Conservatives want to keep the traffic flowing as much as possible which allows for a certain amount of risk while encouraging those who travel to be responsible for keeping that risk at a minimum. They would keep the basic signs in place but offer as few traffic signals as possible. The result of this is a fast paced network of traffic that is regulated mostly by those who frequent those roads.

Liberals see the risk of accidents inherrent in the conservative system and react in fear. They see a potential for danger at every intersection regardless of how busy it is, so, in order to protect us from those risks they tend towards placing traffic signals at every single intersection and thus seriously impeding the flow of traffic. I know you've gone down a busy street where there is a traffic light at every corner and sometimes you feel like you've been stopped at every one. This works to lower the risk of accident in two ways, it prevents people from coliding into each other through regulation and it causes many to refrain from traveling down that road through frustration. Once every road is that heavily regulated, most people will simply tire of traveling all together.

This is the flaw in the liberal ideology, they discourage economical progress through regulation designed to prevent economical risks. You see, Liberalism is not the opposite of Conservatism, it is the opposite of Anarchy.. Conservatism is the fulcrum between the two.

PROVE ME WRONG!

2009-12-17T21:39:00.002-05:00

The left still does not get it. Actually, lots of people are still in the dark about what the Conservatives, Liberals, Progressives or Republicans really want. For this reason I will try to begin fundamentally defining each group. I encourage you to put in your two cents (providing you are honest with yourself) and either expand on those definitions or correct me where I'm wrong.

Republicans__ These are mostly politicians but there are many party line voters out there. The politicians are power hungry businessmen with no integrity. They only believe in that which will get them elected and that which will keep them in power. They think that they should lean left when the populous does and lean right when they need a few more votes. they generally oppose Democrats because they have convinced the ignorant masses to do the same and it helps to keep them in power. The followers are the type who generally follow very little politics but know from email bombs that the Dems are bad and must be defeated. this is how guys like Mccain can gain so much power with so few real values.

Liberals__ They are the real tree huggers. They live in a world consumed by emotion. Generally they are very good people who would do anything for a friend and there is no better friend to have. They tend to vote for Dems because the Dems tend to appeal to emotions rather than reason. While liberals make great followers they seldom find their way to lead. they are so concerned with searching for an equal solution to problems that they often react too late to those problems. It is their big hearts that consume the blood that would usually feed their mind. It is not a bad thing to care but they are controlled by caring at their own expense. The down side is that they often feel that they should force others to care as well, that's where they become tyrannical.

Progressives__ This is the German socialist party of the early 20th century. Seriously, look it up. They believe that the only way to have civility is to run society. They see the Constitution as an obstacle to a "great society". If they want to quit smoking they simply outlaw it so nobody can do it. If they want to be vegetarians they outlaw the eating of meat so everything will be fair. They blame the rich for the poor not getting paid to watch the rich work. They hate inequality and feel as if they alone can define what is fair. They are mostly educated but have no common sense. In fact, most of them have spent a lifetime being taught but have never been forced to learn. Think of it like this.. You can be taught that you need a certain amount of flour, sugar and eggs to bake a cake but if you have never made one and tasted it then you've really never learned to bake. This is the case with progressives, they usually hold jobs where they are judged by tenure rather than merit or productivity. Teachers, politicians, government jobs, lawyers and some medical jobs are predisposed to being progressive because they seldom are responsible for earning payroll, it just seems to show up (thanks to taxpayers).

Conservatives__ We are the keepers of the key to liberty. We choose to conserve the philosophy of our founders and hold the Constitution sacred. We believe that government is need to establish a very basic order and to keep people from encroaching on the rights of others (oh, and to provide for common defence). We usually have a great deal of faith, however it is not required. Conservatives (according to every source I've found) are the most charitable group in America. We make decisions mainly on logic and experience rather than emotion. That is, if our dog is in pain and nearly dead, we kill him rather than letting him suffer. We tend to have careers where we are required to solve problems and we are held accountable for those solutions. We are the hunter gatherers, we ask nothing of others but to let us live our lives as we see fit and we prefer to do the same. We know that all rewards require risk and are willing to live with the results of those risks. We protect freedom, even for those who fear it. We fight for liberty so that others can ignore it. We embrace integrity in the face of disintegration.

BREAKING NEWS!

2009-12-14T22:52:00.003-05:00

Breaking news! Micheal Jackson died.. Breaking News! Tiger Woods had affair... Um, that happened a while ago so why does my TV still say Breaking News every time they talk about that nonsense.

Seriously, these TV networks put BREAKING NEWS! under every story regardless of how old it is. Do they expect us to believe anything they tell us when they try to get our attention by calling every story BREAKING NEWS. I've given up on Fox and CNN because I know I can't trust either one of them anymore. Can somebody please report the news again without all the fan fare and bull crap.

Imagine a news channel that comes on and the reporter (without telling us his name every five minutes) says "here is the news". After that the tells us the facts of an event without using any subjective words at all. Just Who, What, When, Where and Why.. that is if the why is confirmed and not speculated.

Here's an example.. "Last night, at 1:00 am, the police were called to the corner of main street and vine. There was a Nissan maxima wrapped around a tree and the driver, jane Doe, was killed."

Fox or CNN would have reported that same story like this... " Late last night, when most people her age should have been sleeping, Jane Doe drove into a tree after witnesses say she had been swerving all over the road. Some of those who claimed to have seen the accident stated that she seemed to be drunk, however, police will not say how much alcohol was in her blood stream. While Ms Doe was dead when the police arrived we do not know if she had taken her own life before the impact but we do know that she had purchased an automatic handgun with a high capacity magazine, capable of shooting 15 deadly bullets, only weeks before. Her husband did not know where she was returning from but we believe she was involved with another man because her credit card statement had multiple visits to a local hotel on it.

Yes, this is the same group of reporters who give us the very political news by which we choose our leaders.. Scary as hell isn't it!

Defining the Battlefront

2009-12-11T22:07:00.002-05:00

"All will bear in mind this sacred principle, that the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable: that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression". No more true words have ever been spoken and more ignored than those of Thomas Jefferson during his first inauguration.

He was trying to educate those who had never truly understood why we should be governed as a republic rather than a democracy. We could really use him today. This battle still bubbles up as people are pushed through public school where they are told that democracy is fair and that a republic is oppressive. This skew in reality has led to the success of the democratic party and is dragging us down the path to destruction.

The point that Jefferson was making is that it was very difficult to create a government that was fair. It would take constant work and tremendous sacrifice from those who were governed in order to prevent our nation from being overtaken by soft tyranny. If you're asking what soft tyranny is, it's simple... it's called Democracy.

Democracy is, by definition, oppressive. That is, it only takes a majority to gain total control the minority. From this the majority can do anything from redistributing wealth to outright slavery. It seems far fetched but this is is the goal and the mantra of the left. They want to satisfy the majority at the expense of the minority. This is why they are slowly destroying the Constitution, a document that they call "outdated". Once it has no more value they can usher in a new era of "mob rule" and the liberty that built this country will be nothing but a distant memory.

We, you and I, need to remind people of why we are a republic and shift the political debates away from doing what is popular and towards how to make this a better republic. We need to challenge common senselessness and fight for what so many have died for in the past. Please, feel free to ask me any questions you have encountered in debate and I will help you teach others what it is to truly be an American. We must win this battle, if we do not... there will be no safe haven of liberty left in the world!

Health Care has NOTHING to do with "General Welfare"

2009-12-06T22:20:00.002-05:00

In today’s political arena there is one hotly contested proposal which has garnered the attention of the entire world. The debate over "Health care reform" has consumed the nation and forced many who have had little previous interest in politics into the battle. Clearly there are flaws in the current system and something should be done to fix it but is there a solid, logical and Constitutionally acceptable solution to our problem? As we all know, there are people from every side coming up with ideas which they think are fair and reasonable and, for the most part, they have some pretty good plans. The details and conclusions within these plans are a bit more debatable and have brought forth a flood of information and facts which has made the final decision much more difficult to reach. I have a much more unique perspective of how to resolve the issue and who is actually responsible for that solution. I contend that the widely accepted premise that the federal government needs to get involved on an operational level is seriously flawed. The United states Constitution does not give our federal government the liberty to control health care, rather, it reserves that power to the state or local levels.

To better understand my thesis we must first understand its merits. For this we will go back to the birth of our nation and the founding documents that bind our government to its responsibilities. The one phrase within the founding documents that has been the vessel for the federal involvement in social matters over the last hundred years or so is the "general welfare" clause. This phrase appears twice within the Constitution but is never clearly defined. The ambiguous phrase is found first in the preamble where it is written as "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America ". It is found again in Article I section 8 where it states that "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". For some, this is an open door for the federal government to step in and make changes, on a national level, in order to prevent or repair anything that could be construed as a national crises. For others, it was put in place as a binder between the states for the expressed purpose of keeping the union whole and functioning as one single nation.

The debate over this matter goes back to the founders themselves at the very conception of this great nation. The argument of the time was over the use of federal funding to aid in the growth of manufacturing and was most bitterly contested between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Mr Hamilton believed that the country had a far better chance for success if the manufacturing sector was propped up through funding provided by the taxpayers and that its success would translate to prosperity to all citizens. Mr Jefferson, on the other hand, felt that it would be an encroachment on the rights of others to take the fruits of their labor in another mans interest. As in any debate, others involved in politics at the time were quick to choose sides but the vast majority of notable figures fell on the side of Mr. Jefferson. Only Benjamin Franklin was willing to speak on the side of Hamilton and even he was hesitant to accept the long term ramifications of that kind of federal power.

The premise of governing on behalf of the common good was the basis for an ideology known as Res Publica (public matter) which was the Latin origin of the word Republic.Thomas Jefferson along with the majority of our founding fathers were strict Republicans, in that, they believed that America should be governed as a Republic. .The fundamental premise of a Republic originated in Rome during the time of Gaius Julius Caesar. It was created in opposition to the empirical power structure and was designed to spread power evenly across the nation to help promote the "common good" of the people. According to The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral sciences, The Roman Republican Constitution of 509-49 bc was created to balance power between the government and the governed in order to promote the " common good, and never to the private will or domination ( dominatio ) of any private master". Jefferson wanted to create the same balance of power but where the Romans failed by not creating a defined separation between the powers, he was determined to make that separation a legal imperative. It was the desire to create a governing body which provided for the common good but favored no individual or group of individuals that led to the basic principles of our own Republic.

Prior to the ratification of our Constitution, there was another document which defined the governance of The United States known as the Articles of Confederation. This is not considered a "founding document" since it was actually replaced by the Constitution but it did serve as the base for its replacement and it was our first legislative federal document to contain the phrase "general welfare". The text of article III of the Articles of Confederacy reads as "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever". Clearly the spirit of this text offers no support to the Hamiltonian perspective of the phrase, rather, it serves as a binder to the states in the name of national unity. After taking time to himself to truly consider the words of the Articles of Confederation, James Madison wrote in his notes that "The Idea of voluntery complience with the law was sheer fancy since no state would willing submit to the laws of a federal congress" "sacrifice for the general welfare was wishful thinking" .."every general act of the union must necessarily bear unequally hard on some particular member of the union" . Mr. Madison goes on to explain that compliance between the states in the name of general welfare must be a legal obligation and defined as such in the Constitution. The transfer of this phrase into article I, section 8 of the Constitution was unanimously approved by the Constitutional Convention with no debate over its meaning what so ever and was rewritten as "general welfare of the United States". This subtle difference in phrasing was the justification for Mr. Hamilton’s dispute but was not taken seriously by most of those who were involved at the time.

I would be remised if I were to leave out the single most compelling argument for my thesis. On Saturday, January 19,1788, James Madison published "The Federalist #41". This would be the definitive explanation of the "powers conferred by the constitution", authored by the very man who had been recognized as the actual author of the Constitution itself. After hearing and reading about his detractors who feared that article I, section 8 could be misused, Mr. Madison wrote that "It has been urged and echoed, that the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction". He goes on to state that "Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it". He makes a clear point that all of the powers conferred by the Constitution are clearly detailed, including the powers allowed for the promotion of the "general welfare" of the states.

The first real test involving the powers granted by the "general welfare" clause came about during the debate over Roosevelt’s "New Deal" programs. During the early twentieth century immigration was at its peak and the jobs were not keeping up with the population. We saw a sudden influx of uneducated workers with little understanding of the fundamental design of our political system. This massive shift in the populous opened the door for self proclaimed "socialist progressives" to gain popularity and led to the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. Regardless of his popularity, his federally funded social programs were continually being struck down by the Supreme Court as "unconstitutional" under the
"reserve clause". Mr. Roosevelt reacted by attempting to restructure the Supreme Court by adding enough new members to "stack" it in his favor. While he failed in this effort he did garner enough support through his "fire side chat" to turn the Supreme Court’s decision on Social Security and a few other programs. On May 24th, 1937, the supreme court upheld the decision to give the federal government power to collect taxes to provide payments of "Old age benefits" . In the opinion of the court, delivered by Justice Cordozo, it was noted that " When money is spent to promote the general welfare, the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by congress, not the states".This suggested that the power granted by the constitution through the Supreme Court decision would leave the highest level of government with a great deal of "moral authority" for the first time in American history. Despite the courts discomfort with this power, they felt that the responsibility must lay on the national government because any one state who would implement this system would become "bait to the needy and dependent elsewhere". What bothers me about this decision is that they recognized that the system would be harmful on a local or state level but ignored that it would have the same effect on a national level. Now, instead of the needy migrating from state to state in search of "haven of repose", they are migrating from other nations and placing the predicted burden on our entire country.

The fact that the Supreme Court chose to grant the federal government a level of power that is not granted by the Constitution does not make it Constitutional. It simply means that the topic needs to be revisited and clarified. I believe that a Supreme Court who would act on behalf of supporting the Constitution, as it was defined by its authors, rather than acting on the perception of moral imperative, would find that the proposed health care reform does not comply with the Constitutional requirements. I also believe that a statewide version of this bill would be Constitutional but would create the scenario defined by Justice Cordozo where those who are needy will flock while those who provide will flee. As an alternative solution to the health care problem, I would consider creating a federal medical loan system. A pot from which people in need of care could draw a low interest loan that can be repaid through their own taxes. This creates an incentive for those who use the system to research their options and make decisions based on the balance of quality and cost of services rather than just taking what they can get and leaving others with the bill. Because my system is a "user pay" system, the costs will be merit based and controlled by market forces which would keep those costs substantially lower. The federal government would be operating a bank instead of an entire national medical system which would free up a good amount of bureaucratic costs and lessen the tax burden on American businesses. As we know from past evidence, when Americans get to keep more of their own money they are much more charitable. In short time there would be charities created to help those who cannot repay their medical debt due to their medical condition. My proposed system stands up to Constitutional scrutiny because its usage is not obligatory and its costs are distributed only among its users. Beyond that, the universal access to this program would force insurance companies to offer a much more competitive alternative than they do now.

Global Warmology 101

2009-12-01T12:55:00.004-05:00

With all of this new information coming out about the e-mails concerning global warming, both sides are ratcheting up their efforts to gain support. The left, along with the majority of mainstream media, are simply ignoring the new evidence while the right is exaggerating and exploiting it's significance.

To be honest, I do not believe that mankind is capable of affecting the temperature of the entire planet, however, I know for sure that we are responsible for regional warming. I am sure that the reason the tornadoes always aim for trailer parks is because the shiny metal roofs reflect solar heat into the air above them creating a constant inward breeze that acts as a vacuum for small storms. Likewise, big cities are engines for local heating and cooling patterns. I am just as sure that those effects are restrained to the boundaries of those places.

What I do not subscribe to is a huge federally mandated financial overhaul in the name of saving the planet. That kind of tyrannical solution only polarizes half the country against the intended consequences. The general result is similar to the fact that it was Obama's history of supporting gun control that has created the strongest gun sales market in history. The whiplash has been a greater detriment to the cause than the original reasoning itself.

I would rather make a social effort to move people to take care of the environment for their own reasons. Try to follow me here.. Believe it or not, conservatives are a much greater force (in general) for environmentalism than liberals. A large number of hunters, fishermen and woodsmen are politically conservative. These are the people who are truly in touch with nature. They spend their leisure time in the woods or on the water and I can tell you from experience that they spew a dictionary of fowl and angry language when they come across a pile of trash left behind by some group of weekend warriors.

As an avid outdoorsman myself, I spend lots of time with friends on all sides of the political spectrum. With that in mind, i can also tell you from experience that it is the pot smoking, vodka drinking boaters and campers that preach about how greedy the rich are while they throw their trash where ever they go. It is the poor and uneducated that stand with their Obama shirt on and their hand out, in a pile of their own trash that is the real danger to our environment.

So, instead of preaching with condescension to the right about some fabricated global warming threat while prying money out of their pockets, lets just give them their own reasons and offer them some simple solutions that actually do help everybody.

Get the Politics out of Politics!

2009-11-22T15:27:00.003-05:00

I'm really sick of politicians... ALL OF THEM! Before I start I want to point out that the Republicans did the same thing when they held the majority and I was complaining then as well.

Here's the basic problem.. The Senate has the right to filibuster, that is, the minority can stall a bill indefinitely until the entire Senate just gives up on that bill and move on to something else. The positive side of this rule is that it keeps the minority from being completely helpless in cases where there is strong opposition against the majority.

The only recourse the majority has is to build a three fifths majority (60 votes) and vote to stop the filibuster and put the bill to a simple majority vote (requiring only 51 votes). This seems fair so far and I like the way this has worked in the past.

The only problem I have with this system is that it is used as a political tool and the citizens of the United States are dumb enough to fall for it. You see, I believe that if you support something then you should vote for it, adversely, if you do not then you should not. In other words, If 60 people are willing to vote for Cloture (stopping the filibuster) then 60 people clearly support the bill.

We have 60 Senators who wanted the bill to pass so much that they were willing to stop the filibuster but several of them claim to NOT support the bill. They do this because they have worked out a deal with the Majority leader to prearrange just enough votes to achieve a simple majority and can guarantee passage while voting against it so that they will not be held responsible by their constituency.

Taking the step to stop the filibuster is a dramatic show of support for a bill in and of itself, so for these Senators to go home after doing so and to claim that they voted against the unpopular bill is damn near treason. These clowns are voting to allow the passage of a bill that they would never be allowed to vote for by those who gave them the office and the morons that keep supporting them are screwing things up for the rest of us.

Once the Health Care bill is put to vote on the floor and voted on, I intend to call out every single Senator who supported it through cloture but pretended to vote against it. It is then your job to hold those traitors accountable and remind them of their dishonesty come election time.

This applies to both Republicans and Democrats. If you support this ridiculous health care abortion (that's my opinion)and you saw Senators vote for and then against those measures then you should be equally pissed off. These people need to just be honest and vote their heart rather than working the system just to keep us pacified!

Intellectual Cowardice

2009-11-16T15:09:00.003-05:00

Everyone on the right is calling Obama to hurry up and make a decision on what to do about the war in Afghanistan while everyone on the left is praising him for not letting the situation pressure him int making a bad decision. This, as we know, is a shining example of the ignorance of the left.

It is a personality flaw that is inherent with liberalism and created by the untested intellect of the educated elitists. What that means is that, for the most part, those who have spent most of their lives learning from others rather than their own mistakes have never really been held responsible for their solutions. Let me explain.. Engineers are employed to come up with a design for a product that will be installed by a tradesman. That product is deemed perfect by that engineer who will never be required to actually make it work nor install it in everyday applications. Once the "perfectly engineered" product gets into the hands of the tradesman he makes the necessary modifications to make it actually work. The engineer never knows that his product is flawed so he continues to think of himself as an elite designer and a great problem solver.

Usually it is the guy that has to do the real work who is the real engineer because he is directly responsible for his own actions. This applies to teachers and government officials as well. I can't tell you how many guys I've hired with great scores in school that were totally incapable when the rubber met the road. Yet, teachers really do think they know what they're doing...Ha! What a joke, you know what they say, those who can...do, those who can't... teach!

