Random Thoughts: Political Thoughts

Environmentalists protect a lizard, kill eagles

2011-06-08T03:45:00.003-04:00

Environmentalists are blocking drilling for oil in Texas, in the guise of protecting a lizard that they say is endangered. But at the same time, wind farms are killing dozens of endangered golden eagles - and they won't stop them.
Hypocrisy in action.

Basketball vs Revolution and Disaster

2011-03-16T19:09:00.002-04:00

Interesting (and concerning) that during this time of global difficulty, our President has little time for anything other than basketball.

He spoke a few weeks ago, encouraging the youth of the middle east to rise up and demonstrate. Now that Libya is in flames, he is silent.

Japan has experienced their worst disaster of any kind since World War II, but they are handling it peacefully. No violence, no protests, no looting. And our President is silent.

Instead, he attends basketball games and releases his picks for March Madness.

That's Just Not Right

2010-10-30T13:18:00.004-04:00

We are in the middle of a Congressional election campaign between a 28-year incumbent Democrat, Rick Boucher, and a challenging Republican, Morgan Griffith.

Somebody is sending out political text messages, without any identification, that are considered "smear attacks" against the Democrat.

Problem is, these messages seem to be sent BY the Democrat's campaign and his supporters, and Rick Boucher's Congressional office -- in official capacity -- is then claiming the Republican's campaign sent them. What is clear is that the Republican, Morgan Griffith, has categorically denied knowing anything about these messages or being involved with them in any way.

It's one thing to point out your opponent's bad actions.

It's quite another to do them yourself solely to blame him for them.

Letter to Senator Mark Warner

2010-09-25T13:12:00.001-04:00

I just received a letter from Senator Mark Warner. This is a reply.

--------------------

Thank you for your email.

Thank you for letting me know that you strongly support additional bailouts for favored businesses.

I realize that the small business package includes some things that will be positive, like allowing those who choose to invest in capital to write off the balance more quickly. However, allowing the current tax rates to expire on most of these businesses (taxes on the "rich" who own these businesses and file personal returns that reflect the business income) will cost far more than this plan could ever save.

Moreover, the majority of the cost (which will have to be paid for, despite the claim that it doesn't cost anything) is for direct bailouts (loans) for favored businesses. The loan industry has no shortage of funds available. The $1.5b is minor compared to the $300b already available. This money will go to companies, like those you indicated, which are politically favored, and some of whom do not have a sound business model which would be required to otherwise get loans. And which will be required to actually succeed and to pay back the loans.

In addition, while the deductions on capital investment may reduce the short-term cost of business growth, the new healthcare regulations will greatly increase the cost of employees. In other words, recent regulations still create an environment that is strongly negative for jobs growth.

It is laws like these that have overseen the increase in unemployment from 7.2% under Bush to over 10% under Obama. These laws with more regulation and higher taxes have made things so bad that some experts do not expect unemployment to ever return to the low rates that President Obama inherited.

(Originally posted at http://warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=NewsletterReply)

Louisiana and the Oil Spill

2010-05-25T09:35:00.003-04:00

I just found out that Louisiana actually has developed a plan over the past years to contain oil spills to keep them off their coast and out of their sensitive marshlands.

Yet you hear a lot on the news about how the oil threatens the marshes. Which is the truth?

Actually, the oil does threaten the marshes, despite Louisiana's plans. Why?

Because for Louisiana to implement their plans, they have to have Federal permission.

And the Federal government is far more concerned with blaming BP, with fining BP, with shutting down oil drilling nationwide, with holding press conferences, and with having hearings.

Louisiana asked for permission within days of the oil leak starting. And, despite it now being over a month later, the Federal government has still not allowed Louisiana to do anything to protect themselves.

If we didn't know before, we know now. This isn't about fixing anything. It's not about taking responsibility, which BP has already done. It's about blaming. It's about repudiation. It's about publicly humiliating anybody and everybody that the current Federal administration doesn't like. And the oil leak continues.

Times Square Would-Be Bombing - Correction

2010-05-14T10:31:00.004-04:00

My original post on Times Square has been corrected. Seems some of the facts were a little confusing, since the would-be bomber actually has close ties to BOTH major radical Islamic terrorist organizations.

Too bad Attorney General Eric Holder won't admit even the possibility of any "radical Islam" influence in the situation in Times Square. Might make keeping things easier to keep straight if the government would actually find out what's going on rather than trying to appease everyone who hates us. Or if they would even admit the intelligence findings that have already been released to the press.

Bomber on no-fly list on flight: Airline's fault?