Back to the topic at hand. I want you to consider something. The president is taking time to come up with just the right decision while the soldiers are losing morale and sitting as targets for their enemies. As a military leader it is more often right to make the wrong decision quickly then the right one after the battle is lost. It does not make him wise to wait around thinking of the right thing to do while the circumstances worsen, it makes him a coward.

I understand that virtually nobody on the left has ever been in a position where they were required to decide on putting others in harms way so it's easy for them to say the things they say... but... to claim that Bush was a coward because he sent others to fight and did not fight himself is outright ignorant. It takes far more courage to send others into battle then to go yourself .This is why our wise and intellectual leader is still pondering this decision, he lacks the courage to take on the responsibility of his office.

As a disabled vet who permanently gave up the practical use of my right arm in an attempt to fight for your freedom, I have far more respect for Clinton as a poor military leader then for Obama who is afraid to lead at all!

Healthcare For Beginners and Dum Dums

2009-11-11T21:22:00.004-05:00

Hopefully you have joined us here at FREEDOMFRONT for some clarity. If you are a current reader then this might seem a bit redundant but please hang in there, this is important. I have tried to pull a debate from a facebook page over to this blog because this seems a more reasonable place for a political debate.

The prevouusly mentioned debate was about what else but the health care bill. With that in mind I will answer some charges as well as questions from said debate.

Number one: I have been poor! As a matter of fact I am now as poor as anyone I have ever met, including the homeless which I have interviewed. I have a wife who is unemployed because she had to leave work to care for me and my young child after I was disabled. I am obviously unemployed at the time because my disability does not allow me to return to any profession for which I have marketable experience. I also have two other children for which I am financially responsible. We are on food stamps and my disability pays $200 monthly, which just about covers nothing.

There are many other details about my personal life that I feel I should not share but I promise I am as bad off as anyone reading this. Beyond that I have lived without insurance for most of my life and in that time I have had Meningitis, a fractured neck, severe burns over more than 10% of my body, multiple bone breaks, countless stitches and an ulcer. All of this is absolute truth, do I qualify to talk about health care?

Number two: "The system is broken and needs to be fixed". As it stands our system is broken because our doctors can "write off" unpaid health care as a tax break and the taxpayers pick that up on the back side. Those taxpayers who were being robbed by the system still have the choice of getting better care at their own expense. This new plan will continue paying for those who cannot pay but will do it in the open which will invite more abuse and more expense. The problem is that those who could have chosen better care will no longer have that option. This only breaks the system more.

I propose a "loan" for health care. A low interest government loan that must be paid back in much the same way we pay our taxes. This will keep people from mindlessly spending money and force them to seek out better pricing while allowing them to choose the level of care. This will also force the health care providers to keep their prices and service marketable, you know, the free market way.

Number three: "The governments job is to take care of us". Clearly you never paid attention in school. The constitution is very clear on what the federal government is responsible for and nowhere in there is there anything about taking care of us. You need to move to Cuba if you need a babysitter in charge.

The design of our government was intentionally built from the bottom up. You are responsible for yourself. It is the place of each community to take care of the things that happen in that community and making sure that the people are fair to each other. The state is charged with the task of keeping the communities from working against each other while allowing them every opportunity to choose how they better themselves. This provides competition from community to community.

After that, it is the job of the federal government to make sure that states do not work against each other while allowing them the liberty to market themselves. This provides competition from state to state. The net effect is that any one community or even state is allowed to try this health care plan and the rest can see how it works out. If it is successful then other states will be forced to adopt it in order to keep its citizenry.

Obviously the federal government is also responsible for national defense and a couple other things but this is debate about their responsibility to each of us. The fact is that they have no responsibility towards the individual, this is the only way our founders could garuntee that the government would not be granted the power that accompanies that responsibility. Those who support this bill are fine with Obama having that power because they believe he will use it wisely. The question is... Would they have trusted Bush with that much power?

The point is that, regardless of the FACT that federal health care is unconstitutional, it is just a bad Idea to force an irreversable and all encompassing wad of legislation on every single American without even testing it on a smaller level. Really, would you get in a jet that has never been tested or drive a car on the interstate without knowing that the brakes work.

There are many more reasons to reconsider this legislation and I encourage you to read some of my past posts to get a more detailed explanation of how this country is supposed to work. I also challenge you to continue this debate in the comment section underneath each post.

Thanks for reading and keeping up with the most important stuff in the world.

What's Wrong With Socialism: The final word (I hope)

2009-11-10T20:09:00.002-05:00

I have recently made a point of asking several people a number of questions to help better understand what I am up against. While it was anything but scientific I tried to get the most honest results possible and was very careful not to let the pattern of the questions taint the results.

First I looked for people who i knew to be generally uninterested in politics, that is, those who are only subjected to the basic flow of information through mass media and the bias of their upbringing. Then I asked questions about government programs (including health care) and eventually about capitalism vs socialism.

What I learned was both interesting and scary as hell. First of all I found that few knew of a difference between a democracy and a republic. Most, however, thought that we were a democracy. Obviously they are wrong... We are (or once were) a Republic, more to the point, a representative democratic republic. If you don't understand then please let me know so I can help you out.

I also found that most people in my survey thought that socialism was "definitely not good" and that capitalism had "something to do with greed" but could not define either one. I'm guessing that the Hollywood portrayal of both sides has led to this conception of each. I'm glad that they think of socialism as bad but I'm not comfortable with their lack of reason in the matter.

Finally, I found that most people want the government to get involved in the lives of other people but not of their own. That is to say that they want to punish the "greedy rich" and to "help the poor" but they are not willing to give up their own freedoms nor the product of their own labor in the process. I guess that's the middle class mantra... "leave me out of it".

What most people seem to ignore is that when you give the government the power to give to the poor and take from the rich you have also giving them the power to set those parameters. You see, during the campaign Obama promised that the necessary tax hike would only apply to those who made over $300k. Then he dropped that number to $250k, and then $200k and now I'm hearing both $150k and $100k. "So what, they are rich" right? Well how much do you make? What if they decide that they need to raise taxes on everyone making over $40k?

Now in order to pay for those who have nothing you are being forced to pay up to 40% of your earnings. That means that the first 3 hours of your workday go to paying for those who do not work and then you get to keep what you've earned for the other 5 hours. That hardly seems fair right?... Wait, it gets worse.

So the government feels that $7 an hour is not a livable wage and raises the minimum wage to $10. At that point it would cost every business in the country an extra 30% to pay the least productive employees. How does a business offset that extra cost? Well, either by raising the price of the product or reducing the payroll and demanding more productivity from the remaining employees.

If they raise the price of the products then the new wage will no longer be considered a livable wage in a market where all of the prices are higher and the same cycle will continue to repeat itself until the minimum and maximum wages meet. Remember, every time the minimum wage goes up your wage stays the same but the prices go up. That means that the entry level worker gains nothing while your income to expense ratio decreases.

On the other hand.. If the employees choose to absorb the new wage increase by reducing payroll then they will need to release those who are least productive. those individuals will become dependant on the state and the cost of welfare will skyrocket. The government will then be forced to raise the tax burden on the producers in order to absorb the cost.

With an increase in taxes levied on the businesses they will be forced to raise the price of their product in order to absorb the new cost. You will also feel that increase in cost as your expenses go up while your income goes down. The net result is the same, everyone will make the same thing regardless of their productivity.

This is the Democrats dream, the Utopian fantasy that Obama preaches. A world where no matter what you do you will not be able to gain ground on others. All will be equal but will anything be fair? The "progressives" are proud to tell us that they can provide universal equality at the expense of the "rich".

Sure, they want us to all drive little "green" go carts and plan to tax us if we choose not to. They want us to all eat healthy so that we do not add a burden to the "free" health care system and they have proposed punishments if we don't comply. They will offer affordable energy to everyone who uses the right amount at the right time (as they define). They want to offer federally approved education to every single child at no cost to anyone.

They are currently offering up these things and many more... but, where is the freedom? All we hear from Obama (the millionaire) is how we need to be prepared to "sacrifice" for the "common good". How only our federal government can make things good for "everyone". His Idea of responsibility is that everyone is responsible for everyone but themselves. If lawyers have proven anything it is that we can get away with anything as long as we can blame someone else. This is where our nation is headed, "I'm not responsible so I can't be held responsible for my actions".

All of the things that I've shown you are consistent with socialist societies. I hope that my short series has enlightened you and you are willing to admit that it is better to start with capitalism and introduce limited restrictions than to move to socialism and try to introduce freedoms. I pray that I never again find myself having to answer the question "what's wrong with socialism"!

Including a Semi-Automatic?

2009-11-06T21:35:00.004-05:00

Today I have to put a couple things out there before I get to my point.

First.. To all of those who are feeling the pains from that dispicible attack on Ft Hood I want you to know that My prayers are with you....Hooah!

Second.. I am doubled in my pain as I was on my way to the family viewing of my grandfather when I heard about the attack. Sadly, my grandfather passed away last Sunday and I am in Virginia this week for the funeral. We were very close and it has been a very painful loss for me so please excuse my lack of enthusiasm in the blog this week. Next week I will return with a vengence.

So while watching the news coverage of the "mass shooting" in Texas I sat with baited breath, waiting for the anti-gun animosity to show through from our "balanced" media. The moment came in subtle whisps but were heard loudly by those who listened. The news babe says "the shooter used two handguns" and then emphasised "including a semi automatic".

This is the kind of nonsense that our media reports daily and people just accept it. Pointing out that a handgun used in a crime was semi automatic is tant amount to telling us that a car used in a hit and run had an automatic transmission. Seriously, does that really make i sound more ominous? Is it not painfully obvious why they had to throw that in?

This is the way they move people against guns, by making it sound like they "automatically" kill innocent bystanders. They invent words like "assult rifle" to make guns sound like the bad guys while ignoring the fact that people kill with lots of different weapons.

Maybe if we start calling cars with automatic transmissions "assault vehicles" and any club that can be swung multiple times could be called a "semi-automatic pounder" we can get people to stop doing just about anything.

On the other hand, I have noticed that in places where guns are not allowed (Ft Hood, Va Tech, Columbine) the death toll gets high quickly but in places where guns are liberally distributed you never hear about mass shootings. Maybe there is something to this fact... naa, that makes too much sense.

What's Wrong With Socialism: Part III

2009-10-31T11:53:00.002-04:00

Trading Freedom for Security

For those who volunterily enter into socialism it seems like a Utopian idea. The simplified thought is that everyone will work for the good of the whole rather than for their own "greed". They honestly believe that if you take away the potential for profit then everyone will just live life free of stress and they will all feel patriotic as they carry their assigned grain of sand.

At the same time they believe that it is the promise of profit, presented by capitalism, that causes the worlds evil. In other words, they think that rich people deserve to be robbed and that an attractive woman is at fault if she is raped because she "invited" the evil behavior, as if to say that the rapist was not in control of his own actions.

The reality of socialism is that it is a system for relieving people of personal responsibility and projecting it on to the elected government. It is the surrender of personal freedom in the name of security. This freedom includes the right to property, prosperity and the right to express opinions.

Starting with property, in a socialist system all property is owned by all people but is "fairly" controlled by the government. If you posess property that the government deems necessary for public use then you will be forced to surrender it. If you live in a home that the government considers unsafe then you will be forced to leave it and live in provided dormatories, like it or not.

Going further, if you have developed a product or proposed an idea, it will become public property and any expense you've incurred will be your own responsibility. All of these things are happening here in America (on some level) today, thanks to social programs. We have given our government the power to decide which companies fail and which companies should be controlled by "the people". I could prove this to you but I think you are all honest enough to admit that I'm right.

Prosperity is tied to personal property, after all, one cannot sell what one does not own. Our banks, power and automotive industries are a great example of this. When the TARP bill was passed many of us expressed serious concern that acceptance of the funds would be equal to a government takeover. To that we were told that "it is only a loan, the government would play NO active roll". Now our great wise trustworthy government is dictating the salaries of those companies which accepted the money. That seems like a pretty active roll to me... liars.

The right to an opinion... That's a fun one. It's a universal fact that those in power wish to remain in power. When the republicans were in power (in the past) they were well known for stifling free expression in the name of "forced morality". That was as wrong then as it would be now. These days, the left owns the monopoly on stifling free expression. These controls are in place to show favor to the majority in order to keep votes coming in and thus retain power.

We are now afraid of losing our jobs, homes and personal property if we utter anything that could be defined (by the left) as offensive. We are not allowed to smoke on private property, we are not allowed to speak about the Bible in public places and if the left gets their way, there will be no more Tv or radio shows that do not fit the government provided mold of "fair". These are not the rules of society but of the government.

Seriously? How can the government punish people for being biggots? What the Hell kind of freedom is that. You see, the basic design of capitalism is that if one is offensive towards people then those people could choose not to support his product and thus he would be forced to either fail, change or find a market (however small) among people who agree with him. This prevents people who disagree with him from preventing him from having an opinion. In a socialist society the majority can create laws that allow the government to punish him for his thought. This happens today in the form of "Hate Crimes". We are no longer punishing people for their actions, we are punishing them for what they were thinking during that action.

Adversly, we are punishing people for success as well. If the majority of people lack the courage to cross the river then the few that do will gain nothing for doing so. If the other bank has an abundance of food and shelter but many of those who attempt to cross the river drown then those who are afraid will make it illegal to attempt. They are using the fear of the majority to impose restrictions on the minority... in the name of "safety". It was the courage and willingness to cross that river that made America what it is today (or what it could have been without the wimps on the left). To "change" in the name of safety would be about as un-American as it gets.

It is not the place of government to dictate morals, punish thoughts or choose who is "too big to fail". That is, unless you live in a socialist society. In a socialist society you have the right to believe whatever the majority says you can believe, sell whatever the majority says you can sell and own whatever the majority says you can own... that is, until they want it back.

Be sure to go back and read Moral capital vs moral authority ( http://freedomfront.blogspot.com/2009/08/moral-capital-vs-moral-authority.html )

What's Wrong With Socialism: Part II

2009-10-30T19:14:00.003-04:00

OUR CANCER

As I've pointed out in the past, socialism around the world is totally dependent on our free market. Those who are dis-allowed to partake in our system (like Cuba) suffer greatly in terms of quality of life. The only reason Cubans survive at all is because they are helped by other nations who do take part in our economy.

According to the Canadian governments trade statistics, roughly 80% of Canada's economy revolves around the export of goods to the United States and of all of the countries which they import from we are responsible for 75% (ish) of their imports. If you start looking around the world you will find this to be a universal constant, after all, why do you think the dollar is the single most accepted currency in the world.

We (Americans) have been providing the world with the technology as well as an open market to keep their economies going for over 150 years, what happens when we stop being us and start being them?

Back in the turn of the century (around 1900) we saw a huge influx of immigrants from almost every nation in the world. It was almost as if everyone in the world wanted to live in our free market in stead of their closed market for some strange reason.

The pain of that growth was evident through our political strife. Suddenly the majority of Americans had no education and little or no knowledge of what being American was all about. They brought in their own ideas of how government should be run and were dead set on rebuilding that with which they were familiar. This is what gave us the "Progressive Republicans", "socialists" and "Democratic" parties of that era.

With more democratic power than brains they started several social programs... some of which are stuck with us today. Things like the minimum wage, social security and labor unions were the foundation for unregulated regulation. Even the Supreme Court was filled with idiots that applied their ideals to their interpretation of our Constitution. (Does any of this sound familiar)

Once these leftists gained power (through the promise of Robin Hood economics) they made quick work of overturning certain parts of the bill of rights with new amendments. Now the government would have a little wiggle room to start taxing in ways that would have made our founders take up arms. That was where our economy became forever tied to our politics, that was the socialist cancer on the hide of an otherwise healthy steed.

We have learned that the free market is much stronger than socialism because we have survived, but are severely wounded by, the Cancer on our hide. It seems that, with the turn of the new century, our cancer has begun to spread again. This is due to the same lack of understanding and knowledge that led to the birth of said cancer so many years ago. Hopefully we can force this cancer back into remission and regain our place as the greatest Nation in the world.

What's Wrong With Socialism: Part one

2009-10-25T09:20:00.003-04:00

Before I get to the meat of the topic, let's clear some things up. There is a distinct difference between socialism and communism. Communism is a socio-economic system in which all participants share ownership of all things. That is, it can be very democratic because the majority can establish the rules regardless of its impact on the minority. This is where the evil lies. If the "popular movement" is towards laziness then the minority can be forced to carry the load.

Imagine a business, lets say a pet shop, where there is no boss. All employees have an equal stake in the company and thus equal power. The only way to set any agenda is for all parties to vote on it. Obviously everyone would vote for high wages but would want to do minimum work. The result would be that the majority would "pick" a small group to carry the load in order to pay the payroll and the bills.

Eventually those who were picked as the workers would grow tired of doing IN-equal work for an equal share of the profit and would either try to quit or be forced to carry that load under threat of violence. This is why communist countries do not allow their citizenry to leave the country, nobody would be left to carry the load.

In a socialist system, there is a single party leadership which is "chosen" to divide the task of maintaining profitability throughout the citizenry. This means that everyone in the pet shop would be held accountable for their part. The problem is that it will be the boss (the ruling party) that chooses who does what.

So if the boss favors one person then that person will be placed in charge of collecting the money for the pets (the easy job with much opportunity for corruption) while those whom he perceives as his enemies or a threat to his leadership would be responsible for cleaning the cages. It should be rather obvious where this can end.

Both systems carry a certain degree of "sacrifice" on the part of the individual in order to "provide for the greater good" of the nation. This is admitted in the constitutions of nearly every self proclaimed socialist and communist nation in the world. Some even admit that these "sacrifices" are in the form of potential for prosperity and personal liberty. These are the sacrificial lambs of every system of government ever implemented, including socialism, communism, democracy, monarchy and a host of variables therein... that is, except for the little experiment known as the U.S.A.

My Brothers Keeper

2009-10-24T11:09:00.003-04:00

You may have noticed that I have moved away from hard facts and figures that support my philosophy and focused on the philosophy itself. Don't worry, the facts will return... I am in the throws of some tremendous research and I refuse to enter the details of that research until the logical (objective) conclusion has been established.

The reason that I have been pushing philosophy over substance is related to some conversations that I've engaged in recently. Primarily, but not exclusively, the debates with my brother. He is an intelligent man but perhaps too educated, regardless, he is a good measure of what the bulk of self proclaimed "independents" are thinking.

You see, he is in the video production industry and has spent countless years in school followed by a long term career surrounded by leftists. He has resisted the worst part of the natural indoctrination but has fallen prey to just enough of it to cloud his judgement.

Several years ago my father and I were debating with my brother, about what I really don't remember, and my father brought up that we must always be prepared to fight off a potential communist/socialist takeover. I remember the laugh to this day, it was that condescending, arrogant, sarcastic laugh, as he claimed that we "were living in the 1950s". We could not convince him that our country could ever be turned socialist, he simply wrote that suggestion off as absurd.

So fast forward to a couple of weeks ago. In a similar debate, my father and I against my self proclaimed independent brother, We were able to convince him that the current political climate is in favor of socialism. It was not easy, but through facts and audio/video evidence we laid out an iron clad case for our claims.

Once convinced that the previously inconceivable march towards socialism was becoming a dark reality, he said something that shook me to the core. He said "good, it's better than capitalist greed". It was at that moment that I realized that my argument would have to take a dramatic change. Instead of trying to prove that Obama and company were socialists, I'd now be forced to defend capitalism over socialism. Something that I can't believe I could have to do.

So in my recent posts I've been trying to help people define who they really are, to make them think through their own philosophy and to better understand that of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine and me. Once people are in touch with their own beliefs I intend to provide information that will, like polarized sunglasses, help them look past the reflections of blue Sky and puffy clouds on the surface of the water, and into the depths where the sharks circle in anticipation of an effortless meal.

We are the generation that will either go down as the one that voted away our own freedom or the one that stood fast against the socialist tsunami that has building beneath the surface for a hundred years and is finally reaching the shore. You, the single person, have infinite power to protect that which is being attacked. You need only to acquire and spread knowledge, it is knowledge that will keep us free and the children of those who oppose you the most, will someday thank you.

Progressives Against Progress

2009-10-17T20:52:00.003-04:00

Something is seriously missing from the health care debate. While the left is trying to pretend that they do NOT intend to use this as a gateway to socialized medicine and the right is trying to pretend that they are not using words like "death panel" to dissuade people from supporting it, I am looking at the lost dog in this fight.

The left likes to tell us how great the government health care is in socialist countries. They claim that they have access to all of the same technology as we do in our private system and that the only thing that will change is who is paying for it.

I know from experience that all of that is nonsense but for the sake of argument, let's pretend that the left is mostly right. The one other thing that will change is who gets paid.. and how much. So far the left should be with me, after all, even they admit that the government must be in charge of wages in order to control costs.

So now that the government has capped income potential and has forced an increase in the number of general practice physicians while raising their work load, the research end will suffer greatly. This is an effect that has been realized in every socialist country in the world... to some degree. So how is it that the small number of medical breakthroughs that originate from socialist countries are able to reach fruition despite their limited resources?

The answer brings us to the real trouble with the new American movement towards socialism. You see, medical breakthroughs (not unlike all other advancements) around the world are financed by the Private industry here in the good ol' USA.

Try to process this. If a Chinese company has an idea for research they must go to their government for the money. That government would be forced to deny that grant because the funds just do not exist to pay money, which is needed for basic health care, into research based on an idea. Enter the United States. The Chinese government will see the vast profit potential in developing a needed advancement and selling it in our free market which, in turn, will allow them to provide it to their own citizenry.

The proof is in the pudding, rather, history books. Prior to the creation of the free market capitalist system which is historically unique to our nation, technological advancements were moving at a snails pace. The risk/reward ratio exists, universally, within every decision we make. In the past (as well as in socialist societies today) there was very little opportunity for reward. Any popular development would just be absorbed by the monarch or spread back into the system leaving its inventor responsible for reproducing this product with little more than a thank you. In effect, one who advances society is only making more work for himself.

Our system put a stop to this idiocy. We were offered the promise of infinite rewards that only grew with risk. Even other countries have prospered through our freedom. They have produced things that could not have existed if not for our prosperity. This is why, as I've pointed out in the past, we moved from the 15,000 year reliance on the horse to today's incredible machinery within 3 generations of American free market prosperity.

So what if that promise of reward is taken away? What will happen to the world medical industry when there are no free markets to lean on for research money? What the left is proposing is putting a cap on the potential reward for those who would have been willing to take the necessary risks. By doing so, they will be putting a cap on the risk that people would be willing to take in pushing the envelope of advancement. The net result will be the same lack of progress that brought us from the bloodlettings of ancient Egypt, over 10,000 years ago, to the bloodlettings of the 18 century.

This is the unintended effect of progressivism. This is the house with no doors that they intend to build for us in order to protect us from what might be outside. This is today's Democratic monarchy, voted in by those who have no ambition in order to impede those who have it.

This principle applies to a lot more than health care. Please, think this through.

Spoiled Rotten Brats

2009-10-17T20:00:00.004-04:00

No matter what your political inclination is one thing always rings true... nobody likes a spoiled rotten brat. You know the one, mommy and daddy always threatened to punish him but never did. They told him he couldn't have it but he took it anyway. When he got himself in trouble he could be sure that his parents would bail him out so he made no effort to avoid that trouble.

Once he grew up his daddy got him a cushy job at the office where he had few responsibilities and did even less work while you had to pick up the slack. You couldn't do anything about it either, if you reported his lack of production you became the bad guy and would suffer for it.

Today that guy is all around us. The number of spoiled brats has increased and those who have to pick up their slack are suffering more than ever. Even if you are a tree hugging, bleeding heart liberal you must admit that you have no love for these jackasses, that is.. unless you are one of them.

So if these guys, who have never been required to earn anything and have been rewarded greatly for doing nothing, are such a thorn to everybody else then why is the left trying to turn us all into those people?

Think about it... They want to lower the wages of the most productive people on earth while raising the wages for those who simply show up. They want to tax those who have earned money in order to pay for those who earn nothing. They want to bail out everyone who bought more than they could pay for while offering nothing to those who showed discipline. They want to offer property, transportation and a health care package to the least productive guy in the office, because he's the guy that voted for them, while taking those things away from those who have been forced to shoulder an increasing amount of the load. Then, after all of that, they call those overburdened hard workers who start to complain all kinds of names like heartless death eaters and suggest that they, because of their opposition, are being paid by "big insurance" and are merely greedy.

Frankly, I don't know how these tyrants can sleep at night. I guess they are so wrapped up in the idea of being "liberal" or "progressive" that they refuse to look at the reality of their actions. They have been taught by Hollywood as well as our socialist education system that becoming rich makes you greedy and therefore EVIL! What was once the very American dream, that propelled global society light years beyond any previous civilization, is now taboo. You must assimilate or become assimilated, I feel like I fell into one of those windows from the old TV show Sliders and landed in an alternate universe.

So, lefty, who are you? Are you the tyrannical moral authority that feels that all people should be rewarded for the work of those who choose to provide? Or, are you the proud but ignorant soldier of socialism because you actually think that it's ok to spoil your kids rotten, even if it bankrupts you?

Good Debate, Good Beer, Good Times

2009-10-10T15:00:00.003-04:00

First I'd like to thank my new friends from Bradenton for a great night of debate (among other things). It was a shining example of how this nation is going to progress, free and open debate in a public tavern.

Between the sips of good beer and the distraction of the countless sporting events being displayed on the array of flat screen TVs there was an inspirational conversation taking place. A friendly debate between total strangers who both wanted only one thing... A better future for their children.

The means could not have been more distantly divided but the goal was the same. The informaton was fair and honest and the passion was deep and consuming. With all of this, there was no anger, hate or even disrespect between the small group of patriots who entered the arena of ideas with the strength of their own convictions.

I was so proud, I've always been taught to avoid politics and religion in public forums but on this night we had broken through the taboo and made it work. We debated both. A hand full of guys with as many differing opinions were able to sit and discuss while remaining friendly because we all adhered to the facts and never got personal.

I bet you want to know who won the debate... The answer is.... You! That's right, we each put in our two cents and we each left with something that we hadn't come with. Now we can share our honed philosophy with the next group at the next tavern. The long term result of this pattern is a stronger citizenship full of people who have been forced, through piblic debate, to question their own facts and find better understanding of their own values in order to help others understand them.

The key to the success of this debate was the fact that none of us were bound to any party affiliation. We simply had a set of principles and ideas that lead us to our idiologies.

Now it is your turn. Go out and talk to everyone about the right answers. Don't attack what others are doing and don't defend anothers attack. Just share your own Ideas and consider the ideas of others. Be friendly and keep it impersonal. It can work but you have to keep it safe.

On that note, I am still waiting for one of you (on the left) to come and explain exactly what it is that you stand for. I do not want to pick a fight but I want a reasonable debate. I have explained most of My beliefs in "the jimmy Strawn plan" which is linked on the right side of the blog.

The Emporer's New Prize

2009-10-10T14:56:00.002-04:00

Really? The Nobel Peace Prize?
Not much for me to say about that, that doesn't say it for itself!

"There are no necessary evils in government"

2009-10-01T20:09:00.003-04:00

So as I flip through the channels of my basic cable system and, for some God awful reason, I stop to hear a few minutes ofeach of the talking heads that I intend to pass something struck a chord. I realized something that I knew but was not sure if I was the only one who knew it.

This realization (far from an epiphany) drove me to look at some of my historical notes and data and you would be completely unamazed with what I found. It turns out that the left is wrong about almost everything that they believe... Or maybe just everything they say that they believe!

Here's how I got here... Going back and moving forward there has been one constant throughout time. Democrats always stand for change. On March 26, 1834 Andrew Jackson (our first Democratic president) became the first president to be censured by the Senate for "exceeding his Constitutional powers".

Yes, the nation was young and still forming but he went over the edge and changed the Presidency forever. He fought, tooth and nail, for a broad and powerful federal government which would be controlled mostly by the President himself. "There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils only exist in its abuses" (Jackson to Congress, 7/10/1832). He moved abruptly to make sweeping changes in the powers of the President over the states, while making enemies of all of our previous founders.

It was his claim of a mandate (winning the election of 1828 with 647,286 votes against the 508,064 votes for J.Q. Adams) which he used as his reasoning for the rapid change. He felt that he was representing what was fair and right and that he was put there for that reason only, not to listen to the conservative minority. He would become the "Godfather" of the Democratic party.

Now, looking at the Constitution, there is another anomolie. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution were ratified in late 1791. The 11th was ratified in 1795 and the 12th in 1804. This means that the first 12 amendments became law within just about thirteen years...It would be more than 60 years before anyone felt the need to change anything.

So, now that all of our "Founders" were either passed or to old to be a factor, it was time to start adding things and screwing with the original Constitution. Granted, times change and things come up but most of what was added was already pretty clear for the conservatives as an understanding of the original paperwork.

Since that time our Constitution has more than doubled and of those 14 new amendments, only 5 were ratified by Republicans. Here's the sad part, of those 5 republicans, 3 (Grant, Taft and Hoover) had already been voted out of office and had signed under serious political pressure. This leaves the only two Republican presidents to add to the Constitution as Nixon and Bush Sr. Not exactly the pride of the conservative movement.

I know that some amendments were great and others.. well, you know.. But the point is that the Dems (and generally the left) have always been in a hurry to make drastic changes in our government. From Jackson to FDR, Clinton to Obama, these guys always come in with a whirlwind of new programs and Ideas and cram them down our throats the second they have the majority with which to do so.

Hmmmm, why is it that they are always in a hurry? Well, last night I got my answer (which I had already suspected). I heard the audio clip of a Liberal saying that "we need to hurry up and pass these things while we still have the power" and then went on to say "this might be our last chance for a long time".

WOW! Can you read between the lines? What they are saying is that what they are donig is not popular but it is the right thing so we have to do it all before anyone can stop us. You see, when a conservative gets into office they don't run around trying to force new laws in before anyone can see what they are. They might have to undo some ridiculous mess made by the overzealous Dem that they proceeded but generally they are very methodical.

When is the last time a Conservative Republican took office and said that they needed to hurry a bunch of laws through "while they still have the power". They don't! It's because they have nothing to hide. We conservatives do not hide behind a new label every time the populous figures out what the old one means (Liberal..Leftist..Independent..Progressive..) we have always simply been conservative and proud of it. Even Michael Moore said in an interview that he was impressed by the rights "convictions" in that we never back down from what we believe.

The point is that the left always runs around like a chicken.. blah blah... everytime they get a little power because they know that they will be voted out and generally disgraced once the majority of people see what they've done. This is how it is now and this is how it's always been. The left is just plain wrong!

The Snooze Button

2009-09-28T10:07:00.002-04:00

Is it me or is the argument moving to the left. During the campaign we, the right wingers, were trying to convince people that Obama was a socialist. The response from those who were backing Obama was that we were just trying to scare people into voting for a republican. They denied any socialist inclination on behalf of Obama and refused to look at the facts.

Then the government take over of the banking industry as well as the automotive industry took place. We pointed to that as the evidence of Obama's attempt at moving our nation towards socialism. Those who voted for him felt as if we were attacking them and came to his defense. They claimed that it was necessary to take over those industries in order to save the economy and the many jobs that were at stake. They swore that there was no tie to socialism, that it would be a short term fix but those entities would be returned to the market once Obama saves the economy.

Then the truth about Obama's appointments was exposed. We pointed to the admitted communists and proud radicals as proof that Obama was on the road to socialism. We saw video of his czars telling us that they had to quiet their own intents in order to push through their socialist agenda. We heard Obama tell us to judge him by those who he surrounds himself with, yet, his supporters just claimed that we were claiming guilt by association. They said that we were engaged in a "smear campaign" against everyone around Obama while we only pointed to what came from their own mouths as the proof of their intentions, but still, they insisted that socialism was not the goal.

By this point they were beginning to really trash capitalism. They were beginning to hate the free market while looking to other nations as a guide to a more "fair" system. They refused to acknowledge that those model countries were socialist and denied that we could ever become a socialist society.

Now we are slowly seeing a shift in our debates. We are watching as the ignorant masses start to admit that they would accept socialism and rather than denying that Obama is pushing socialism. Now we are actually forced to defend free market capitalism as a philosophy against the overwhelming push toward socialism. How is it possible that people who, a year ago, got angry with us for suggesting that we were headed towards socialism are now defending that very system.

Seriously, if I hear one more indoctrinated nitwit say "what's wrong with socialism" I'm going to blow a gasket. I mean... really? Do I really have to answer that question? How the heck did we get here? I know the answer to that question but I still refuse to believe that people are that ignorant. To look at the rest of the world and not be able to see that all of their advances, all of their successes and all of their freedoms are a direct result of our free market is evidence that the majority of our populous has just given up looking for answers and simply accepted the "common sense" as reality.

Most people think of us (people who actually follow politics) as geeks. We need to "get a life" as they would say. Meanwhile they get any and all political opinion through marketing. They see a 30 second news clip and assume that it represents the entirety of the story so they then feel confident in their own conclusions. So much so that they are willing to fight against anyone who would challenge them to look deeper into a subject and refuse to hear any new information.

This indoctrination is nothing new. Even during the days of the revolution there was a constant battering from the media about how radical our forefathers were. It is accepted that more than 70% of Americans opposed the Revolution, yet, these free thinkers pushed through the nonsense and brought a change toward freedom, far from the kind of change that we face now.

If you call yourself a "progressive" or think of yourself as a "liberal" and still refuse to see that we are rolling down the hill towards socialism then please wake up! This is your alarm, this is your chance to beak the trance. If, on the other hand, you consider yourself all of these things and are accepting, even excited about socialism then please explain to me why you like this idea. Please leave a comment so that we can understand how you've come to this acceptance and give me the chance to engage you in a reasonable debate.

If you are with me then stop letting people mash the snooze button and start dragging them out of their slumber. It is information that brought us our freedom two hundred years ago and it is information that will help us keep that freedom today.

Thank God for Beck

2009-09-25T20:04:00.003-04:00

Last night all of the liberal television stations were interviewing the two anti-American producers who have new releases coming up. The first of which was Ken burns, the documentary film genius who has shown outstanding skill in producing some of the most moving films I've ever seen. I really do mean it, regardless of his communist/socialist slant, he is a great producer.

His new mini-series about national parks is showing throughout the week on your local PBS station. In it, he highlights the creation of our national parks as the best idea ever, both in terms of saving land and providing jobs.

For me, the jury is still out on that premise. The fact that FDR "created jobs" for millions of unemployed people and thus created (printed) the money to pay them, was not such a great idea. We are still paying that back today.

I am, however, pretty sure that I like that certain landmarks belong to everyone. If the stated fact that those parks only consume 1% of our taxes is true then I think I can live with that as well. I just can't stand that he has so much hatred for capitalism. After all, capitalism is what pays for him to spend months filming some of the most beautiful places on earth.

Then there is the nemesis of freedom himself. This clown started out by attacking our right to own guns, then moved on to defacing America after 9/11, then tried to sell us a socialist health care system and is now admitting that he hates capitalism in and of itself.

No, I'm not talking about Obama, though I could be, I'm talking about the jelly donut himself, Mr Moore. He seemed to enjoy trashing capitalism with all of his buddies at MSNBC and Comedy Central while trying to sell us his new propaganda film. I find it funny that those who have supported Obama the most are the ones preaching socialism while God... I mean Obama, tries to say that he is opposed to socialism. But then Obama has trashed capitalism, the military, the Constitution and pretty much everything else that has made America the greatest place on earth as well.

If you want to learn more about Obama, watch Mike Moore make a fool of himself with this new movie and see what the underlying philosophy of the left really is. He is not a fringe lunatic who even upsets the left, he is a perfect representation of the lunacy that is the foundation of the left. Moore, Olberman, Maddow and the Democratic party are all in lockstep in the march of socialism that is attacking the very soul of our freedom.

I know you've seen the video of the classroom singing praise to Obama, I know you've heard the enemies of our way of life throw their support behind Obama during the UN competition of "pat yourself on the backers", I also know that you hear idiots preaching the word of Obama on nearly every media outlet in the nation. I know how nervous you are right now... Don't worry, our voices are being heard. We do have a hero, in fact, we have many of them.

In all of the noise and the pounding propaganda that consumes us and our children every day there is one hero that is giving up every semblance of life in order to save our great nation. All I can say is... Thank God for Glenn Beck!

This man is taking on the most powerful predator we've seen since FDR and Hitler. He is exposing the levels of corruption within our government that would make Attila the Hun blush. I'm not blaming Obama for all of it but he does put a face on our terror. He is every bit as guilty as the other scumbags, of both parties, that are stealing our freedom from underneath of us.

I do not know Mr Beck (if that is his real name), other than listening to him since he first hit the air on 970 WFLA here in Tampa, but I do have faith in him. He has earned my trust and with that he has also earned a place in history. Maybe not in the school books but in my family, from generation to generation, his great deeds WILL be remembered and if you have any honor... You will do the same.

I'm not a follower of a radio talk show host, but a companion of a great man. I walk the same path because our philosophy and faith take us to the same place. If you are like me then we must work to defend him together. He is under attack, both figuratively and literally, we must make sure that anyone who would strike him is aware that they are striking us and that we are NOT weak. Glenn Beck must know that we have his back, so that he can continue his crusade against "soft tyranny" without fear of reprisal.

Middle Class Warfare

2009-09-24T18:41:00.002-04:00

One of the guiding principals of the modern democratic party is the "strengthening of the middle class". By this they mean the expansion of the middle class. They have gained much political ground by promising to favor the middle class and helping the poor achieve that beloved level of mediocrity. So, have you ever questioned why the right never wants to talk about their programs to help the middle class?

The fact is that the Dems support the lower and middle class while the Rebublicans support the rich. I guess if you are a shallow minded moron with no faith in humanity you might think that this makes the Republicans evil while escalating the Dems to a high level of moral greatness. If you think this way then please run up to the local Wal-Mart, buy some personal lubricant and start spreading it LIBERALLY around your neck... Because... I'm about to force your head back out of your rectum.

You see, over the last few decades I have had to listen to the left complain about how, during Republican administrations, the middle class shrinks while the rich get richer. The facts that they show us only prove that the upper middle class break through the economic barrier and move into the rich column which lowers the number of "middle class" by that percentage.

The facts that they do not show us relate to the ever climbing divorce rate within the U.S.. You see, if a couple who claims a household income of $45k (well within the middle class) gets a divorce, they have now split into two single people who report about $20k which places them into the catagory of "poor". This takes 1 point from the middle class average but adds 2 points to the lower class average, completely skewing the integrity of the results.

So now on to the important stuff. I do not want a leader who needs me to either stay poor or not ever get rich in order to win elections. I am working on getting rich some day and I do not wish to be punished should I reach that goal. The conservatives, however, support, and are supported by, the rich. Therefore, they will only gain if their voters gain. They need more people to get rich in order to get the number of votes needed to stay in office.

You tell me, which person is the real hero? The guy who wants a broader middle class or the guy who wants everyone to be wealthy. I know what you're thinking, "the rich get there on the backs of the workers so there will be as many poor as rich". It seems that way but the economy is not a zero sum game.

I know how hard it is for you to comprehend but we can all be wealthy. Okay, maybe not all of us but we can all be paid according to what we are willing to put in to it. There will always be those who either will not or cannot work. For them there is charity, not government handouts.

The final question is how to define the middle class. For centuries, before we came along, the middle class were those who had food and shelter. Then came cars and boats and second homes and big screen televisions.....