2010-05-05T08:38:00.002-04:00

The government says that the bomber who was on the no-fly list getting on a flight was effectively the airline's fault.

The policy requires airlines check every 24 hours for a new/updated list. This guy was a new addition, so he got missed. And they are now changing the policy to require airlines check for new/updated lists every two hours.

But is it ultimately the airline's responsibility? Isn't that what the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) is for? Every individual person goes through a security screening, and every individual person gets looked at by a TSA agent.

But the government says it's the private airline's fault, not the TSA that they oversee.

Bomber on no-fly list still gets on flight

2010-05-04T19:55:00.009-04:00

Faisal Shahzad, the man who set up the bomb in Times Square, was on the no-fly list.

Yet he got on a flight to Dubai, and almost left. He was apprehended from the plane, just before take-off.

And the White House Press Secretary says that the "security system" and its "fallback procedures" were "in place" and that "they worked."

The guy was on the no-fly list. He was minutes from taking off, when somebody happened to notice his name on the boarding list. And this is an example of how the system "worked"?

New York did an excellent job. The citizens noticed and reported the suspicious activity. The information on the vehicle was tracked down. But the perpetrator, who was on the Federal no-fly list, was still allowed on an international flight, right under the eyes of the Fed?

How many times do people on no-fly lists have to get on flights before somebody straightens things out?

(BTW: Oh, and how many news reports have you heard that mentioned that he's a Muslim who came from Pakistan and has ties to both Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Not many, I'll bet.)

Update: Sorry; it was a Taliban training camp he trained in last year. Corrected above.

Update 2: No, it actually was an Al Qaeda training camp. Confused because the Taliban took credit for the bomb, but it was Al Qaeda that he trained with. Seems he's actually related to both. Re-corrected.

Too bad Attorney General Eric Holder won't admit even the possibility of any "radical Islam" influence in the situation. Might make keeping things easier to keep straight if the government would actually find out what's going on rather than trying to appease everyone who hates us. Or if they would even admit the intelligence findings that have already been released to the press.

Oil Rig Sinking

2010-04-30T22:50:00.003-04:00

Well, I feel a little bit better in one way, though not so much in another.

On the one hand, at least I'm not the only one thinking this, but on the other hand, if it's true, that's scary.

I just heard a local (relatively local, in Tennessee, but nationally-syndicated) radio host say that he was thinking the same thing.

OK, I'm leading in to something.

I was simply thinking that it seems quite a coincidence that we've had a lot of mining disasters in the past year or so. And now, we've had an oil rig sink, resulting in probably a bigger oil spill than the Exxon Valdez.

This particular oil rig survived the brunt of Katrina. We know it was in the path for that. It was probably in the path for a lot more, like Ivan (which I was in Pensacola FL during). And now the pressure from fire hoses from fire boats was enough to break it off its moorings and cause it to sink? Really? After an unexplained fire?

Is it just coincidence that we've had all these situations, right now as those in political power are pushing for restrictions and fees on fossil fuels?

Is it a coincidence that we had an oil rig mysteriously blow up and sink - and that the fail-safe auto-cap mechanism also mysteriously failed - and all without any ability to investigate what happened to either one?

And right after a President who has made no secret of his dislike of the petroleum industry, under strong pressure from members of his own political party, just approved research into off-shore drilling? A move that is now suspended indefinitely, making him look like he was on the right side all along?

A President who has worked all his political life among "community organizer" groups who are used to "heavy-handed" tactics to get their way?

A President who has worked all his political life in and around Chicago, the home of political corruption perhaps only second to New Orleans?

Which is, coincidentally, the home of the group he worked with most of his working life, ACORN, and their brother group, SEIU. And, coincidentally, where the oil rig incident occurred.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm no conspiracy nut. I tend to believe people mean exactly what they say, until proven otherwise. And I tend to believe the Ockham's Razor theory - that if there are two possibilities, the simpler answer is more likely the correct answer.

But you also know what they say about something that seems like too much of a coincidence...

33 Mine Accidents; Coincidental?

2010-04-25T08:48:00.002-04:00

There have been 33 mine accidents so far this year, with associated investigations into operational safety, and it's only April.

President Obama hates coal mining. In a discussion on energy (back a while, concerning Cap and Trade), he said he was going to put coal mining out of business.

President Obama is very close with union thug organizations (SEUI and the group formerly known as ACORN).

Conspiracy fans could go nuts.

Arizona declares illegal activity to be illegal

2010-04-24T01:37:00.003-04:00

Arizona just declared the federally-illegal activity of crossing the border illegally to be against state law.