The middle class today is infinatly more wealthy than that of 60 years ago and lets be honest, the poor aint doing too bad neither. I have been to the welfare office and seen the kids sitting in the SUVs playing their video games on their multiple monitors. I watch Cops, I see the worst part of the ghetto and the nasty homes with the 65" flat screens on the wall. For the most part, your economical class is directly related to your lifestyle decisions and not the great government handouts or corporate oppression.

The Unthinkable

2009-09-19T20:55:00.003-04:00

It seems inevitable that we are headed for a major event in our nations history. The question at hand is what type of an event it will be.

Will it be strictly political or will there be an Arch Duke Ferdinand moment that tips the balance and causes a flood of violence and civil unrest. Maybe, God forbid, this whole thing could lead to a civil war or a revolution.

The left is already calling it a political revolution. That is to say that they are proud that they have turned our country on its ear and they are now aggressively working on (as Obama said) "fundamentally changing America".

So with that in mind I think I should help you understand the difference between a revolution and a civil war. Simply put... it's the winner.

If the standing nation is challenged and defeated then we have experienced a "revolution". On the other hand, if the standing nation is able to crush or even resist the opposition then it would have been a "civil war".

So, for now, we have a political entity that has gained power and is beginning to challenge the basic foundation of America as we've known it and a grass roots effort to stand up against that change. At some point somebody will have to give in and say uncle or it WILL escalate to an all out war.

Looking at the two groups involved are you willing to place a bet on which side that will be? I promise you that the resistance will never lie down and just accept the "Change" that is being forced down our throats. That just leaves one possibility... somehow I just don't see the left (who has invested sooo much into this takeover) giving up the fight either. But then.. maybe they realize that it is the right that has been buying all of the ammo for the past 9 months.

I do not hope for this kind of battle but I can see it coming. Just stew on it for a while, you know I'm right. This is why we need to get the information out there to as many people as possible. If everyone chooses to work this out the right way (through discussion and understanding) then those who are behind this takeover will feel so small that they will slither back into the darkness, alone and defeated!

If we cannot accomplish this then we may find out, the hard way, if this is a new revolution or just another civil war.

See, Obama's corrupt, just like the rest

2009-09-11T20:46:00.002-04:00

So that I don't insult anyone whom I did not intend to insult, I feel I must clarify something. When I speak of Liberals and conservatives I am not speaking of Republicans or Democrats. The battle between liberal (left) and conservative (right) Ideals is just that, a pair of opposing theories on the way to govern a nation. Democrats and Republicans, as previously described, are a pair of slick talking heads that allow us to choose the mouth to enter only to end up rotting together in the belly of the same snake.

Now that that is clear... The right is finally starting to move away from the two party system but the left, on the other hand, seems firmly attached to partisan politics.

The proof!... Starting with the recent speech to congress regarding health care. When Obama mentioned that "defensive medicine may raise the cost of care", every Democrat in congress looked as if he just shot their dog. The Republican scumbags applauded (as did I) but the Democratic scumbags just sat with an angry look on their collective face.

COME ON! First of all, Obama came far short of facing the reality that the legal system is MOSTLY responsible for high insurance premiums but at least he acknowledged the possibility. The rest of his supporting cast wants us to believe that they are only interested in helping the poor and being just, but, they are so disconnected that they think that outragious law suits are no factor at all. Somehow, I just don't believe that.

More likely, they are in the pockets of "big lawyers" (as they would put it) and are only paving the road for much greater trouble in our nations courtrooms. They want everyone to be insured so that law suits can continue to line their pockets... Don't believe me? look up how much money the Dems have and where they got it. The proof is in the pudding.

Now we have the ACORN thing. The vast evidence of corruption within that organization seems to keep flowing out while Obama keeps pumping money back in. For all of the crap that I heard from the left and the Dems about Halliburtin (however you spell it), I don't remember them ever actually breaking any laws, not to mention confessing to election fraud on a massive scale!

Perhapse with this information we should reconsider Obamas right to preside, wait, nevermind... God forbid they kick him out and put McCain in his place. That would truly be a disaster.

The point is.. We now know for a FACT that Obama and the majority of Dems are corrupt. We can also be quite sure that the vast majority of republicans are equally corrupt. Can we finally stop blindly marching behind these scumbags and start digging decent people out of our society to help represent the good people of this great nation?

I, for one, am willing to run for office if you think I'm fit. Just let me know so we can get this thing started.

Homage to Jefferson

2009-09-11T14:18:00.003-04:00

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere." Thomas Jefferson, Feb 22 1787.

As a conservative, I admit to practically worship at the alter of Jefferson. I have a great deal of respect for the whole of our founding fathers but I see T.J. as a true "free thinker".

I spend my down time reading his letters, thousands of them, to his friends, families and even political assotiates. He often reminded those who were working with him on writing our founding documents that they were reacting from a natural instinct to repeat the mistakes of the Monarchy because that was all that they had know. He respectfully encouraged others to think outside the box and to resist their first impulse.

In a letter titled "THE HOMAGE OF REASON" To Peter Carr, Paris, Aug. 10, 1787, he laid out some personal beliefs. It was interesting to read this and consider the way things were during those historical times. Below are some of his writings...

"Spanish. Bestow great attention on this, & endeavor to acquire an accurate knowlege of it. Our future connections with Spain & Spanish America will render that language a valuable acquisition. The antient history of a great part of America, too, is written in that language. I send you a dictionary."

"Moral philosophy. I think it lost time to attend lectures in this branch. He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality therefore was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right & wrong merely relative to this."

"Religion. Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place divest yourself of all bias in favour of novelty & singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, & the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand shake off all the fears & servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."... "you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, & neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons, or description of persons have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable not for the rightness but uprightness of the decision."

He was clearly an intuitive man with great patience and insight. Just for those of you who have had little exposure to his writings, here are some exerpts...

"The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.".."what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.".."The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." To William S. Smith, Nov. 13, 1787.

" How do you like our new constitution? I confess there are things in it which stagger all my dispositions to subscribe to what such an assembly has proposed. The house of federal representatives will not be adequate to the management of affairs either foreign or federal. Their President seems a bad edition of a Polish king. He may be reelected from 4. years to 4. years for life. Reason and experience prove to us that a chief magistrate, so continuable, is an officer for life. When one or two generations shall have proved that this is an office for life, it becomes on every succession worthy of intrigue, of bribery, of force, and even of foreign interference. It will be of great consequence to France and England to have America governed by a Galloman or Angloman. Once in office, and possessing the military force of the union, without either the aid or check of a council, he would not be easily dethroned, even if the people could be induced to withdraw their votes from him. I wish that at the end of the 4. years they had made him for ever ineligible a second time. Indeed I think all the good of this new constitution might have been couched in three or four new articles to be added to the good, old, and venerable fabrick, which should have been preserved even as a religious relique." To John Adams, Nov. 13, 1787.

" Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, & what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences."

"The inconveniences of the Declaration are that it may cramp government in it's useful exertions. But the evil of this is short-lived, trivial & reparable. The inconveniences of the want of a Declaration are permanent, afflicting & irreparable. They are in constant progression from bad to worse." To James Madison, Mar 15, 1789

"No body wishes more than I do to see such proofs as you exhibit, that nature has given to our black brethren, talents equal to those of the other colors of men, and that the appearance of a want of them is owing merely to the degraded condition of their existence, both in Africa & America. I can add with truth, that no body wishes more ardently to see a good system commenced for raising the condition both of their body & mind to what it ought to be, as fast as the imbecility of their present existence, and other circumstances which cannot be neglected, will admit." To Benjamin Banneker, Aug. 30, 1791.

These are just some of the thoughts of our greatest forefather. I hope that someday you will get the time and take the innitiative to read some of his writings. He provides a great amount of insight for those who intend to keep our nation as he (and his friends) built it. In my doing so, I feel as if I have become friends with him and I am bound by that friendship to stand in his honor.

Sorry if this post was boring but I felt that people needed to know that Thomas Jefferson was more than the guy on the money. He was a brave and wise man who risked his life and lost any chance to be really close to his family, so that you and I can have a debate over whose ideas were the best... his or Marx.

My Health Care Solution

2009-09-08T18:42:00.003-04:00

I have some very interesting stuff that I've been researching and will unleash soon but for now... Back to the topic of the day (there is an uppety french way to say that but I refuse to speak the language of the coward!)

I have made it abundently clear and proven beyond any reasonable doubt that health care is NOT a right. I have also shown plenty of reasoning why the left is wrong on their entire perspective of health care (among other things. Now that that nonsense is out of the way I feel I must clarify my position on the whole thing.

First, the "general welfare" thing. It was made very clear that the framers of the constitution were opposed to anything that the government might do to favor one group over the other. Jefferson said that the majority must always prevail, unless it is at the expense of the rights and freedoms of the minority.

To take money from the "wealthy" in order to strictly provide for the poor is absolutly against the fundimental rights of the wealthy! Therefore it is, by definition, unconstitutional. It is tant amount to the majority (who is not rich) voting the money away from the minority (who is rich). This is the entirety of the, so called, health care reform movement.

The real problem is that we are often forced, by threat of violence, through our government, to pay into the health insurance system. It is the only way that those around us can be sure that if they can find a reason to file suit then there will be enough money to make it profitable for them to do so.

I believe that we should have a "public option". I think that we should be able to BORROW money from a public trust and then be held responsible to pay it back. We should have the choice of whether to pay insurance, pay cash for service or pay on a low interest loan from the public. That public option should be very strict, in that, if you choose to take the loan you will be required to make every effort to make timely payments. If you fail to pay then you should be treated just as if you had failed to pay your taxes. First garnish your wages and then if all else fails, go to prison.

This creates a fair competition for insurance companies while allowing them to make all of the profits and take all of the expensive trips that they would like! It disgusts me to hear the radical left complain about "all of the money" the CEOs of big insurance are making and all of the extravigent trips that they take "on the backs of sick people".

It's called profit, jackass! It's why they offered you the safety net of health insurance to begin with. Without them (and before them) you would have had to pay all medical expenses up front and there would have been no money left over for all of the great research that has led to todays unfathomable medical advances. So, stop whining about other people getting rich because they had a better idea than you...MORON!

My plan also creates a safety net for the poor, who already get far too much free stuff on the backs of those who are considered evil simply because they succeeded.On top of that, it reopens the route for charity. If there are no "free plans" for the rich to be taxed for then they will have the fredom to pick and choose, directly, who they help by "sponsering" an individual.

This is much more "fair" to the rich than just forcing them to pay into a pot from which people of all morality (and lack there of) can dip into. I guess the scumbags wont get much help. but then, they can still just work for it like everyone else does.

I know that there will be a certain amount of cost assotiated with the implimentation and enforcement of my plan, but, it will likely be relativly unpopular (because it requires people to pay back) so it will not require near the workforce as would the "free" plan that is being thrown around.

The purpose of the interest is to allow for those who "expire" before paying back their share. Basically, it will be a Bank. One that lends money without respect to credit but it will have the "Teeth" to get a return on its investment. I know it needs work, but it's a start... One that does not punish people for their success!

Liar Liar!

2009-09-06T19:40:00.002-04:00

Ok, I've had enough! Lets put a stop to this right now...

I'm sick of hearing the word "liar" being thrown around so much. Face it, most of aren't liars, we just have different sources from which we gain our knowledge. But to get cornered in a debate and resort to calling the other party a liar is just childish.

Don't get me wrong, people do lie... I just prefer to question their sources and force their hand before I go all in on whining about their lies. For instance.. Bill Clinton lied about Monica. Reagan lied about the arms for hostages deal. Obama lied when he said that he wasn't after a single payer system... or maybe he lied all of those times he said he was... In any case, we know that these were lies because the facts have hit the table and the proof is in the pudding.

On the other hand, I had a leftist call ,me a liar when I stated that there were countless tons of WMDs spread around Iraq and recovered during the war. Just because the facts did not support their opinion does, it does not make them false. It is an absolute fact that we recovered WMDs over there, the scary part was that we lost a disturbing amount of those weapons during the whole thing.

I hear it on both sides, it seems like if someone doesn't know about something then they consider it to be a lie. So, from now on, when someone makes an outragious claim, do not call them a liar, call them out. Ask them where they got that info and check it out yourself. Go to their source and find it, then cross reference it with other sources. If you read enough perspectives you will eventually start to see where the truth sits.

This is how a master debater builds his knowledge without embarassing himself by resorting to name calling and refusing to see the rest of the truth. This is also how some left wingers find enlightenment and come to the right where the soul is in peace and the facts are the foundation for philosophy (not the other way around) as I did when i was just a teenager.

Flounders Dictionary/Translator

2009-09-01T12:51:00.006-04:00

One of the biggest disconnects in political debates is the language barrier. Yes, we are debating in English but for the left words hold different definitions than for the right. For this reason I have created the left to right translation dictionary..

PATRIOTIC:

.....Left: Dessent is the highest form of patriotism, to agree with or support any governing body or fundamental reasoning would make you imperialistic. To be truly patriotic means that you should defy your parents, employers and founding fathers.

.....Right: To support and defend the ideals of your patriarch is the foundation of patriotism.

PATRIARCH:

.....Left: Clinton, FDR, Obama, Marx

.....Right: Jefferson, Washington, Madison

FREEDOM:

.....Left: The right to do whatever you want without being held responsible for the results. Freedom from being homeless, hungry, ill, lonely or otherwise uncomfortable is the governments responsibility to everyone, not our own.

.....Right: The right to take risks and be bound to the results. If a free man takes a risk and loses everything then he must find his own way out, if he gets filthy rich then he gets to keep all of it.

RIGHTS:

.....Left: Rights are granted by the majority, as long as the majority agrees with the left. Everyone has the right to take the excesses from the rich and equally distribute them throughout society.

.....Right: Rights are granted by god and they only include life, liberty and the product of ones own labor. For liberty see freedom.

THE RICH:

.....Left: An evil group of people who have taken the money from the poor and force them to work long hours as slaves to their own income.

.....Right: Those who have earned, through effort, a mass of money with which they often invest into private industry and create jobs while increasing wealth. Some of the rich worked enough to support several generations of their family, thus creating the illusion of "unworthy rich" which creates anger and jealousy on the left.

THE POOR:

....Left: Wise and worthy people who have been robbed of their opportunity by the mean rich people. They always have honorable intentions, even when they resort to crime in place of being forced to work as a slave to the rich.

....Right: people who, for whatever reason, have not yet taken the steps required to get rich. The rich want the poor to become rich so that they will spend more money.

JUSTICE:

.....Left: A system that punishes the rich for having so much money. Lawyers enforce justice through such acts as fining a company thousands of dollars because a poor guy bit into a candy bar that had a worm in it.

....Right: A system that gives every person a chance to defend his actions in front of an unbiased jury. The system is blind and cannot see the race or wealth of those involved.

US MILITARY:

.....Left: An organized crime unit, funded by republicans, who travels the world killing and raping civilians while claiming land in the name of oil.

.....Right:The best and bravest of Americas youth. They travel the world killing terrorists (hooah) in the name of spreading freedom in order to protect our own peace. They also spread food and water in times of emergency and rebuild most of what they destroy.

GUN CONTROL:

.....Left: Total governmental control over where every single gun in the United States is located. Keeping guns out of the hands of anyone beyond authority figures (military, police, Obama's youth army)

.....Right: A steady hand! The ability to place multiple rounds into a small grouping.

Feel free to add your own definitions and debate over them. for now, however, I think I've got the more important ones covered.

Health care is not a right... Part duh

2009-08-31T19:51:00.003-04:00

Before I move on to what I wanted to write about in this post, I feel the need to tie up a loose end. I will soon write the post that I wanted to write, but for now...

As I mentioned in a recent post I do not understand how someone can perceive health care as a basic right. I have heard many suggest that it is just that. If you are to suggest that health care is a basic right then you must be willing to consider slave ownership a basic right as well.

Take off your "support Obama, no matter what" hat and put on your thinking hat for a moment. Unless you are a health care provider, you are unable to provide your own health care. In other words, you require the product of someone else's labor in order to access that care.

Any health care provider is required to give up irretrievable moments of his/her life in order to become educated and experienced in their field. Then that person chooses to give up personal time with their family in order to provide that service to others. In our society we are granted the right to set a price, that is value, for taking time from our lives and giving it to others. That is freedom!

To suggest that a government has the right to set the value of our time would imply that we have no freedom. We, then, would be working strictly to benefit others and have no right to determine our own worth. That is slavery!

What the left is telling us is that health care (which was little more than blood lettings before the free market) is a basic right that trumps freedom. You (the left) think that the value of the time that has been spent learning the profession and performing the tasks, can be decided by those who want the product rather than those who supply it. Much like the value of cotton was set by the slave owner with no regard to the slaves at all.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... Health care is a product, not a basic right. It has become technologically advanced and relatively safe as a result of years of free market development, without which it would still be as it was for several thousand years.. BAD! So now that they have used the free market to provide a seemingly necessary product, you think you can simply stake a claim to it through a popular vote? Sorry, that's not how it works...Jackass.

Cronyism?

2009-08-29T13:58:00.002-04:00

I'm sure that you've heard that we have a new Senator from Florida. I'm also sure that you've seen the word "cronyism" more than ever before. I'm really not a fan of Crist, nor did I support his election as Governor, but I must defend him on this topic.

If I were elected as Governor of Florida (I know, you're quivering at the thought) and I was given the responsibility of choosing a Senator to finish out a term, I know exactly who I'd pick.

His name is Tim and he is a good friend of mine. Does that sound like cronyism to you, sure it does, but it's not. Yes, he is my friend and I want to see him do well but that's not why I'd pick him. I'd pick him because I know him well enough to know exactly what he'd do if put into office. I know and trust his morals and his sense of purpose. I know he'd do the right thing rather than the politically correct thing.

It seems like we'd all feel better about our votes if we had become personal friends with the candidates rather than just relying on public perception. I, for one, worry when I support some political figure. I'm afraid that they might be a differant person once they gain the office that they were campaigning for.

Lets face it... Every politician selects his friends for cabinet positions and puts his buddies in better positions. It is the fundimental course of politics and the natural reaction to responsibility.

Now I'd like you to join me in forcing both of them out of office next year. If you don't get why then just look at my post on Marco Rubio from last month (I think) and go from there. I just hope that it's Crist's voting record rather than the charge of cronyism that gets him out of office.

Fed Up!

2009-08-25T19:05:00.002-04:00

Having spent some time cruising through several "progressive" and liberal blogs I have learned alot. I have learned that the hatred for President Bush is alive and still consuming many nutbags. I know that the left,as a whole, thinks it's too smart to have to defend its positions. I know that the left has far more education than life experience, I know that they have been indoctrinated with the proverbial "sense of entitlement" that we hear so much about. Most of all, I know that progressives and liberals HATE rich people.

Let me use this opportunity to help clarify some things for you, for those of you who are reading from left to right...!GNORW ERA UOY. In case you are confused, let me write it the RIGHT way.. YOU ARE WRONG!

You have been brainwashed to think that health care is a right. You are wrong! There are countries (which happen to be nearly bankrupt) where it is a right but this ain't it baby. Here it is a product. A marketable item that has been created as a means of profit. Those who can master it will get rich beyond their wildest dreams... DEAL WITH IT. You could have been a part of that success but you were too lazy or stupid to get involved and now you want to punish those who have made it wildly profitable because you HATE THAT YOU ARE A LOSER!

I'm over it.. I can't stand to hear these sissy liberals talking about how the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer while insurance companies are making billions on profits. This is America, jack ass! here you take your chances and have the freedom to gain retarded profits on what others think they need. You can also whither away in your own vomit, just don't try to take everyone Else's money because you failed at earning your own.

Try to blow off the liberal haze in your skull and actually think this through. When there was no USA and the world was under the control of benevolent dictators, health care was free. For thousands of years this free health care showed little progress. It was the introduction of "profit" by our free market that pushed the medical industry into the 21st century. The promise of great wealth through a free market still drives all of the new medical technology today. You socialists are trying to put a stop to that progress because your little feelings were hurt when you saw how rich the hard workers and thinkers were getting.

Do you really think people are going to put themselves through more than a decade of higher learning so that they can earn a "reasonable wage", a wage pleasantly equal to all of the dope smoking rejects that flip burgers at the local hamburger stand. Get your socialist head out of your rectum and deal with reality for a second.

You think you have the right to a home, a car, an education, health benefits and anything else you want. This is not the Soviet Union (thank God) so get off of your lazy ass and earn the things you want.. Who knows, maybe you'll appreciate it a little.

Thomas Jefferson was very clear when he wrote that our three rights were "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". He elaborated on that by saying that no government has the right to take life away from you. Nobody can take your freedom from you. Most of all, the promise of a freedom to pursue happiness meant that you would be free to keep that which you have "earned" and that no one can take your property from you. This defined the American dream and this is what defines America.

Please take your socialism and your unfounded sense that you have some kind of obligatory moral perogative to rob the successful of their spoils in the name of good feelings and shove them up your ass. Then feel free to go lump yourself in with the lost souls that crawl around in some other country, wishing that they too could have the chance to live the American Dream!

Sorry but you needed to hear it... need a tissue?

Back to Bush, What did he know and......

2009-08-25T13:04:00.003-04:00

Now that the healthcare debate is staggering and the left is looking to regain power, all of the anti Bush stuff is coming out. We have the left claiming that a former official, being of the opinion that Bush used the terror threat for political posturing, is proof of illegal activities. We have the new administration digging for proof of abuse of terror suspects as a way to imprison those who took part in the interogations.

I must say that the timing is suspect but this is here I will surprise you. I want an investigation into those interrogators and their activities. I want to know whether bush and his administration broke any laws in their quest to save the country after 9/11. If there were illegal activities, I want the guilty to take their punishment.

I realize how crippling it will be for each administration to know that anything and everything they do will be held to a different standard once the next administration takes power and I am not comfortable with that but... WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS!

As a conservative I believe in "risk/reward". If there is a situation that calls for a law to be broken for the greater good then I believe that one should weigh out the risk vs the reward and be willing to face the ramifications of his actions with a clear conscience. If I had a potential terrorist in my hands who might have information that would save any number of Americans I would have little regard for the laws and do whatever is necessary. Then I would take my chances with a jury and accept my punishment. think about it, I was willing to take a life or give my own to preserve freedom, you can be sure that I'd be willing to risk my freedom to save lives.

As far as the whole "terror threat" thing, I am shocked! I can't believe that anyone is surprised that Bush would do that. First of all it is SOP to raise the terror threat during an election period so It's not like he did it militiously. He surly had some say in when the level went up and how long it stayed there and that was strictly to advance the Republican agenda. It does say something about the left that when people are scared they go to the right, maybe there is something to that. The point is that Bush also took away any chance of a third party gaining power. He had people so afraid of an attack under a liberal administration that they weren't willing to risk "wasting" their vote on what they believed in.

Now, I'm not sure that he broke any laws but he did some wrong by any definition. Hopefully we will pay more attention to the next administrations and people will stop blindly supporting these criminals for their label and start seperating right from wrong.

Gun Rights Termites

2009-08-24T14:56:00.002-04:00

Last night I passed by CNN while surfing my crappy cable provider and had to back up and watch. I know I should have just gone by and found something more entertaining to watch but sometimes you can' look away. Like when you stop on the Spanish channel and just can't look away from the unbelievable and nearly pornographic display of femininity.

They were talking about "gun and drug violence" in Chicago. The reporter asked the two gentlemen what the underlying cause of the problem was but before allowing them to speak he said " it's the guns right, that's the real problem right?". Both guys agreed that the guns were the real problem. I must agree, I mean, assuming that the guns are randomly firing into crowds of thugs and hoodlums it is safe to assume that they are the source of the problems.

But then, if the guns aren't loading and firing themselves then maybe something else is the problem. Na... that's too logical. Anyway, they continued to say that the majority of the problems are "drug related gun violence". They said that a bad home life, bad economy and a culture that celebrates violence have contributed to the gun violence but drugs and access to guns are the biggest part.

This is a state that has extremely strong gun laws and has the highest rate of gun violence. To this fact the reporter showed a graph that said that many of the guns used (70%) are smuggled in from other states. They cited a corridor from Mississippi through Illinois that guns move through. They blamed the "laxed gun laws" in Mississippi for the crime in Chicago. They did not, however, explain why Mississippi has substantially less gun violence in spite of it's "laxed gun laws".

These people, CNN and the left wing media, have admitted that they must pass every part of their agenda now because they may never have this much power again. Now they are starting the engine and about to drive Gun control down our throats. This was the first of what will be many attacks against our second amendment. They are backing up, not because they are giving up, but because they are looking to build momentum. They are going to build steam and start pounding us with everything they have.

Mark my words, GUN CONTROL IS COMING! We will start seeing more and more stories about gun violence and hearing more and more reason that we should seriously restrict gun rights. We have already seen an increase in coverage about gun stories but we have been distracted by health care and all of the rest of the socialist non-sense coming from the left.

Keep your heads on a swivel, I believe that gun control will be masked by a big debate that will not be resolved, Next week we will start hearing about Social Security and how to fix it while the left is moving a quiet protest against guns, DO NOT let them sneak it in.

Oh, for the record... I have seen some liberal blogs that have been voicing an opposition against the Senate. Yes, they want to get rid of the senate because they do not think it's fair that the "religious nutties" in Oklahoma have as much representation as the "majority of progressives" in large States like New York and California. Be afraid, be very afraid!

Rep and Dem, the two headed snake!

2009-08-20T10:43:00.002-04:00

When I hear my wife and her mother speaking spanish I really don't understand the words but I can often understand what they're saying. The same principle applies to the media, they use a language that is coded so that they cannot be held responsible for their words but can still achieve their goals.

Lately we have heard the news media telling us that anything less than the government "option" in the health care reform bill would be a win for "Republicans". What you must remember is that, to them, Republican means "evil rich people who are funded by big insurance". When they spend this much time driving a thought into our heads it is because they want us to think of a win for Republicans as a very bad thing.

They are trying to motivate the left to fight back and force the bill through. History tells us that this is actually less of a "hail mary" and more of a "naked bootleg". It is a play designed to misdirect the right by seemingly moving in the same direction while sending the guy with the ball in the other direction. Trust me, this is, by no means, a blind pass for the endzone.

The one thing that we (red blooded right wing conservative Americans) must be careful of is.. allowing the Republicans to feel like they have gained an advantage over the Dems who seem to be easing the pressure. We need to remind those Republicans that they too are on the chopping block!

This debate never has been about Democrats against Republicans and we MUST NOT allow them to turn it into that. We are here to force both parties to stop working for the party and start working for America. We need to take this piblic awakening and use it to bring the change that everybody really wanted by putting the government back to work for us.

When you write to congress, speak at a town hall meeting or go on a radio show.. you must let them know that you DO NOT look at the "R" or "D" next to the names on the ballot. Make it perfectly clear that a loss for the Dems does not ensure a win for the Republicans. Put on your biggest boot and kick all of their buts out of office, make them earn your vote rather than letting them rely on the missteps of their opponents or their party affiliation.

Use the media's blind hatred for Republicans to your advantage. Today you can be a hero to the next several generations, you can change the course of politics and be known as the new "greatest generation". Spread the word, tell your friends and neighbors, get out there and change the world! Kill the two headed snake that has, for so long, fed on us from both directions only to fill one belly.

The two party system must die or it will rob us of our freedom and our individuality and all that will be left is a small group of lawyers telling us how to live our lives.

Moral Capital VS Moral Authority

2009-08-18T15:35:00.002-04:00

The essence of today's political tumult can be attributed to our opposing views on what I call the "moral imperative". In english, I'm saying that the left and the right are sharply devided, not by their goals but by the way they wish to achieve them. How to create a moral society through legislation.

MORAL AUTHORITY

The left believes that the only way to create a moral society is by electing a government that most conforms to their own morality and then imposing their authority on the entire country. This is evident for a host of reasons.

Think about it this way... The left wants to force a single payer health care system on us and they are proud to tell us the reasons. They insist that it is immoral to provide better care to the rich than the poor. They feel that health insurance should be about moral obligation rather than profit. They strive for a system of "equality" in which everyone pays "their fair share" and the rewards are equally distributed.

The left intends to achieve these results through dictatorial democracy. They vote for the people who they think will come to a fair decision and give them total authority. This entity (president, congressman) will, in reality, have gained this elected position through political capital, meaning that they had given enough free stuff to enough people (at the expense of the evil rich folks) to have gained popular favor. Now this distant entity will make sweeping decisions as to just how much care we will recieve and how good it will be. Every single person in the United States will be forced to adhere to the direction of a single moral compass.

You will not be able to earn a higher level of care nor will any one provider be able to earn a better life through better service. All things will be equal and thus "morally harmonius", this is the lefts Idea of fair.

MORAL CAPITAL

The right (not necessarily the Republicans) have invested in a much different idea. They want to create a moral society by removing the power from the government and giving it to the people. The idea is that the government will remain just strong enough to assure that the contracts between business and people are adhered to without dictating any of the terms of said contract.

Make the medical system responsible for its own actions by subjecting it to free market forces. This will guaruntee that any company or doctor who wants to earn a profit will be forced to offer a good service for a reasonable price. Most of todays medical providers have a secondary system for those who can pay for service in cash. Out of reach from the constant knuckling under from the government this system seems to work well, keeping costs down and service high.

Rather than forcing an insurance to pay for all of the expenses involved with the care while shouldering all of the risk of outlandish law suits, the right wants to keep the law suits to a reasonable level so that the insurance companies can base their pricing on service plus profit, not service plus profit plus risk.

When the people are allowed to spend their own money we will achieve true democracy. They will be able to choose their level of care and they will have control over the system through popular demand, thus imposing social morality through capital.

The right also believes that efforts should be rewarded. This means that the rich should, by all means, have more health care options. They have worked hard to earn it. The poor will then have motivation to get rich as well.

I'm not suggesting that the poor be completly left without, but, they are still responsible for their own chances of getting help. Before the government started stealing from the successful to insure that the poor "got theirs" there was a great system of moral capital.

Those who lacked the funds to recieve care were forced to ask for help from society. Society had developed several charitable institutions who would insist on a certain level of "morality" from those who asked for help. Drug dealers, theives and trouble makers were forced to either become good citizens or do without.

The liberal social net took that moral buffer out of the equation. It forced everyone with any success to put their hard earned money into a system that paid out equally to good people and rapists alike. Earners no longer had control over where their money went so they stopped giving. Now the worst element of society is rewarded exactly the same as those who are simply in a bad spot and just needed a little help.

So what do you think will work better for you... A government that dictates morality to you so that everyone is on the same plan.... or the freedom for you to dictate morality by putting your money towards those who adhere to your morals.

Close Encounter of the Socialist Kind

2009-08-16T21:08:00.003-04:00

This morning I listened to our great local community radio station and I got close up and personnal with our adversaries. I listened as a group of "progressives" paraded themselves as the new majority while professing that any right wing leftovers need to come to grips with the new American philosophy.

They insisted that it was time to leave racism behind and except that we have a black president. They believe that the only reason that someone would not support a single payer health care system is simply because they can't stand to see a black man succeed, yet they say that we are the ones bringing race into this debate.

They railed against the Democrats for going for anything less than single payer and actually pointed out that they'd consider voting against Obama in the next election if he accepted anything lessthan single payer.

They Complained that the rich CEOs are sitting back laughing while they pay republican stooges to invade town hall meetings and fight against something that would be "for their own good".

These people really do believe that people will never be free untill the rich are raked over the coals and their money is spread among the poor. They feel that the masses are slaves to the corporations but the corporations hold all of the political power. Somehow they think that capitalism is evil and that the only "American" thing to do is to defeat capitalism and replace it with "progressivism" (or socialist dictatorship to you and me).

They were deeply offended that they had been called "un American" and insisted that what they were offering was the only true definition of Americanism. I felt compelled to set them straight, so I wrote them an e-mail. Below is a copy of the letter I sent....

_______________________________

After listening to your show today I am almost speechless. I have never heard so much anti American rhetoric in my life. Before you click "delete" and move on to another, more supportive e-mail that makes you feel like you're doing the right thing allow me to justify that statement.

First let me explain what it is that defines a country. You see, most "progressives" (a term for socialist cowards who are afraid to admit what they really are) think that America is nothing more than the soil under their feet. This is partially correct but it does not define Americanism. You may also think that a nation is defined by it's culture. This too is only partially correct. Cultures move across borders and through peoples in much the same ways as language, knowledge and even diseases for that matter.

It is, in it's most simplest terms, the fundamental laws that define a nation. Those laws set the geographical borders, facilitate the culture and bind the people as a nation. Those who support the laws and foundation of that nation are patriotic to it and those who wish to completely and fundamentally change it are dissidents. That is to say that they, by definition, are radically unpatriotic.

Think of it this way... If you marry a woman, whom you profess to love, it is OK to want her to change certain behaviors. You may wish that she would wear different clothes or you might convince her to start going to football games even though you know she hates the sport. Would she believe that you hated her because you wanted to make a few subtle changes but wanted to keep her fundamentally the same? Ofcourse not.. But, if you wanted her to change her eye color, hair color, breast size and then made her stop talking to her family, doing the things she likes to do and liking the things she likes she would eventually figure out that the only thing you like about her is the fact that she would let you change her.

This is what's going on with the progressive movement. There are socialist countries all over the world but you know that there is no way that you can affect change in those countries. You have decided to attack America and destroy everything that made it the greatest Nation ever. You are using the freedom, that so many have sacrificed for, as a weapon against itself.

You said today that you only want to prevent the nation from making the decisions that lead to these great failures.This is the fallacy of the left. You don't understand that the essence of being American is the FREEDOM to make such bad decisions and the responsibility to deal with the consequences. This is the guiding principle of capitalism and it is the fact that we've been forced to learn from our mistakes that has led to the very greatness that you wish to destroy.

You spoke of CEOs with so much hate and disdain, as if any success above your own was a deplorable act of evil. I wish that you would take a tape of your broadcast and replace the words "rich" and "CEO" with the "N" word. Maybe then you'd understand that what you are spreading is pure, unadulterated Hate Speech.

The social safety net that you wish to install in place of the free market will put a limit on failures but at the same time will put an equal limit on success. That is the nature of socialism, look around, you'll find this to be an indisputable fact. This, however, is NOT the American way! From the beginning we have been a country of risk takers, we took on the British empire, we built the worlds only real free market economy and we battled tyrants and won wars around the world without taking the enemies land as every other victorious nation had always done.

This is what has led to countless and inconceivable leaps in technology, life spans and freedoms all over the world. Every invention and every medical advancement from every part of the world was driven by our free market. If not for us then Canada and Europe might still have "free healthcare" but then bloodlettings can't be very expensive can they?

The point I've made here is that you are absolutely, by every definition, ANTI-AMERICAN! And while I will continue to send money to your show to help support your freedom to hate your freedom, I will continue to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, as I swore to do upon entering service in the US Army. In that, I will continue to engage every person I meet and I will continue to expose your propaganda through education.

The Fox News Balancing Act

2009-08-15T09:17:00.002-04:00

The left seems to be fixated on the demolition of the people who oppose them. It's not about facts or reason but personal attacks. Don't get me wrong, I remember the right doing the same crap to Bill Clinton back in the 1990s. There was plenty to complain about regarding his policies but most people go straight for the person because it's so much easier than doing any research or anything.

So I cruised the left wing blogs and tried to post comments to defend our side but I had a very difficult time leaving a comment. Every single left wing blog I went to had a control set up for comments. Most offered no opportunity at all and others had to be approved by a moderator. This is the left at it's finest! Loud but deaf!

They were all fixated on Fox news and Glenn Beck (as well as other conservatives in the media). There was no attempt to disprove what they were saying but they were quick to ridicule their statements. They want to Boycott Beck's advertisers because they don't like what he's saying but they refuse to prove him wrong. But then, he's not wrong... That's why they are trying to shut him down.

Media Matters is at the top of the list. They are all over Fox News and are desperately trying to discredit them. In the mindless mind of the left wing propagandists the left is center and unbiased but anything to the right of radical left is unbalanced and reckless. Again, the attack is personal and not intellectual.

Just for the sake of clarification, I must explain where Fox News sits. They are a right wing news outlet, that is for sure. They claim to be fair and balanced but in and of themselves they are far from it. The balance that they offer is not within their own reporting but in media as a whole. In the world of mass media there are a vast majority of left wing news sources that profess to be unbiased.

You have MSNBC who is a radical left wing attack dog that concentrates on the discrediting of the right but offers no news whatsoever. Then you have The other broadcast outlets as well as the History Channel and the Discovery Channel which are propaganda outlets that present themselves as informational services with no political interest at all. Meanwhile they cram the "global warming" myth down our throats without giving any thought to the broad majority of scientist that refuse to be a part of that particular scam.

All of the "public broadcasting" outlets have no interest in honesty because they have never been held to the standards of the free market. They are funded by the government with no regard to merit so they are a beacon of socialism and attract the "journalists" whose professed intent is to "make a difference". That, by the way, should be the last thing a real journalist would want to do. They should simply take a journal of an event and report the facts.

So Fox is out there to offer the other side of the story. They only show the part that the other media outlets leave out. They give us the opposite slant and thus filling in the gap. They are right wing and proud of it. Why shouldn't they be? After all, every single one of our forefathers was a right wing nut job. Our founding documents are a bible of right wing philosophy and ideology. For that matter, it was our right wing capitalist system that gave the left the freedom to force socialism down our throats. Ironic isn't it.

The point is, you cannot rely on Fox news or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh for all of your news but you should hear what they are saying. At the same time you need to go to NPR and NBC and ABC for the rest of the story so that you can fill in the gaps. There is a ton of information out there and if you believe you will get an unbiased report from any one source then I have some ocean front property in Nebraska to sell you.

The best plan ever!

2009-08-13T14:12:00.002-04:00

It's time to boil this whole thing down and wrap our minds around the real argument. The debate here is not about policies in and of themselves, it's the fight between socialism and capitalism.

It is a fact that Obama and the majority of Democrats are working towards some kind of quasi-socialism over which they intend to have absolute power. It is also appearent that the majority of Republicans in congress are leaning towards a quasi-capitalist government and they, like the Dems, intend to maintain great regulatory power over their system. Those who agree with the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and me are firm believers in a free market with loose regulation under a system of equally distributed checks and balances. This is known as a republic (it might sound familiar, it was the founding principal of the United States).

So, before I get into my side of the debate I want to qualify what I just told you. I realize that there are many of you who were indoctrinated to believe that the left is center and the right are all nutjobs. You have been told, by the always trustworthy mass media, that republicans are more like Hitler and Democrats are the true patriots who stand for Liberty and justice. That's why you like to call yourself a liberal and a Democrat. Both terms sound really good to you. Now it's time for me to grasp your lids by the lashes and rip your eyes open so that you can witness the blinding light of truth.

The infamous mr. Hitler, along with Marx, Stalin and countless other dictators were socialists right? Ofcourse, at least in fundimental principal they were, over time that kind of power has a tendency to turn benevelence into tyranny. So just because it's more fun for me ( since the left likes to throw Hitler at us all the time) I'm going to compare Obama with with Adolf.

Adolf, like Obama, was a strong proponent for nationalized healthcare. I know that the media today likes to pretend that Obama is only trying to provide a "public option" and many of you believe that lie but it's an absolute fact that he wants the government to control all healthcare. If you think I'm making this up just go to this URL ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk&feature=player_embedded ).

Hitler also started government programs to move people out of thier inefficient cars and into little gas savers (the VW Bug). Hitler initiated alternative fuel programs. He regulated profits and set minimum and maximum income levels which he controlled through taxation. He gained control over the major industries within Germany such as banks, energy companies and automotive companies through regulation. He created Hitler youth, very similar to Obamas "GIVE" program. Hitler said that the Constitution of the United States was a bad document because it gave no power to the government, Obama said that it was a "Flawed document" because "instead of saying what the government can't do to you it should say what the government must do on your behalf".