Then President Obama promptly says that's unfair, and he orders the courts to look into the Constitutionality of the new law.

The Constitutionality of enforcing the existing law? Come on!

NASA: No More Gov't Sponsored Space Flight: A Bad Thing?

2010-04-22T02:04:00.003-04:00

NASA only has two more planned space flights. All near-future space projects (by the US) have been canned. I was very discouraged to hear this. At first.

I am all for space flight. For lots of reasons. For one, I like scifi. For more practical issues, I would like to see us reach beyond our own planet, for research, for exploration, for resources, and for territorial expansion. And we have a lot of nostalgia wrapped up in the space program.

But should it be done by the government? Show me, where in the Constitution does the government have authority to fund exploration of any sort?

Exploration has historically, in our country anyway, been done by private parties. Individuals and businesses who have an interest in the exploration.

And we now have a commercial space tourism company, Virgin Galactic, with ships manufactured by Scaled Composites.

And now Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is promoting a Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority. Do I have a problem with that? Its the state doing it, not the Federal government. The US Constitution only restricts the Federal government. The Governor expects this will create jobs and boost the economy, so sure, he can do that.

So, we are progressing to space. Just not on the dime of the Federal taxpayers.

Now we just need the researchers that NASA is keeping to realize that they need to put their dollars into US-based companies and organizations rather than in Russia and China.

Postal Service Reductions: A letter to my Congressman

2010-03-30T05:37:00.001-04:00

A letter to my Congressman, Rick Boucher.

----------------------------------------

I am all for the proposed Postal Service (USPS) reductions in Saturday services. These reductions simply matches existing services offered by United Parcel Service (UPS) and Federal Express (FedEx).

Which brings up a bigger issue. Spin the USPS off as a private organization and remove the current competition restrictions on private businesses from non-priority postal delivery. USPS has outlived its purpose as a government-run organization, as private organizations have long-since proven capable in this space.

No regular-level postal employees will lose jobs, or not immediately, as only the administration will change. Private business leadership can be expected to soon bring the USPS into profitability through improvements in efficiency and cost reductions the current government affiliations do not allow. In addition, competition in the private space will provide the double benefit of improved service at lower prices.

At the very least, the USPS will benefit from an improved image. Many people and organizations, myself included, currently avoid use of regular postal mail due to its reputation for poor performance.

While private businesses such as UPS and FedEx consistently operate at a profit in the same market, USPS repeatedly runs in the red, with these large deficits covered by the generosity of the American taxpayers.

Healthcare Bill: Now law, but fraudulent

2010-03-25T05:31:00.003-04:00

There were lots of pleas for compassion going into the healthcare debates.

Every scenario has anecdotal evidence, that is, specific examples that seem to prove whatever the speaker wants to prove. Any businessperson knows that no decisions should ever be made solely on anecdotal evidence. Yes, there are people that have had huge bills due to lack of health insurance.

But did you know that most of the examples we've been given have not been accurate? Some of them have been made up, and others were blown way out of context?

Examples:

The President said that people who want to get insurance on their own pay three times of that through an employer. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that's not so.

The President told the story of a man who had cancer, lost his insurance, couldn't get chemotherapy, and died. Not true -- the newspaper author of the story retracted it, but the President continued to tell the story after the retraction.

Lots of people say that people can't get medical care if they don't have insurance. They can get whatever care they need -- the law doesn't allow care providers to refuse care based on ability to pay. True, the person may get billed huge amounts (which they may never pay off, and which cannot legally be passed to inheritors), but they do get the care. Chemotherapy, heart transplants, whatever.

And just before the Congressional vote, the President introduced a small boy whose mother died of cancer after she couldn't get treatment without insurance.

Two problems with that. First, the mother was a member of a group dedicated to getting people to meet the needs of others by sharing from their own resources (a system some refer to, more-or-less accurately, as "communist"). But they wouldn't even meet the needs of one of their own members. You see, they wanted the government to meet the need, and not themselves personally, despite what they say.

But the government? That directly brings up the second point. She QUALIFIED FOR MEDICAID! But MediCaid didn't help her. She qualified for government healthcare assistance, but still didn't get it.

Yes, it's a tragic story. But the government-provided healthcare was already available, and this government-provided healthcare failed her.

And they want this already-failed system to be enforced on everyone else?!?!

Healthcare: They'll "Do Whatever It Takes"

2010-03-20T22:36:00.002-04:00

Well, President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have exposed a little more about themselves.

They have both said that they'll do "whatever it takes" to pass comprehensive government-regulated healthcare.