The point is that everything that Obama lays down as his founding Idiology represents a strong desire to become socialist. Now that you except that he is a socialist (if you don't then you really need to seek help) you must accept that you too are a socialist, that is if you support him still. That is not a bad thing, it just means you're emotionally driven and not bound to hard logic. Much of the left, however, is not that radical. They are trying to find a balance between the "fairness" of capitalism and the "equality" of socialism with the emphasis on equality. This, in my opinion is like looking for the balance between life and death, I have no intent to be anywhere inbetween.

On the other side of the isle, there are the quasi-capitalists. They are looking for a similar balance but with the emphasis more on the side of fairness (the results are pretty much the same though). When I speak of fairness and equality I'm referring to overall results. What I mean is that in capitalism everyone starts out with equal opportunity but are in total control of their own results. They are not always equal results but they are completely fair. The governments role in this is small, they are only there to make sure that everyone plays by the same rules.

Socialism is the opposite. The Idea is that, regardless of effort, the results must be equal. This is not fair because those who put out more effort are responsible for carrying those who do not. The appeal, I guess, is that noone will be left behind and society will be somewhat sucessful as a whole. In this system the governments role is very large. They must closely monitor the nations wealth in order to prevent anyone from taking a lions share.

So what works better? That's for you to decide.. but both have a place. There is a natural tendancy among a large group of humans to rely on others. The cure for this tendancy is motivation. I'm sure that many would find that motivation if they were to witness the reality of lazyness first hand.

My solution for this problem is simple, allow California to seperate and become a socialist state within the United States. I'm only willing to give up one state because this country is NOT (and never was) a socialist nation and I would normally suggest that those who like the idea should just move to one. But then, you insist that America would do it differently than the other countries that have tried it over the last ten thousnd years so I'm in favor of giving you your chance.

So here's the plan, Make Obama the president of the Peoples Republic of California (PRC) and put all of the congress people who support him in his new sub-national congress. Remove all federal taxes and benifits from the PRC. Give them a supreme court made up of all justices that were appointed by democrats and fill in the gaps with new appointees that they can confirm on their own. Bind them to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution but let their justice system have the same control over it that they are trying to enforce on us. Allow them to create their own military and fund it as they wish, also allow them to create restrictive policies and rules of engagement so that their soldiers can be held to whatever standards fit thier lifestyles.

While we're at it, we have to ensure free travel in and out of the PRC and allow us to take advantage of their resources without being forced to pay into their system. Open an international pathway so that Mexicans, Canadians and other Nationals can do the same. At the same time, only allow them into our country as tourists or documented workers but strongly regulate our side of the border.

So with all of this how long do you think the PRC would last? Historically this is what will happen next... The constant influx of nonpayers will cause a dramatic drain on the system. The need to seriously strengthen the border will cause the PCR to isolate itself from the rest of the world and limit itself to heavily regulated trade. The cost of trade regulation will inflate prices of imported goods and the government will demand more productivity from the people. The people will be working to support the PRC and keeping only a fraction of their earnings. Those who have a marketable skill will defect to a nation that will allow them to prosper from that skill. The lack of productive workers and natural resources will create a need for expansion so the PRC will start building their military. They will eventually invade the USA and be crushed because the people are fighting for the state and not themselves!

After that you can figure on about 3 generations or roughly 150 years before people forget what happened and they start preaching socialism again and the cycle will continue just as it always has.

How dumb can the left really be?

2009-08-12T09:29:00.003-04:00

Sitting at the VA hospital again, waiting, as usual... I listened to the people around me venting about how long the process takes. They were complaining that the system is long and drawn out and that they felt like they had to fight harder for their medical care than they fought in war.

They hated the red tape, they hated that they could barely understand their "towel head doctors" and they hated that they had to wait in line for hours at the VA pharmacy and couldn't just go to the local drug store for medication. They were fed up with the whole deal and couldn't wait for Obama to give us free health care so that everything would be easier.

OK, I realize that I've been a little abrasive in my recent posts and maybe if I stop calling everyone a moron than more people will listen to what I have to say. Well, today ain't that day! These morons make me sick! How freaking stupid can they be? Maybe people that are that dumb shouldn't be allowed to vote.

It is the fact that the VA health care is free that makes it so bad. The doctors (for the most part) are the ones who could not maintain a public sector job because they could not compete in a free market for some reason or another. The red tape is the signature of an over weight government program that is burdened by it's own bureaucracy. The pharmacy is a socialist entity that determines pay rate by tenure rather than merit or customer satisfaction.

So what do these idiots think will happen to the rest of health care when it starts following the same model? Right now only a small percentage of Americans are taking part in the VA system and many of those who are eligible are opting for their own private insurers rather than hassling with the VA. Meanwhile, it is being supported by a vast majority of taxpayers who will never qualify to take advantage of it. Even with this fact, the system is overburdened and barely able to keep itself floating. How do you think things will work once the vast majority of Americans are enrolled in a similar system and it is being funded by a minority of taxpayers?

It wont. So every time I hear some half witted jack ass complaining that the "Republicans just don't want us to have free health care" (which is what one idiot actually said) it makes my blood boil. You can't explain anything to these losers because their sense of entitlement is the only sense they have. Unfortunately, the left is leaning on the ignorant (which makes up a vast majority of America) to pound this "work for free, live for free" socialist concept down the throats of those who understand how devastating the Obama doctrine is to our way of life!

Just to let you know.. The reason I've gotten so abrasive is to incite discussion. I have been trying to find an Obama supporter with a coherent and intelligent argument so that we can have a real debate. It's become obvious that those who are coherent and intelligent are, by nature, on our side. It's emotion and knee jerk reaction that provides the foundation for liberalism so they can not be made to understand, thus there is no intelligent argument for their side and the only response they will ever give is anger and hate!

Please, if you know someone that thinks that anything Obama is doing is good for America, send them my way! Let them defend themselves in the arena of ideas rather than just accepting popular opinion and screwing up the freedoms that so many have given their lives for!

"Cash for Clunkers".. Can we trade in a bad president?

2009-08-06T15:08:00.003-04:00

Can you believe how great the "cash for clunkers" program is? I mean.. the fact that it was swamped by people taking advantage of the great deal and that it ran out of money in one week means that it was a great success right?

WRONG! Moron! The government decides to hand out free money and everyone wants some... Wow... what a surprise. If they hand out free gas do you think that, even though most people can pay for their own, the pumps would run dry in a week? If they hand out free beer to you think that only the poorest people would swing by and have a few? How long will the kegs last before they go dry? If they hand out free healthcare will the majority of people stop paying for theirs and jump into the free system? How long do you think that will take to run out of money?

The damage is irreversable and it has been done. You idiots that are so gung ho about "cash for clunkers" really didn't think this through, did you? Where do you think these billions of dollars are coming from? The government is borrowing that money from you to help put you deeper into debt, believe me, they are coming back for it soon too.

Think about it... You had a vehicle that you didn't owe much (if any) on. You took government money to help get "lower payments" on a new car. Now you have a long streched out payment plan and you owe a bank several thousand dollars. You are paying far more in payments then you were paying for your bad gas mileage. Plus.. now everyones taxes will have to go up in order to make up for the governments losses.

Even if your taxes aren't touched because of low income you will still see a difference in your income. You see, when Obama taxes the "rich", who are the people who own the businesses that you frequent, they simply raise prices to fill that gap. You will start paying more and your money wont go as far as it once did. You know this to be true because you remember when gas was only $0.98 per gallon and soda was a quarter but you were making less so it was just as hard to pay for anything.

If you bought into the plan for the "environmental effects" then you should be ashamed of yourself. Now the government is going to be using vast amounts of energy to convert all of those gas guzzlers into simple land pollutants. Pollutants that will slowly seep chemicals into our soil and groundwater and do not "wash out" nearly as fast as the emmissions would have. It's true... look it up!

So now that Obama has taken ownership of GM, much of the banking industry, much of the enrgy industry, your vehicle and soon the healthcare industry... all of that will be like free money. All of us will have to pay into the pot that helps spread out our posessions equally and we will be called unpatriotic if we complain. Yep... kinda reminds me of another place I once knew of, over seas, you know the one. But then that didn't work out so well for Russia did it... don't worry though... Obama can do exactly the same thing in exactly the same way and get totally different results. Yeah... that's it, that's what's gonna happen.

Now my money will be worth less, my healthcare will be crappy, my gas will be much more expensive and you will be driving around in a car that everyone else helped you pay for. Thanks Obama supporters, now because of your ignorance, our children will never know the freedoms that we enjoyed in our youth. I hope you like your change... Dip-Wit!

Oh, how long will it take for Obama to go after the food industry? I garuntee it will happen some day, assuming he doesn't get dragged out of office by some real patriotic Americans first.

Talk about a "Majic Negro"

2009-07-31T19:11:00.003-04:00

Budweiser? Are you for real? I mean... What self respecting elitest drinks that crap? Look, I understand that many of you have no taste for beer so you settle for the carbonated urine and I get that the commercials are worthy of product support but there are so many great choices out there.

OK, maybe I'm a beer snob but I was really caught off guard by that choice. I was thinking that he (Obama) would reach for something a little more rich and flavorful like the other guys did. Blue Moon and Sam Adams Light are perfectly good beers and have never had to disguise their taste behind the fumes of racecars burning circles on a nearby track. I'm just saying!

Regardless, the whole "beer summit" was a joke. The entire point was missed as it floated away into the sea of media favoritism on which Mr. Obama seems so unbelievably boyent. The undeniable fact that the good professor was more concerned with his own race then the situation that drew the police to begin with was not the point that drew the interest. That behavior from the educated idiots that have been teaching victemhood to our kids since the 1960s has become the accepted norm... like it or not.

The fact that the police were called because someone was forcing their way into a house, however, is a little more newsworthy. I find it refreshing to hear that the "no snitching" policy that has consumed much of our culture is not a universal fault. I'd hope that my neighbors would have the courage to call the police rather than ignore any suspicious behavior that might not affect them.

The real point of the story was the "knee jerk reaction" of our deeply racist president. You see, for starters, this guy was elected to office on race alone. He got a job without showing a resume, without citing any experience or history of work ethic. He had no merit to point at or accomplishments to highlight. He was chosen simply because he was the "black Democrat".

Beyond that, he has a history of racist behavior and "hate speech" (as defined by the left). Remember when he said that "the Warren Court didn't go far enough" and that "the Constitution was a flawed document". He was expressing a desire to force the white population to pay "repairations" through the redistribution of wealth and his intent to make that desire a reality through judicial activism. It was not presented as an attempt to punish criminals for crimes.... No, he wants to punish an ENTIRE RACE for activities of people who are no longer alive. People who, by the way, were acting well within the laws of the day. Granted, I do not believe that slavery was Constitutional even then but then neither did most Republicans of the day. It was the Democrats that fought emancipation so hard for so long so by his logic it seems we should punish those who have volunteered to join the group that gave us slavery instead of the whites who just happened to be born that way.

You see, the beauty of the "knee jerk" reaction is that it is a window to the soul. Mr. Obama admitted that he had no real details and lacked the facts but was sure, by instinct, that it was the white cops that "acted stupidly" when they confronted the black victim... I mean professor. So if you were too lost in your Obama love to see all of the previous evidence of his hatred for the whites then maybe you saw his soul when he, for a moment, left down his guard and spoke without the benifit of his political filter. Maybe now you will take a fresh look at his words and actions of the past and see that you have made a grave mistake in supporting his demolition of the American way of life and join us in removing his power by voting only for those who would oppose all of his socialist nonsense.

Probably not though. I mean, if you will join us then I love you for it but most of you had no nads to begin with. You lacked the testicular fortitude to go against the populus and look through the marketing to see the real candidate and that's why you slung your vote in his direction. Then you couldn't muster the courage to question your decision when he began taking control of your choice of which bank to use, what lightbulb to install, what car to buy, what health care provider to rely on and how many people you can hire. Now you just sit back and take the beating because you hate to be wrong... Please.... Don't be that guy.

I dare you... no.. I double dog dare you to challenge me on any statement that I've made. Please show me where I'm wrong, today or any other day. Show me that you have the courage and intellect to defend your piss poor decision, make me look like an idiot for what I believe in! Grab your skittles and make your opinion heard and we will engage in a real discussion about the the reality of what it is to be a Patriotic American!

Oh and I didn't make up the "Majic Negro" thing so don't start! Look it up, you'll get it.

The Marco Rubio Effect

2009-07-26T10:05:00.003-04:00

Throuout the span of my political interest there has been one question that has haunted me. I must have been asked a thousand times, by those who are truly concerned, "what can one person do"? I do understand how frustrating it is to look around and feel intimidated by the power of the masses who spend their time concentrating on who to vote for on American Idol rather than what's happening in Washington. You feel like you're fighting a forrest fire with a squirt gun.

Well, have I got great news for you! Your chance to be a great hero is banging on your door and pleeding for your help, especially if you live here in the sunshine state.

Allow me to introduce you to Marco Rubio. He represents the kind of uphill battle against impossible odds that everyone dreams of winning. He will be opposing Charlie Crist in the upcoming primaries for the newly open Florida Senate seat.

I know what you're thinking, Charlie is a good republican and has a great chance of winning against any would be democratic challenger. You're probably right, he is a lockstep Republican (wich is a really bad thing) and has a great chance of beating a Democrat (which is not necessarily a win for us).

Keep in mind that mr Crist not only supported the stimulus package but campaigned for it. He is a very liberal republican who really just does what he thinks is popular so that he can gain power. Please, look up his policies and see what he's done. I could list out what he's been wrong in but I would rather leave that for you... for now. You are less likely to really understand if I spell it out for you then if you discover it for yourself.

On the same note, I'd like for you to check out Marco Rubio. He is, by all accounts, a real common sense conservative with an interest in rescuing our country rather than gaining power. Please visit his website and listen to what he's saying.

The reason that this is so important is this.. We have an opportunity to propell the common sense underdog to a victory over one of the most popular governors in the nation. The media frenzy that would insue would boost the morale of all of those who have been driven into submission by the historical hammering of reason by the thoughtless voting masses. There would be a groundswell of optimism and an energetic offensive that would force other politicians to start moving back towards the right for fear that they too might fall to a broadening sense of urgency by the right wing majority of thinking individuals.

The point is that we can change the actions of politicians with just one devastating blow to the gut of popular politics. It doesn't matter that these guys are only acting out of fear while maintaining their lack of true patriotism. We just need to slow the progress of the left until we can drag more good Americans out of the woodwork and push them into office to help bring this nation around and get it headed back in the right direction.

We must pay close attention though. As much as you will notice that Crist will start leaning to the right again during the primaries, others will do the same. Don't let them lull you into the trap, they are only speaking your language so that they can retain your votes. They will also threaten you with the prospect of giving up their seat to a Democrat should you throw your support behind a "less popular" or "unelectable" canidate.

There is no such thing as "throwing away your vote". These clowns know that they need every vote in order to win so they do tons of research. They look at those who vote against them and try to find a way to gain those votes. If they see you as someone who disagrees with them but will vote for them anyway as the lesser of two evils then they will count you as a vote won and make no effort to appease you. This is why our presidents have been able to move so far left. McCain knew that most people would never support Ron Paul or Allen Keyes out of fear of Obama or Hillary so he was comfortable just staying a little right of them while moving as far left as he could to secure the undecideds. Well, look where that got us!

If you're not in Florida you can still work with this. Start talking about Rubio, make him a national hero. If people are talking about him all across America then People here will be forced to look at him and we could actually pull this thing off.

Now you know what one person can do. Go out and talk to people, make sure that you say the name "Marco Rubio" to at least one person every day and you will have been a part of the single most important movement that has ever taken place. You will be telling your grandchildren about the time when socialism almost took over America and how you were a big part in its defeat. You will be an American Hero!

Healthcare.. The Final Word

2009-07-20T13:08:00.006-04:00

The devil visited a lawyer's office and made him an offer. "I can arrange some things for you, " the devil said. "I'll increase your income five-fold. Your partners will love you; your clients will respect you; you'll have four months of vacation each year and live to be a hundred. All I require in return is that your wife's soul, your children's souls, and their children's souls rot in hell for eternity."

The lawyer thought for a moment. "What's the catch?" he asked.

I did a quick search and found 161 jokes about how slimey lawyers are. But then I've found millions of pages full of facts that prove those jokes to be right! So how is it that the vast majority of our current leaders are lawyers. Think about it, who would you rather take care of your home, family and finances.. a lawyer or a successfull businessman? But then the lawyers have you so afraid of lawsuits these days that you might have answered with "lawyer".

Therein lies the problem. This legal mafia has forced us to pay them to protect us from their wrath, not unlike the mobsters of long ago who would beat the shop owner into submission and offer him a chance to pay a percentage of his income (a tax if you will) for protection.

Our "healthcare problem" is no different. The simple fact is that we have the best healthcare system in the world, bar none! Our problem is in the cost of that care.. more to the point.. the cost of protection from lawyers that is imposed by lawyers which are facilitated by those lawyers that now run our once great country.

Since the logical place to start is at the beginning, and we are talking about government, we will start in the middle.

When you have a problem with your plumbing you call a plumber and he gives you a quote. You can compare that quote to others and find what you think to be the best service for the best price. These plumbers know this and are bound by the free market to keep price and service affordable so that they can stay in business. If a customer feels that his price was too high for the service he will fire that plumber, that is, never use him again. Plus he is likely to tell his friends and the plumber will likely lose his business. That's how our country was supposed to work.

Enter the scum sucking lawyer! The customer has had a problem that caused damage to his home. He retains a lawyer who offers him riches beyond his wildest dreams as a form of punishment towards the plumber. That plumber loses his business and the net result is the same as it would have been had the homeowner simply fired him. Now that may seem fair but wait.. what is the gross result?

Other plumbers are now faced with the reality that one single customer can destroy them should they make a single mistake. As a form of protection they reach out to an insurance company to help build a financial cushion to absorb the potential lawsuits. Insurance companies have to build a cushion as well. They have to build a "risk pool". This means that they must secure enough money from enough companies that are unlikely to be sued to balance out the risk of one that may.

The cost of this legal protection is now built in to the price, that is, we must pay for parts, labor and now protection. Once the lawyers realized how much money was in the insurance pot they started going for much more. It was no longer about repairing the problem and making up for lost wages, it was about redistributing wealth. The insurance companies were forced to raise their prices to replenish the pot and that cost was forced on to the plumbers who passed it on to us.

Now that the cost of plumbing was too high for average homeowners to pay they are forced to enter a risk pool of their own. They are being forced to pay for protection against a toilet overflow that may never happen. They will spend years paying a monthly premium that will amount to hundreds of times the cost of parts and labor that would've been charged before the threat of lawsuits.

So what happens when the lawsuits create a gap between the cost of insurance and the income of those who are forced to have it. It's simple, go after those who have the means to pay for that plumbing and can afford the risk without entering the pool. That's where politics come in. The lawyers decide to make the masses feel angry because many are at risk of a plumbing disaster and cannot afford the insurance while the rich get away scott free.

The lawyers use that anger to drum up overwhelming support and move into public office where they can force those rich people, through legislation, to enter the pool and pay a higher premium in order to lower the cost to those who cannot afford it.

At the end of the day what has changed? The homeowner is still paying for a service that they might not use, the cost of parts is still the same, the plumber makes the same amount of money for his labor, the insurance company assumes the same amount of risk and the lawyers are now making far more money and have gained much more power! Is that the change you wanted?

Oh, something else has changed too. The rich guy is now paying out more than before. He is forced to fill that gap by making a change of his own. How many times have you been hired by a poor person? How many jobs are created by the bum on the corner? Are you poor? How many people have you hired lately? The rich guy is the one who pays our wages. He buys our product and supports our services. If you take money from the rich guy he will simply buy less, use less and hire fewer people. That's a fact!