The problem is what it is "taking: things that are unconstitutional, and things that used to be considered illegal.

Things that are unconstitutional, like:

Requiring everyone to purchase something just for being a citizen.

Everyone makes the comparison with car insurance, but that's not accurate. For one, the law (which is state law, by the way, not federal) does not require comprehensive insurance; only other people are protected, not the owner. On the side of health care, other people were already protected from an individual's actions -- under criminal and tort law.

Secondly, auto insurance does not include wear-and-tear on the vehicle. That's the range of warranties and "extended warranties", and no state requires a car owner purchase or maintain an extended warranty on his or her car.

And things that are illegal, like:

Giving Congressmen Federal jobs if they promise to vote the "right" way. One Congressman has been promised the ambassadorship to NATO. One has been promised the administration of of NASA (they have an "administrator" rather than a "director").

These aren't "iffy" things like pork benefits to the Congressman's district that indirectly benefit the Congressman him/herself -- these are things that reasonably have cash value, since a job, even a cushy, appointed job, involves a salary. In fact, the cushy ones tend to have more monetary value than the others, since they also tend to have perks. NATO is based in Belgium -- a nice spot for a vacation home, from what I understand. And a vacation home paid for by other people that is, us, the tax-payers) is so-much-the-better.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised to "kick through the door" to pass this regulation. The problem is that it's the door to someone else's house. And she knows it. And she doesn't care -- she wants in. And she wants everything you've got, so she can give it all away to her friends.

Get ready -- she's kicking on your door, and she's got a freight truck with her.

Harvard University: Obama will cause gas to be $7/gallon

2010-03-03T12:13:00.005-05:00

Think we need to regulate CO2? You know, the gas that everybody breathes out? The gas that trees need to live? The gas that some claim is causing the non-existent "global warming"?

Harvard University -- not a conservative group, but the President's own alma mater -- and reported by the New York Times, another group not exactly known for conservative leanings -- says that the Obama administration's current proposals for CO2 reductions will cause gasoline to go to $7 a gallon.

$7 a gallon for gas?

Guess what's worse -- most gas is paid for by the middle class.

Do you drive an hour each way to work? Can you afford $10,000 a year just in gas to get to and from work? And that's just gas, not any of the cost of the car or maintenance.

Cost of shipping will skyrocket. Everything in the stores will cost a LOT more, because it has to be trucked in. Even if the stuff is made locally, it has to be driven to the store.

We can't afford CO2 regulation, whether it be by the EPA, "Cap and Trade", or otherwise. Real scientists say that it's probably not causing global warming anyway.

Government Projects ≠ Created/Saved Jobs

2010-02-04T11:17:00.004-05:00

Please, our politicians, please realize that government public works projects do not create or save jobs.

First, most companies that do public works projects aren't in trouble anyway.

This is simply because the government is already their main source of work, and the government hasn't cut back in those projects when the rest of the economy cut back.

Second, these projects don't add jobs, or at least not in any notable numbers.

These projects just keep the current employees a little busier. The companies can't just hire people from other "construction" industries (which are in trouble) without completely retraining them - a framing carpenter doesn't know how to lay asphalt, and a residential housing engineer doesn't have expertise in bridge design.

Third -- and as the President has paid lip-service to -- most jobs are created by small businesses.

Government projects primarily go to large businesses. In fact, President Barack Obama has tried to put in legislation that requires most work of large projects go to unionized companies.

Why? The President has said -- over and over -- that he never makes a move without consulting the unions. He also -- and illegally, I might add -- gave the majority ownership of GM to the unions, rather than to the collateralized loan holders, those who were given -- in writing -- ownership of the company or property, in exchange for the risk of the loan. You know, like your home loan? How would your bank like it if you filed for bankruptcy and the court gave your divorced ex-wife title to your house free and clear, and only gave the bank 2 cents on the dollar? That's not only unfair to them, it's illegal. But President Obama did just that, or more specifically, he directed his appointee "car czar" to do that. Sorry -- off-topic rant.

If the government bought lots of goods from small businesses - pens, desks, computers, stuff like that, the business would get a boost from that, and might hire some people, at least temporarily.

If the government would reduce taxes on owners of small businesses, you know, the demonized "wealthy" who make $250k or more, since all sole proprietorship and partnership business revenue goes on the owners' personal tax returns, they might be able to hire more people.

If the government would declare that no new fees, taxes, or regulations of any sort would be placed on small businesses, they might have enough confidence to hire some people.

Oh, and concerning capital gains taxes: Small businesses don't have "capital," stocks or bonds, to have any capital gains taxes. All "gains" show up as regular income for the owner. Besides, capital gains taxes have been 0% for years. But those rates are expiring, and some people (like President Barack Obama) think they can get some political steam by essentially just not raising them back to where they were, for a small group that wouldn't be affected by it anyway.

State of the Union: Brief summary

2010-01-28T11:27:00.004-05:00

Didn't comment yesterday on this - the State of the Union speech went late, and I didn't think to post then.

Summary: Lots of promises, most of which have already been repeatedly broken. Things like:

Full transparency. The President -- not just Congress and Senate, who have done it too -- has had closed-door meetings on healthcare. This is is not exactly an issue of national security, so that can't be used as an excuse. And he specifically promised that all discussions would be carried on C-SPAN, but not only were the meetings not on C-SPAN, but he didn't even allow the press to attend.

No favors or earmarks. Not only has he signed bills containing THOUSANDS of earmarks, he himself negotiated exemptions for unions from healthcare taxes.

Get all lobbyists out of Washington. He has appointed lobbyists to his own cabinet!

Allow gays to openly serve in the military. Whether you agree or not, he has promised it. And it came up a few months ago. And he specifically decided make the change. In the State of the Union speech, he said he would repeal the law -- but it's not a law, it's a policy. and as such, he can change that with a stroke of his pen. But he chose not to do it, despite his promises.

Oh, and he continued to blame his problems on Bush, uh, inherited issues. He has been President for over a full year now. They're his issues now. And many of the issues we have, he actually created himself. While the TARP program might have come under Bush (and I do blame Bush for it as well), he did vote for it.

Political Contributions: Unions OK, But Companies Not?

2010-01-22T15:20:00.002-05:00

The Supreme Court just ruled a law as unconstitutional that prevented corporations (which are legal "persons") from making political contributions.

And the Democrats are howling. They say that it is "un-American" for companies to make political contributions. Companies for whom their interests lie in smaller, less-restrictive government and lower taxes.

But those same Democrats say that is is perfectly fine for labor unions to make political contributions. Unions whose interests lie in more regulation and larger government, even at the expense of the companies who pay the bills.

Hypocrite much?

Harry Reid: A Politically-Correct Racist

2010-01-15T15:58:00.003-05:00

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), one of the leaders of the Democratic Party, said during the 2008 campaign season that Obama would be acceptable as President because he was a "light-skinned...Negro" and that he didn't speak with a "Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

In other words, Reid didn't want a black man as President. Obama was "close enough" to white to be acceptable.

In 2002, Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R) said at a birthday party for Senator Strom Thurmond that he had voted for Thurmond for President. Since Thurmond had segregationist history, this was deemed so "racist" that Lott was forced to resign from his position and later from office entirely.

But Reid's statement, which is specifically anti-black, not just one which could be interpreted that way, is largely being overlooked.

I just sent this to my Federal representatives:
--------------------
It has recently come out that Harry Reid said during the 2008 campaign season that Obama would be acceptable as President because he was a "light-skinned...Negro" and that he didn't speak with a "Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

In other words, Reid didn't want a black man as President. Obama was "close enough" to white to be acceptable.

We do not need an overt racist in one of the most influential positions in American politics.

Promised Transparency? Clear as Concrete...

2010-01-15T13:01:00.002-05:00

President Obama promised that all healthcare discussions would be televised live on C-SPAN.

The Congress did not do that, but the President could not control whether or not they would comply with his own promise.

This week, President Obama had healthcare meetings at the White House. This was his opportunity to fulfill his promise. Did he? Were all discussions carried on C-SPAN?

Not only were the meetings NOT televised, but no reporters -- at all -- were even allowed in the room.

But we know one thing that came out of the meeting. The unions were promised that they will be exempted from the taxes on "high-value" health insurance that everyone else will have to pay.

Letter to my Congressman and Senators: If the health care bill has any favors, please vote against it.

2010-01-15T12:47:00.001-05:00

Letter to my Congressman and Senators:
--------------------
If the health care bill has any favors, please vote against it.

The previous version had favors for Louisiana and Nebraska for the federal government to pay the state portions of Medicare and Medicaid.

President Obama has negotiated favors for the unions, opting them out of taxes that apply to everyone else.

If the health care bill has any favors, please vote against it.

Charitable Contributions Should Be from Excess, Not Debt

2010-01-14T15:44:00.002-05:00

Our nation has a long heritage of generosity. But we, as a nation, should not make humanitarian contributions to other nations unless we can afford to do so.