So who are you hurting? How many plumbers have just given up because they can't pay the price or take the risk of staying in business? How many insurance companies have fallen to the greed of lawyers who have crushed any hope of profit in the name of fairness. How many of us live with our leaky faucets rather than dedicate our grocery money to an insurance company that would, no doubt, drop us should we actually need them because they have been burned by lawyers so many times.

Obviously I was referring to our healthcare situation and not plumbing but for some reason people think that they have a right to free health care so they refuse to listen to reason. Let me set it straight... HEALTHCARE IS NOT A RIGHT! Not unlike plumbing protection, it is simply a goal. Companies once offered health insurance as an insentive to work for them. It replaced a higher wage and helped draw in those who had proven themselves in order to make a company more successful.

The thought was that you would be more likely to apply yourself if you were promised a better life for doing so. I know that in todays climate that sounds like a radical concept but once upon a time they only rewarded the winners. That drove many to make an extra effort to win and brought the world from the horrible place it was before this country was formed to the amazing place it is now.

The new proposals for health reform will absolutly cause the collapse of the entire global healthcare system! Over the past 100 years it has been our free market that has driven medical research around the world. Any breakthrough that has come out of socialist systems owes itself to us. They built from the shoulders of our research and our economy. Medication in Canada is only cheap there because we pay the difference here. Heart transplants in Germany can only take place because we provided the capitol for the research. England can only offer free education to it's healthcare providers because we wrote the books.

Don't fool yourself, the only people who will gain from free healthcare are our lawyers and politicians. The rest of the world will most definatly lose!

Fun fact.. Almost half of todays congressmen were lawyers and more than 70% of those are Democrats. That's not to say that all lawyers are bad but then how can you tell them apart when they've made a career of supressing evidence.

Terocracy!

2009-07-10T19:43:00.002-04:00

I'f you are anything like me it's safe to say that the Obama administration terrifies you. As it should, but this seems like the new political trend. Think about it... George Bush and the republican party had the threat of terrorism to lean on to ensure a place in office after 9/11.

It was so bad that they were willing to slide very far left on the economy and other social issues because we (the right wing) were terrified at the potential for another cataphostrophic attack by Al Quieda. They knew that this political capital was the Ace in the pocket that allowed them to collect more (independant) voters and succeed in the greatest duty of a politician... to get elected!

I resent them for this, I also resent the left for being so weak on national security that the republicans got away with it. Had the left grown a pair then the terrorists that call themselves Republicans would have been forced to move back towards their base and we would again have a solid party to back.

But then... Maybe it was a good thing. After all, we gave them lots of rope and most of them hung themselves. Now we know who is really on our side and who is just using the "R" and the threat of the "D" to buy votes.

We the people really need to start scouring our local government for a real conservative American to put up for president in three years. That along with a groundswell next year, is our only chance of passing a recognizable America on to our children.

Sorry, I was side tracked. Mr Obama is obviousle taking advantage of the terocracy as well. He is threatening us with all kinds of nightmares like a failing economy and a global thermal catastrophie. He and the dirtbags in congress are readily selling out our country in a great trade of freedom for security. A trade from which they will be the only victors.

The new government dependancy will force us to keep its archetects in office for the fear of collapse should anyone take away our support. It was the way of Marx and will be the new world order.

If you agree with me then you are done reading this post, go be with your family and have a good night. If not then please grab your life partner or whatever and read on.. maybe you just need to understand whats going on.

America.. This is the general Idea of our country as built by our patriarchs (forefathers). The idea was to create a large number of small groups with a master (federal) government that, above all, would grant three rights. Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness. There was no right to healthcare or equal success for equal effort. The federal government was not to be concerned with your right to be married or your right to not be offended. No right to a home or free energy, just the right to persue all of those things..AT YOUR OWN RISK!

These communities were to compete for residents by creating political systems that would make them desirable for others to leave their own and build where they were most comfortable. These communities would be losely guided by small city governments who would be even more losely guided by their state government. The plan was to create interstate competition in order to drive progress while keeping the playing field level.

The task of leveling the playing field involved basic necessities such as keeping a currency that had equal value and securing the states from outside forces. Not determining a specific minnimum or maximum wage but allowing success to flourish. The governments job was to back contracts, nomatter how absurd, not to intervein and regulate the terms of a contract. This means that, in a free America, I can charge a million bucks to use my restroom and if they are willing to pay it then I shouldn't be fined with a windfall profit tax for their stupidity. At the same time, the government must make sure that I can not prevent you from building your own restroom and undercutting my profit. This is what we call "The Free Market".

UnAmerican... This is what you are if you like the Obama doctrine. You think that equal and fair are the same thing. They are most definatly not. You think that if I build a restroom and you build a restroom then the government should take my windfall profit and give to those who need to use the restroom so that they can equally distribute that money back to us. That is equal... but not at all fair.

You think that we all have a right to healthcare but we do not. It was your regulations and lawsuits that have driven the cost of care out of range of average citizens and have provided for an insurance monopoly. So now that you've hurt everyone you want to take away from those who have earned and spread it equally to those who have not... equal but not at all fair!

You feel that the government can limit the risk of failure by simply limiting someone elses success... equal but not at all fair! You buy into the global warming myth because it shows that you care and that is important to you. You want everyone else to drive a matchbox car because you think they are simply too dumb to see your side and you are secretly jealous of their success... Equal but really not even close to fair.

You refuse to let us keep score at sporting events because you hate that my kid is so much more talented than yours... equal but not fair, plus just plain retarded.

You want those who act in violent hate against others to be punished not for the act but for their opinions (unless, that is, the victim is a white guy). Hell, that's not even equal or fair.

In America the things that you believe should be spread equally were once the things that were offered as a reward for hard work and enginuity. Companies offered free healthcare to those who had brought a little extra to the table. A house was your reward for being responsible with your earnings. Unbridaled success was the American dream and was the fuel that powered progress across the highway of capitalism.

Remember... Before us there was socialism. Along with the freedom from failure came the freedom from success and the lack of motivation. For tens of thousands of years our socialist ancestors used horses for transportation, hand delivered messages for communication and bloodlettings for medicine. Look where we are after only 200 years of a free market. I know you're afraid but please don't drag the rest of us down because you lack the courage to succeed!

Obama gonna fix it!

2009-07-07T20:01:00.003-04:00

I must admit.. There are more than a few reasons that I've been slowing my pace when writing in my blog. Not the least of which is the overwhelming frustration with what's happening to my country. The fact is that I have less time to get to my computer now and I'm forced to choose my topics more wisely. The problem is that there are so many things going on around us that I can't decide what to tackle.

By the way.. Did you hear that Michael Jackson died? I was guessing you might have. So did you see all of the news coverage about the SEVEN rockets that were launched from North Korea or did you notice that congress is finally working on a solution on the college football playoff system. Perhaps you caught all of the protests against Bush's "illegal war" in Afghanistan.

Oh, that's right, it's Obamas war so nobody is taking time away from their busy days in the unemployment line to count a tally of dead Americans or storm the media with complaints about how we should leave those innocent insurgents alone. I find it funny that there was so much protest against Bush for his clearly necessary war in Iraq but now that it's the "savior" in the office there is no doubt that we should storm Afghanistan. I mean, I could make a case that this is a far worse idea than any previous invasion but the media seems to be holding Obamas hand and lulling us all to sleep. If you take issue with my assessment then please let me know. I'd love the opportunity to take one of you pinko commies to the mat in a debate over the justification of both attacks.

So now the body of my topic. I was in the unemployment office today to pick up some papers for the VA (they have an office there). I decided to hover around for a while and listen to some conversations. As my 14 year old daughter would put it.. OMG! If you really want to feel better about our economy you should try it yourself.

First of all there were nothing but SUVs outside with Obama stickers and 26" rims. These people left their children in the car with the engine running and the 15" flip down TVs playing cartoons. I think of the "carbon footprint" of that parking lot and laugh. Did these morons hear anything that Obama promised other than "free money"?

So inside I heard alot of complaints from one person to the next about the inefficiency of the system. I even heard one guy say "this mess is so f'd up it's almost as bad as a full time job". Wait... what? Yes he did, he truly said that.

There were lots of people who were angry that they were expected to spend time looking for work while collecting an unemployment check that "just wasn't enough". I could not hold it in, it was like chewing on a wasp nest and the stinging venom was bound by nature to burst across the small crowd. I said "yep, it's a shame they make it so hard for us to get money we didn't earn from those who did". To my shock and amazement there was no fist fight. Actually, they all looked at me as if to agree but without seeing the folly in the point I was making. One young black lady looks to me and says "you're right... but don't worry, Obama's gonna fix it" and everyone within an ear shot nodded and giggled.

As a good person (which I try to be), I choked down my impulses and scurried out of the place before my grip loosened and I vomited a fury of epic proportions. I was in the seventh circle of liberal Hell and my wings were about to catch a blaze. OK, I'm no angel but I was really in the wrong place.

So now the question floats, If you were an employer and found yourself in a room with 100 people how many of them would you want working for you. Chances are you would only choose about 20% of them. Most people are unworthy of employment so it amazes me that only 10% are unemployed. If you think I'm nuts then feel free to go to the unemployment office and recruit some help, let me know how that works out for you. Maybe this recession is a good thing. It might just force these idiots to become more marketable. That is, of course, unless Obama fixes it!

Yeah.. I said it!

2009-06-26T18:08:00.003-04:00

I can smell it.. can you? For those of you who know me it's not what you're thinking but then ... never mind. I'm referring to the panic, the fear, the desperation. Over the last 12 months or so we have been slowly trying to accept the possibility that our great country was fastly approaching a dangerous crossroads. We feared that the election would usher in a frightening new style of government and that the United States, as we knew it, would no longer exist.

What we've felt recently was similar to the feeling I had when I first joined the Army, before Basic Training. I knew that my life would change and I was nervous but was not really scared. I was worried about how I'd cope with the change but was anxious to get it started.

Then the moment I stepped onto Ft Benning for Basic Training my sense of curious anxiety turned to outright realization. I was locked into it, for better or worse the grim reality that I was to become a direct target to every enemy of the USA had set in and I thought I was going to puke.

That's where we are today.. We knew that Obama would make an effort to turn our freedoms upside down and tear away the very foundation of our great nation. We had anticipated the potential for his success but were not convinced that he could really push his socialism down our throats. We were willing to wait and see how far he'd get and hopeful that he'd get bogged down in the same political quagmire that has kept all of the would be radicals at bay in the past.

Now it has begun to sink in, the lump in our throats has become a knot in our stomachs and we are facing the prospect that our children would be robbed of the great freedoms that we'd been blessed with throughout our lives. We see the fire burning and have come to realize that the fire department is not coming to rescue our homes.

Yet, even as we watch the fabric of our flag disintegrate before our eyes we lie in wait. We know that there must be a way to save it but we stand helpless, lacking the resources to act in a big enough way to affect change.

But then, there is a way.. it seems drastic.. it sounds crazy... it doesn't seem plausible that it could ever come to this but could we... might we... do we stand up and fight? We are all thinking it but we are afraid to be the guy that lets that genie out of it's bottle. For good reason, that would be the beginning of the end for the whole world. We, the United States, are the protectors of freedom around the world. We keep evil in it's place and if we were weakend by a revolution we would surly give the dark forces an opportunity to pounce on all who can not protect themselves.

I can tell that you, like I, have thought of this eventuality and are considering all of the ramifications of this would be battle for freedom. I also know that you are drawing lines in your mind to serve as the signal that it's no longer time to talk but time to fight. With that I have watched as we (conservatives) have allowed the left to keep moving that line closer and closer to us. We are a compassionate group. We want nothing more than to simply convince the left to turn around and bring back the Ideals that have made this nation so great.

Now that it's out in the open we need to come together and paint that line with an indelible ink and present it to the left. Not as a threat but as a promise! A promise that our forefathers made and that generations since then have turned over their lives to keep. We need a new contract with America that leaves no doubt to our intentions to keep America the beacon on the hill and the protector of our God given rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!

Obama's Mafia

2009-06-23T14:14:00.003-04:00

Have you heard of the "Cosa Nostra"? How about the "Triads" or the "Krasnaya Mafiya"? If you know these names then you know just how dangerous mankind can get. What you may not know is how or why these infinatly powerful international mafias came about.

When you think of the mafia you probably think of the early 20th century, around the early 30s and 40s, and I'm sure you think of Chicago, New York, Las Vegas and maybe even Detroit. Have you ever thought about why those cities were the big targets for mobsters but other smaller cities around the nation were virtually left alone? Do you know what our mafia had in common with all of the others around the world?

One simple word connects organized crime across the planet to our own mafia and that word is "Progressivism". That's right, every major mafia is born in a time and place where "social progressives" have taken root. I'm not suggesting that the left is full of crooks (any more than the right) but the Idology does carry such crime as a side affect. Unfortunatly they are not required to mention these side affects in their campaign ads.

Let me establish the pattern for you... The year is 1860 and Italy was involved in what seems like an endless revolution. It was a battle between Democracy and Fascism. It's a complicated story but the victor was Victor Emmanual who became the King of the United Kingdom of Italy. He believed that he could strengthen the economy through an improved system of government finance, promotion of industry, and a liberal trade policy. Karl Marx was a fan of his policies and was known to praise him frequently in his writings. This event held two firsts, the birth of the term "progressivism" and the birth of the "Mafia".

You see, over the next 30 years the economy of Italy could not support the cost of it's vast government financing and began to collapse under it's own weight. Everyone was forced to work to pay into the state, including the lower levels of government workers. Wages were small but equal, as in the liberal dream.

Fast forward to 1941. The "Communist Party of China" has taken control of Hong Kong and begun to "clean up" society. The plan was to help everyone "progress" to a unified body where everything is equal and thus competition will no longer lead to oppression. The system was straight out of Marx's "Communist Manifesto" and it provided a strict policy against detrimental activities such as gambling , booze and pornography. Any unsanctioned profit would be confiscated. The Triads, who were previously a losely organized group, seized on the fear of the citizenry and created a high profit underground market that provided everyone, including government officials with all of their vices and thus became very powerful as well as deadly to those who might oppose them. There from communist progressivism was the birth of the Chinese mafia.

The Russian Mob, AKA Krasnaya Mafiya, is one of the worst mobs in the world. Born from centuries of dictatorial rule, they have existed in small groups since the time of Czars. It wasn't until the late 1960s before they combined and grew so powerful. In 1964 Leonid Brezhnev took power of communist Russia. He was considered a "Progressive" and stood as a figure of "change" with intent to grow beyond the ways of the "old guard". His promise was "the rehabilitation of many of the victims of Stalin's purges, and the cautious liberalization of Soviet intellectual and cultural policy" but upon entering office he changed.

"When forces that are hostile to socialism try to turn the development of some socialist country towards capitalism, it becomes not only a problem of the country concerned, but a common problem and concern of all socialist countries." Those were the words of the great Soviet ruler. He actually tightened his grip on all of the Soviet States in an attempt to provide a more universal equality. He was trying to make life easy for his people by instilling the "Communist Manifesto" as law. The resulting economical collapse drove more and more people into illegal barter networks which the "Red Mob" took advantage of under the threat of exposure.

Even here in the states the pattern exists. If you look at a list of the most politically "Progressive" cities during the late 1920s you will notice that they are the same cities whose names were synonymous with corruption and Mafia control. Add in the fact that we had an all knowing and all great Progressive president who gladly took away our rights to succeed or even drink liquer in order to make us safe from depression and we were bound to see a rise in political corruption. This is a pattern that is prevailent across all time and space.

Anytime you limit someones ability to better their life through their own strengths in order to provide for those who have weaknesses you create friction. This is happening all around us today. Do you know a plumber? How about a carpenter? These guys are heavily taxed and are only able to bring home a fraction of what you pay for their services. Virtually all of them work "under the table" or for trade. They know that they can offer you a deal and collect more than their normal pay by simply leaving out the "middle man". The more the economy fails the more the middle man needs and the more people try to get around him.

It is illegal for us to leave out the middle man (government). We are bound by the threat of violence to pay into a system that supports only those who do not contribute. The greater the price (in taxes) for these dead beats, the less we will be willing to pay and thus the greater the punishment for evasion. This WILL lead to an organized underground economy with no oversight at all. Those who have the greatest resourses will rise to power and be as threatening as the government itself and we, the United States will have given birth to the most dispicible mafia ever.

This is the path of "Progressivism", this is your "change" and this is our future if we don't rise up against this "soft tyranny" and reinstill rugged individualism as our social doctrine.

Stamp Me Stoopid

2009-05-31T12:53:00.002-04:00

The urge is nearly uncontrollable, the frustration is undeniable and it overwhelms us every time we leave our homes. We drive along with our minds wrapped around our personal issues of the day and there it is, like an antagonistic bully or a nagging ex-wife. You know what I'm talking about, the moron that just pulled out in front of you and dropped the flow of traffic down to a trickle. You start to mumble to your self about what an idiot this guy is when you see it... the "stupid sticker". Yes, you've realized that this guy is proudly displaying his ignorance through the little round bumper sticker on his back window with an unfocused, multi-colored image of the messiah.. or perhapse the "Obama Sunrise" sticker or one of many variations of the "stupid sticker".

Is it me or are the most inconsiderate people on the road plainly marked and well defined by there unwavering support for the most un-American president in American history. It draws out the urge to yank them out of the car and shake some sense into them. This myopic fool is not satisfied with putting everyones life at risk on the highways but he proudly stomps on our way of life as well.

It amazes me how many of these stickers you see these days. It's like the "OAKLEY" stickers of the 80s and 90s. I have, however, noticed a pattern. When I'm stuck in morning traffic when everyone's going to work I see alot more republican stickers on cars... but, during work hours it seems like everyone on the road is a left wing commie. You can probably guess why that is and you're probably right.

I've also noticed that I've NEVER met a successful and productive businessman with a stupid sticker on his car. Don't start coming at me with lawyers, they couldn't successfully produce a turd if they didn't have someone to drag through court and take it from.

I've mentioned in one of my early posts that only three types of people would vote for Obama but I've realized that I left one out. Lets recap... I stated that one would have to be un-American, unintillegent or uninformed to vote for Obama and now I add.. Racist!

Let me explain...

Un-American: You completely understand and agree with his policies and are willing to fight to impose them. You think that capitalism (which is the American way) is bad and that socialism is a better route for this country. Everything Obama stands for is the extreme opposite of what this country was founded on and thus Un-American by definition, prove me wrong!

Unintelligent: You have paid attention and like the sound of what Obama is promising but are not capable of understanding how he could be considered un-American. You can be fixed, just start reading all of my posts and begin learning how things really work, prove me wrong!

Uninformed: You just chose to vote for Obama because you thought Bush and the republicans were evil. You get your news and moral guidence from the great citizens of Hollywood and you know for a fact that Sean Penn and Micheal Moore are reliable sources because everything you see in the box is real. You might be salvagable but it's going to take some impressive cerebral gymnastics to un-bend your tiny mind, prove me wrong!

Racist: Really? do I need to explain this one?.. I didn't think so..anyway, prove me wrong!

The point is... I want you morons on the left to know that you are providing a great service by displaying your stupidity on your cars and I encourage you to start getting tattoos and clothing to show your hatred for America as well (if writing out Obama is too expensive, just put up three sixes.. we'll get the point). This way if or when (God forbid) the stuff hits the fan, we real Americans will know who to kick off the island first, if you know what I mean.

"I'll turn this car around RIGHT NOW"

2009-05-11T09:58:00.004-04:00

So now the federal government wants to tell the NCAA how to run college football. They are working on FEDERAL LEGISLATION that prevents the NCAA from using the term "NATIONAL CHAMPOINSHIP" unless they install a government approved playoff system. Obama has promised to sign on to said legislation.

The role of the federal government deepens.. Really? I mean.. Does our federal government heve the time and money to regulate our saturday entertainment? I realize that there are many who suppoort the prospect of a playoff system, and I am one of them, but I don't see why Obama has to get involved.