Individuals with sufficient means readily give to the needs of others. In times of many disasters, individual contributions have overshadowed even the huge amounts given by our government.

But as I write this post, our government is out of money. Our government is running at a deficit in the TRILLIONS of dollars. We cannot currently afford to give humanitarian aid out of the federal budget.

Each year, we, as a nation, give billions of dollars in humanitarian aid. We need to stop doing so, until we come to the point that we can again afford to do so out of our excess. It harms our country to borrow money, for example, from China to give to Haiti.

Again, individuals can -- and should be encouraged to -- give to those in need, whether domestic or international. There are many groups that aggregate funds and goods, and then provide them to those in need. A few examples are the Red Cross and the Salvation Army. Our government does encourage such contributions though tax deductibility.

You can give to the Red Cross via their website (redcross.org) or by calling 1-800-Red-Cross. As I write this post, we are learning more about the earthquake in Haiti, for which you can contribute $10 directly via the Red Cross' International Response Fund by texting "Haiti" to 90999.

You can give via AmeriCares, either via their website (AmeriCares.org) or by calling 1-800-486-HELP.

Another humanitarian organization is Care. They can be reached either online (Care.org) or by phone at 1-800-521-CARE.

And Operation USA can be reached via their website (opusa.org), by phone at 1-800-678-7255, or by mail at Operation USA, 3617 Hayden Ave., Suite A, Culver City, CA 90232.

But our government should not give directly until it can do so without further increasing our debt.

(Links for relief organizations are courtesy of Neal Boortz, an Atlanta-based radio host with a website at boortz.com; he has more information on Haiti relief efforts here.)

Cross-posted under Political Positions.

Old jobs, new jobs

2010-01-10T19:32:00.003-05:00

85,000 people lost their jobs last month. I associate with them, as I have been without a job for 13 of the last 14 months.

But good news! President Obama has announced that he is going to direct the government to spend even more money to create 17,000 jobs with green energy!

So, 85,000 jobs were lost due to Obama's lousy economy, and we're supposed to get excited about 17,000 jobs he supposedly created?

Nevermind that this is done with our own money. Yes, that includes me -- my unemployment benefits are taxed as income.

Nevermind that these jobs are related to one of Obama's pet themes. Imagine the response if Bush had "created" jobs by sending more people to Iraq, and that if anyone wanted one of these jobs, all he/she had to do was enlist in the military.

Nevermind that the idea behind green jobs is global warming, an exposed hoax that keeps getting promoted while we've got historic low temperatures and record snowfalls, not to mention record low levels of pollution in this country.

Nevermind that these are union jobs, closely affiliated with Obama's friends at SEIU.

Nevermind that these aren't high-paying jobs, well, wouldn't be if the unions weren't involved.

Nevermind that historically every job in "green energy" has resulted in 2 1/2 jobs lost elsewhere.

Thanks, Mr. President. I'll just sit here trying to find a job (I've been told that my industry in this area has 100 applicants for every posted job) while I watch my taxes go up even more.

We keep finding more problems in the Healthcare Bill

2009-12-23T18:49:00.003-05:00

Another letter to my Senators, before tomorrow's vote on the massive 2074-page bill:

--------------------

Healthcare in the United States has some problems. The current healthcare bill seeks to address a couple of those problems, such as lifetime caps on benefits, preexisting conditions, and higher premiums or lack of insurability due to preexisting conditions.

However, the more significant issues are not addressed in the bill.

• Frivolous lawsuits and excessive damages are the greatest cost in healthcare today, but tort reform is not addressed in this bill.

• Many people have problems with their insurance denying coverage due to the cost of procedures or perceived necessity of procedures. This bill does not resolve these issues; rather, it adds another layer of bureaucracy – or several – which can deny claims.

• Some are concerned by waiting times for critical procedures. But many expects expect these problems not only not to be improved, but to in fact multiply. Most countries with highly-regulated or federally-provided healthcare have extensive waiting periods for even minor procedures, and some procedures have waiting periods of years, where US citizens can currently get most procedures within days or weeks.

• Insurance premiums are a tremendous concern to many. But the additional regulation and taxes in the bill will certainly increase the cost of both healthcare and insurance. Some experts say that insurance premiums will double within the next year or two.

More troubling, however, for every day that passes, we keep finding more problems in the current healthcare bill.

• We knew that a panel would be established with the power to unquestionably and unappealably decide what does or does not qualify and who does or does not get coverage under Medicare. Some have euphemistically referred to this as a "death panel."

o We now know that this panel will be composed of five individuals appointed by the President, without accountability, without oversight, and without any Senate ability to repeal the panel in the future.