Actually I do understand.. but I don't like it, neither should you. By supporting this clown in his effort to run every business and create a "Fair Society" you are admitting that you are an immature, incapable, irresponsibile child! You want to assign supreme executive power to the guy that you think will spend the same amount on everyone for christmas.

The theology of the obedient left is not about assigning power for the sake of power. I realize it often feels that way to the productive right but trust me, power is not the goal. In other words.. Obama did not lie when he said that he has no desire to own private industry. That power is merely a means to an end. He feels that he must own private enterprise in order to make things fair and equal (Which are two totaly different things).

Think of him as daddy. From the perspective of the elitist left, we are all children who are sitting in the back seat of the car and fighting over a toy. "Dad, he took my toy" says the child on the right, "Did not!" says the one on the left. "Did too" says the one on the right. "Mom gave it to me" screams the one on the left.. and so on.. and so on.. As a parent it is often hard to figure out which child is supposed to have the toy and which one is making things up just to get it. The only "fair" thing to do is to take it away from both of them. But then.. that was simply the equal thing to do, not the fair thing. The child who had the toy to start with and had earned it always loses out because the other refuses to give up the fight and causes both to lose it.

Think of politics in the same way. The "all wise" Democrats feel compelled to take things away in order to make things fair. This is not about having power but that parent like power is necessary for them to stop all of the fighting in the back seat of the car. The goal is peace and happiness but the result is hatred and resent on the part of those who have lost what they've worked for to appease those who would rather snatch the toy away and fight to keep it. Once this parental action becomes the norm then the earner will grow tired of working for the leach and both will go without.. then everything will be fair.

If you are insulted by what I've said, you should be. We are all adults here and do not need the government to tell us that we should wear a seatbelt, quit smoking, play fair, stop offending people, drive less or work hard and pay more taxes so that our brothers wont have to.

PROVE ME WRONG!

The Candyman, Merit Free Healthcare

2009-04-29T21:35:00.003-04:00

Bound to a wheelchair and with only one arm, he scoots across the floor with an almost sinister look on his face. As he bumps into an empty chair he peers up at the elderly couple occupying the adjacent spots and begins to slowly reach into his breast pocket. The look on their face went from painful discomfort and misery to fearfully quizical. From his pocket, the creepy criple draws a pair of Tootsie Rolls and reaches out to the frightened couple. An offering, with barely a voice he grunts "candy?" and cracks a small corner smile. To my surprise they accepted his strange offer and with gratitude, wished him a good day. About that time another gentleman burst out his greeting to the generous fellow.. "Candyman!" he said in a raised voice, "How ya doin today?" he asked. The gentle candyman continued to wheel around the waiting room and offer sweet treats to all who were so patiently waiting for their turn to finally be attended to.

Everyone in the place seemed more than displeased about the unreasonable amount of time that they were investing while clearly experiencing pain from whatever brought them there. People like the candyman bring a temporary light to an otherwise dark place. The James A. Haley Veterans Hospital is a black hole for those who had already done so much for their/our country. I sat there for many hours today, looking at everyone around me. There were all kinds of people with all kinds of problems, some were obvious like arms and legs that were, no doubt, sacrificed during wars and others just looked defeated. I'd love to dig the stories out of these broken heros, I'd love to know how they got here.

The other thing that struck me was the absolute inefficiency of the VA system. This is a highly (government) funded hospital with hundreds of volunteers trying to help. This is federalized healthcare. This is the very system that you'll be stuck with if the left gets their way. But hey... it's free!

Free is not quite the right word, I mean it's free for me, right now. It has cost me thousands back when I was working and paying into the system and will cost me much more when I get working again. But then, I can't choose my doctor, my pharmicist, my physical therapist, my brand name medication, my glasses or even my parking space so freedom is definatly not free. This is free healthcare that I would never choose to pay for.

My day: I have been ill for a few days so I called yesterday to make a free appointment with my assigned free primary healthcare provider. The closest available opening was to be nearly a month away, but I'm very sick so I needed free help sooner. They said to come in today, after 12:30 when it's not as busy, and they'd squeeze me in. When I showed up for free help they sent me to the ER because my free doctor was busy with lots of others needing free help. I signed in at the ER and sat down. It was an hour before the free triage nurse got a chance to ask me what was wrong. She then sent me to the free Urgent Care Clinic to try to get squeezed in there. At the UCC I was asked to sit down and wait for a free doctor to become free.

An hour later, the UCC told me that I'd have to go see my free Primary Care doctor and that I could get an appointment for next month. I told them that I'd already waited for two hours for free help and that I really needed to see my free doctor. I was sent to the waiting room and told that my free doctor would squeeze me in if they had some free time. Finally, five hours after getting off of the free bus that's provided to get us from the free parking at the nearby mall, I was let in to see my free doctor. within 7 minutes I had a free diagnoses and it was free of any type of testing. I was asked some questions and given a free Rx to take to the free pharmacy. Now happy because I had been in the black hole for more than five hours, I was finally free.

Then there is the free pharmacy, to make a long long story short, you wait an average of four hours for your free medication and if you miss your name being called you have to start over again.... free of charge. Thank God for Walgreens and free enterprise, I was willing to pay to avoid the free pharmacy.

Now imagine if everyone were in this system, 300,000,000 people waiting for free help. The employees would still be paid the same but would have much more to do. What motivation would they have to make it better? Your "free healthcare" would also be free from merit. The good news is that even in our worst place, the candyman will come to brighten our days. Oh boy! that's good news! But then, candy is unhealthy and would cause a drain on our free healthcare so it would become illegal. For that matter, everything is unhealthy for us or the environment so who knows what we'd live on.

So now lets throw something else in (thank you Tim). If my fever and diarrea were just symptoms of Swine Flu what would have happened in obamas world. I'd have gotten on a free crowded bus (because cars cause global warming) to get to the the local hub and infected forty people or so along the way. Then i'd have boarded another free crouded bus headed for the free hospital and infected others while everyone who rode the first bus with me passed it on to their contacts. Once we reached the free hospital, another forty or so infected people would have filed out and into the free hospital where they passed on the free flu to everyone else that was or would be waiting countless hours for free help. By the time the free doctor got to me, and assuming they actually did enough testing to find the flu, I would have passed on the free infection to countless people who had come and gone during my hours of waiting. Those people who have left would have already taken the free busses to where ever they were going and contacted many others along the way. Thank God/Obama for free healthcare because now everyones gonna need it.

If you can't see my point then crawl back to whatever elitist university you teach at or whichever law firm you practice at and put your blinders back on. For the rest of you, I beg of you, please do not force free healthcare on all of us. I don't think we are prepaired to pay the price. Oh, and if you think that my use of the word "free" was annoying, now you know how those of us who have "free healthcare" feel when you keep preaching about it.

The New Civil War

2009-04-27T16:05:00.003-04:00

In much the same way our media had ignored the pirate activity that has been going on for many years on the other side of the world, they are ignoring another crises that mirrors our own situation in many ways. In Thailand there is a civil war brewing. There have been violent protests and even assanation attempts. It is a battle over Idiology and government control. It is a fight between freedom and security.

I do believe that we are on the edge of a similar war and I've been trying to figure out how it will happen. We like to think of a civil war in terms of our own historical battle between the North and South where battle lines were clearly drawn but many civil wars are far less civil than that. Many wars are fought from person to person, house to house or neighborhood to neighborhood. Small but lethal clashes between opposing factions who intend to gain the majority through genicide.

In Thailand the forces are generally divided by area but are not fighting in that manner. They are dawning their colors and taking their fights to the streets. On one side you have the Red shirts,The National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD). This group supported the 1997 Constitution which de-centralized the government and greatly increased human rights. They do support a certain amount of socialism such as welfare and universal healthcare. They were led by Thaksin Shinawatra who was deposed by a military coup in 2006.

On the other side you have the Yellow shirts, The People's Alliance for Democracy. They supported the military coup that deposed the former leader and are led by media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul and Major General Chamlong Srimuang. Though the media considers this group conservitive they are opposed to representative democracy. They feel that the nations welfare is best left to the wisdom of it's elitists.

As you can see, their politics are a strange blend of our own but that's not the point. The chord that this story struck with me is the potential for nationwide violence. The entire nation has just come off of a "State of emergency" that begun with an outbreak of violence that erupted during a protest two weeks ago. The anger between the two sides is now elevated and there will be much more bloodshed to come. Bangkok is nothing but a crystal ball that gives us a foggy account of our own future but we along with our media are not willing to face the reality that the first shots of our civil war have already been fired.

It's a frightening prospect to think that we may one day be taking up arms against our neighbors... But, it's not an unreasonable one. The division between the left and right within our country has grown rapidly since the socialist takeover in November. The new anti-Constitutional Obama administration has begun it's disassembly of our capitalist society by pushing federal control over our Banks, Energy, Education, Health Care and Industrial sectors while (as in other imperialist regimes) they are seeking prosicution against our former leaders. This is an act that is commonly employed as a show of force and power to detour any would be detractors. His supporters are becoming more defensive about their unwavering love for the political "rock star" and are actually becoming more agressive as we saw from the tea parties.

Soon the protests will morph into violent clashes just as in Bangkok and the bloodshed will further polarize the factions. One act will serve as the "Arch Duke Ferdinand" moment that will propell us into all out war. The sides will not fight for land as an army but will fight for Idiology. The flag will be the same but the groups will wear their support on their sleeves and on their car bumpers. There will be much influence from other nations with intent to reap some of the spoils of the giant battle. Some nations, like Isreal and what ever capitalist nations are left, will support the right wing by secretly funneling weapons and technology in through the underground. Others, the more socialist nations, will help by clamping down on the capitalist allies in an attempt to choke off the resistance. While others will simply take advantage of our weakness and attempt to take us over from within. Whether it ends up as a civil war, a revolution or WWIII the net result will not be pretty. (The difference between a civil war and revolution is who wins)

This is one of many sceneriios that may lead to World War Three but the great thing about the future is that we can change it. With enough political power we can stop the socialist train and disable it for good. We can only do it if we...

A. Work together
B. Create a Political Party that adheres to what is morally right, not popular
C. Inform everyone and grow beyond the "Rock Star"
D. Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all of its enimies.

The future is yours, go get it!

Moral Capital and Prosperity

2009-04-24T17:33:00.002-04:00

Today I took some time to visit some of the "liberal" and "Progressive" blogs on the internet and I left comments as well as invitations to their readers. For those of you who had the courage to check me out, I welcome you. I hope that you will engage me in a friendly debate so that everyone can better understand each other. I also encourage you to take some time to read over some of my older posts and my Jimmy Strawn Plan so that you can get a feel of what I'm all about.

I enjoy looking at the thoughts and thoughtlessness of the left. Many on the right are clueless as well but at least they are not destructive to our way of life. Yes.. I'm calling liberals destructive. I realize that it's not intended but the desire to force equality above fairness has pushed the evil do-gooders into a downward spiral of bitter hatred for everything that made this country great.

I visited a site where someone gave examples of scientific proof that Global Warming is real and cited an econimist, who authored a book that glorifies globalization, as their source. Do I need to explain how absurd that is? It only serves to prove my point that the climate hoax is nothing but a ploy to create a "one world" socialist government. The people who profess to be scientists are nothing but climatologists and politicians. Climatology, by the way, is a non-science. It does not employ scientific method and those who practice it are not accountable for their findings. In other words, a climatologist will get paid well as long as there is a threat of climate disaster looming over us. If they said that things were fine they would lose funding. Plus they make predictions that are dependant on a lack of natural variables so that if the predictions don't pan out then they can tout that the changes that were made were what made the difference. It's the perfect scam.

I also visited a site that stated that only libs loved their country because they want to make sure that the rich perform their "patriotic duty" of paying taxes. WHAT?.. Since when does paying taxes equate to patriotic duties? Our patriarchs, the original tea partiers, might disagree with this moron. This nation was founded on the freedom of religion, the right to life, liberty and property and the freedom from the overwhelming tax burden. These socialists are really good at digging into other peoples hard earned money in the name of patriotism but not so good at understanding what patriotism really is. Maybe they are patriotic to some other country but not the U.S.A.

I also got a few minutes to peer into the mind of a liberal Navy wife who likes the Idea of "social capital". First of all I don't understand how anyone in the military can be (or be married to) a liberal. When you swear in to the military you are taking an oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States from its enimies, both foreign and domestic." To support Obama or the general platform of the left is to deny the Constitution as it was written. Obama has openly stated that the constitution is the fundimental problem with this nation and has expressed interest in a complete overhaul in which the document is written with much more government control. The left in general is in lockstep with this idiology and anyone who supports this is, at minimum, antipatriotic or in the case of our military they are just plain treasonist.

Somehow these people believe that the federal government is in the position to spread around everyones money in order to help "those less fortunate". From my experience, most of the less fortunate are that way by their own lack of effort. That being the case, when our forefathers founded this country they left it up to those who had earned their money to decide where their fortune should go. That's real social capital, if someone is in need of help they would have to make an effort to become worthy of help rather than just vote it away from the earners. On the flip side, those who had earned their money would be held to social standards and could enhance or impede their success based on their own charity. This means that a business owner that shunned the lower class would lose business and one who worked to make lives better would only prosper from that investment. Yes it's that simple, oir it was, until the "progressives" came and screwed it all up.

The moral of the story is that there is a huge disconnect between the politics of the left and the right. The left wants to make sure that everything is fair by enforcing equality on us through government control while the right wants to make sure that everything is equal by making us enforce fairness on each other through moral capitalism. Ironically, there is little difference in what both sides want to achieve just how they want to get there.

I submit this... The right represents a gathering of people who want to "Conserve" all of the ideals and practices that made this the greates country in the world. The left represents a gathering of people who want to "Progress" to the same ideals and practices that make all of the other countries so dependant on us. If we succumb to that philosophy, who will we depend on, who will the rest of the world depend on? Perhaps you libs should pick a state or region and move there... then in 20 years, when you're begging for us to save you from yourselves, you will understand why your philosophy has failed every time it's been tried and you can once again become a functioning and productive part of this REPUBLIC!

Crap Is Rolling UP Hill?

2009-04-20T21:52:00.002-04:00

First of all, please forgive me for my absence. I have spent the last week moving and my computer was boxed up. Now I live in a quiet little neighborhood about 25 miles north of Tampa where my family is a little safer. To be honest, I have not spent much time doing research but I have seen some news and I'm scared to death.

This week I have gotten all of my information the same way as the general public, local news. Talk about scary, If I didn't know better I'd think that some law abiding American is handing out guns to every dope slinging, drug smuggler south of the border. I'd be learning that, for the first time since the 1700s, pirates have re-emerged somewhere over seas. I'd believe that there were a group of millionaires who paid a few hundred racists to protest against Obama and everything else that's good on April 15th. I'd think that, somehow, evil guns have stolen everyone's SUVs and were driving around shooting 8 year old girls... Need I go on?

I'd hate to use the "C" word because it belongs to the left but I'm beginning to think that we're quickly approaching "Crises" level. The media has opened it's bag of tricks, as predicted, and is pounding the propaganda every night at 5:00, 6:00, 10:00 and 11:00. They are totally invested in the fall of capitalism and are working along with most of congress as well as king Obama to drag the constitution out from under us.

This is not new. Do you remember when States had power? Yes it's true, the point of having states was to balance power and create a capitalist style of government. Let me explain... The greatest load of power and responsibility was put on local municipalities. The vast majority of legislation would take place in townships with limited oversight by the city. The counties would have a slightly more generalized level of governance over it's cities as a way to keep some amount of fluidity from city to city. Sort of like the NFL, who allows each team to pick their own players and create their own plays but just sets basic rules to make sure that they're all playing the same game. The load of regulation is supposed to dissipate as you go from county to state to federal oversight.

The reason for this is to create a sort of "market" from place to place. If a city starts encroaching on peoples rights then they have the right to move to one that does not. The first city would then lose it's tax base and would fail unless it made the necessary changes to become "marketable". This self regulating system was designed very much like the economic capitalist system on purpose, because it works! The role of the state was merely to make it reasonable for someone to move freely from city to city, that is, to prevent one city from declaring that it's money or product had value only within it's borders.

The role of the federal government was to.. A. Protect our basic rights as described in the Bill Of Rights and the Constitution. B. Bond the states together as one union with one currency. C. To protect the nations borders. If you do not fully understand these responsibilities, please let me know so I can explain them fully.

Lately (over the past 40 years) there has been a move to flip the balance of power on it's head. Our media has put the emphasis on presidential elections with less attention paid to the congress and almost none paid to local government. Everyone knows how Obama feels about the topics of the day but they don't even know who their local Representatives are. This has given an obscene amount of power to the guy that should have the least amount of power of anyone at all. Now we are about to hand that power to the "international community".

By way of international treaty, we are about to let all of the worlds least successful countries have supreme executive power over our constitution. If the world decides that it would be an act of war to produce weapons then we will be forced to stop. If the world feels that we are causing pain by not sharing our food then we will be forced to starve. Seriously, think about the possibilities! If you think I'm nuts, prove me wrong. Feel free to engage me and maybe one of us will learn something.

If you agree then spread this around and start checking into your local law makers. The only way to sway the top is to shake the bottom but if we don't do it now, it's all going to fall over.

It Pays To Look

2009-04-14T23:15:00.002-04:00

Normally I don't do this but after talking with a friend (who happens to be a wonderful person) I realized that something needed to be straightened out. This person told me that she voted for Obama because she believes in stem cell research and has someone close to her that would benefit from it's potential.

This has bothered me since then and I must get it out now. I consider myself the poster child for conservatism but I have a quarrel with some of my brethren. The loud minority of right wingers has pigeon holed all of us into the belief that the stem cell debate is all about abortion. That misconception has pushed many, otherwise conservative, voters into the arms of the Socialists that are now chipping away at our greatness.

First let me say that i recognize the potential for a moral and ethical disaster so I understand the fear. I do not, however, consider that the primary reason to attack the new federal support of stem cell research. Let me explain...

First of all we have been fed a line about which party supports that particular type of research. We were led by our incompetent media to think that the Republicans are dead set against it and that Democrats are the knights in shining armor who will defeat those murderous people haters and raise a cure for all of the worlds problems through the investment of gazillions of taxpayer dollars into the mighty stem cell.

Don't forget that it was Bush and a Republican congressional majority that first brought federal funding to stem cell research. They did it in an attempt to create more interest as well as a way to "raise the stakes" for any enterprising private industry that would be willing to invest in it's potential. That was acceptable and should have been the end of federal involvement in the field of medicine.

That might sound selfish but let's back up and think this through (something we right wingers like to do). What do you do for a living? Let's pretend that you are in charge of creating a product that would supply a vast and endless market. We'll call it a widget. Now, let's say that I (your boss) promised that the first person to create a marketable widget would receive 100% of it's profits but you would be responsible for funding your own research. It would be safe to say that you'd investigate the likely hood of your idea working before investing your entire savings into building your widget. If you had a good enough idea you would present it to others and try to gather financial support through the promise of the vast reward for your creation. Those who have the money would get to choose the most promising ideas and take the risk of investment.

Your widget would be similar to Viagra. With little or no help from the boss (government) they gathered private investors to finance a team to come up with a solution for a serious problem and are reaping the rewards. That, my friends, is the American dream!

Now let's pretend that your boss told all of you that you would be paid a decent hourly wage for the research and creation of your widget, but, once you've successfully created your widget your boss would have soul rights of distribution and profit from the product. Furthermore, once the widget was made there would no longer be a need for widget makers and you all would lose your jobs.

The point that I'm making is that Federal funding for research creates a huge market for research but no market for cures. On the other hand, if you allow the private industries to take loans at their own risk and profit from their own success then you create a smaller, more promising market for the cure.

Maybe if it weren't so lucrative to search for the cure for cancer (4.6 billion tax dollars spent in 2008) then someone might have found the cure.....

For more info on Federal Stem Cell Funding go to...
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33540.pdf