• We knew that the bill has MANY bribes, payoffs, coercions, and other incentives for Senators who were previously hesitant concerning or opposed to the bill. This includes $300 million from the US taxpayers for Louisiana's state healthcare, for which the state, from its own taxpayers, was otherwise expected to pay itself.

o We now know that the US taxpayers will be responsible for every penny of Medicare costs for Nebraska for the rest of time.

• We knew that all US citizens will be required – and unconstitutionally so – to obtain and maintain health insurance, the first time that citizens have ever been required to purchase a service simply for the privilege of living. We also know that only Federally-approved plans will be acceptable.

o But we do not know what criteria will be placed on the acceptable insurance place. Despite the length of over two-thousand pages of the bill, criteria for acceptable insurance programs are not specified in it. These all-important criteria will be specified later.

• In addition, we also now know that abortion will be funded by taxpayer dollars. We have determined that healthcare providers who have conscientious objections to providing abortion will be required to participate anyway or else suffer punitive action.

• We also know that the current bill will institute taxes and fees immediately, but will not start any benefits for another four years. We will be paying for five years of benefits over nine years of taxes and fees. This is not sustainable and results in unrealistic projections.

We also know that you voted for cloture, to end debate and to proceed toward a vote. (In the version sent to Senator Webb:) We know that despite your opposition expressed in your emails to many aspects of the bill, you have effectively voted for it.

The majority of Americans, and the majority of Virginians, do not want this bill. The majority of your constituents do not want this bill. Please work in the interest of your constituents and work against this bill.

Winter Snow ≠ State of Emergency

2009-12-18T16:18:00.004-05:00

We are getting a little snow. Some parts of the state might get as much as a foot of snow. So?

And Governor Tim Kaine declared Virginia to be in a "state of emergency"?!?

Because of some snow? It's late December. It's winter. And it's Virginia, not south Florida. It's not the three feet I've seen here before, and which we dealt with without any real problem. It's not the two feet I saw in Georgia on occasion. And it won't be even the one foot in most areas; here in Bristol, we're expecting 4-8 inches.

The stores will sell out of bread and milk. Some gas stations may sell out. Both for the same reason - stupid people who think that if they get stuck at home for a few days, they might starve to death. What's the matter? Forget to go shopping this week? But it happens every time the forecast even calls for snow.

Some people will likely freeze to death. But that is a function of the cold, not the snow -- and it's not that cold, with lows maybe in the 20's; it was colder last week than now.

Some people may die from carbon monoxide poisoning, fumes, house fires, etc -- from using camp stoves, grills, etc, inside the house if they lose power for maybe a day or two. They have a gas grill and not a decent coat? Sounds like misplaced priorities to me. And a lack of common sense besides. And there are public organizations that are willing to help, if they just ask. There are public shelters with warm rooms, if the person just wants the help.

Snow happens. It is NOT an emergency.

Short addendum to my Senators

2009-12-18T12:19:00.001-05:00

A vote to end debate is equivalent to a vote to support the bill.

New letter to my Senators

2009-12-18T11:55:00.003-05:00

Please only vote for the healthcare bill -- or any other bill, for that matter -- if these three aspects are true:

1 - You have read the entire bill personally and clearly understand all aspects of the bill,

2 - The bill complies with President Obama's pledge that it will contain no pork or earmarks,

3 - You can clearly explain how the bill falls under the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

If all three of these are not true, please vote and work against the bill as it is not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States.

I vote, and I actively support, both online and in person, those who work for the best interest of our country.

Another letter to my Senators

2009-12-15T11:17:00.000-05:00

Please work against this monstrosity bill that purports to "reform" healthcare. The current bill is 1.1 TRILLION dollars (and growing) of pork and regulation that will not reform. As massive as the regulation is, it does not even address the real problems, including frivolous lawsuits (needing tort reform) and lack of real insurance competition (needing interstate competition). This is a grab for power, not an attempt to solve anything. Please do all you can to eliminate this bill that will otherwise destroy our already-shaky economy.

Global warming? Really?

2009-12-08T10:56:00.003-05:00

So, lots of people are in Copenhagen for a couple of weeks to discuss "global warming".

But -

We just locally had the earliest snowfall on record?

Parts of California had their first snow since the 70's?

Lots of areas are reporting record low temperatures?

And apparently, those in Copenhagen don't really believe we are causing global warming anyway, based on all the private jets and limousines they are using. Someone in the news reported that - just in these two weeks - they are producing more carbon dioxide than many countries do in an entire year.

So, either they need to "practice what they preach", or else they don't really believe what they preach.

If that's the case, they are apparently only doing it for either money (Al Gore has made his fortunes off of global warming, but has a mansion that uses ten times the energy of the average house in the area) or power (regulation over every area of life and business).

Think about it.

Another Letter to Senators: Please REJECT any version of the current healthcare bill

2009-12-08T10:18:00.001-05:00

I just sent this email to both of my Senators.
--------------------
Subject: Please REJECT any version of the current healthcare bill

We do not want the current healthcare bill in any form or regardless of any amendments.

We do not want government-run healthcare, whether it be through a "public option", a single-payer system, or "co-ops".

We do not want government-funded abortion.

We do not want rationing of care.

We do not want any government official or committee, appointed, elected, directed, or otherwise empowered, to determine what care may or may not be appropriate over the decision of our doctors.

We do not want reduced care for seniors.

We do not want reduced choice, either of care options, care providers, or insurance providers.

We do not want increased taxes, whether they be direct, on healthcare providers, or though employers.

We do not want increased insurance premiums.

We do not want to be forced to buy insurance.

We do not want increased bureaucracy.

We do not want hesitant officials to be bought off with personal or local benefits.

We do not want personal agendas to be furthered through legislation.

This 2000-page bill is full of pork, unnecessary regulation, taxes and fees, and onerous requirements. And who knows what else is hidden in a bill that no one in the Senate has actually read fully.

Please reject this healthcare bill, regardless of any amendments or minor modifications it may have.

Forwarded email: "Maxine on Health Care!"

2009-11-20T11:38:00.004-05:00

I don't normally pass on forwarded emails, but this one is both funny and true.

--------------------

Maxine on Health Care!

Let me get this straight.

...we're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,

passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,

to be signed by a president that also hasn't read it and who smokes,

with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,

all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,

and financed by a country that's nearly broke.

What could possibly go wrong?

Letter to my Senators: "Please REJECT the current healthcare bill."

2009-11-19T10:47:00.002-05:00

I just sent this letter to my Senators, Jim Webb and Mark Warner.

--------------------

Please REJECT the current healthcare bill.

The current healthcare "reform" bill does NOTHING to reform malpractice suits, frivolous or otherwise, which are the major cause of increasing healthcare costs.

The bill requires, for the first time in US history and with neither legal nor Constitutional precedent, that all citizens purchase a product or service for simply living, and provides steep penalties for those who choose not to have the service.

The bill includes heavy taxes on the healthcare industry, which will further increase costs as these taxes are passed on to the customers.

The bill requires government-sponsored insurance "options", which inherently and unfairly compete against existing insurance companies, since the government plans have no need to operate at a profit, to break even financially, or to provide good customer service once the existing insurance has been run out of business.

The bill does not provide for private competition, as existing prohibitions against purchasing services from companies in other states are still in effect.

The bill continues biases against personal insurance coverage by not allowing tax deductibility unless the insurance is provided through an employer.

The bill includes government bureaucratic oversight, contrary to promises that "no government bureaucrat will come between you and your doctor."

As an example:

A "task force" has already been established that now "recommends" women who were previously recommended to get mammograms every year after age 40 now only get them every other year and then only after age 50. Just to be clear, the data has not changed, only the recommendations.

Right now, the United States has the best cancer survivorship in the world. If this healthcare plan is instituted, many thousands of women will die who would before have survived, and thousands of women who would have had a simple treatment and rapid recovery will now have to endure long, complex, painful (and expensive) treatments, because their cancer was not caught early.

In summary, this plan causes more problems without solving the existing ones.

Please both vote and speak against this horrendous plan.

Cancer, Rationing, Broken Promises

2009-11-17T11:41:00.003-05:00

President Obama said that "no government bureaucrat will come between you and your doctor."

Really?

The healthcare community has long recommended that women over 40 get mammograms every year. But now, as Congress and Senate try to pass a government takeover of healthcare, a government "task force" has just recommended that be changed. Just to be clear, the data has not changed, only the recommendations.

They now say that only women over 50 should get mammograms, and then only every other year.

Right now, the United States has the best cancer survivorship in the world. If the government enforces this "recommendation" as part of its new healthcare plan, many women will die who would before have survived, and many women who would have had a simple treatment and recovery will now have to endure long, complex, painful (and expensive) treatments, because their cancer was not caught early.

Well, that last part, "expensive," may not come. European countries with government-controlled healthcare don't allow expensive treatments for people over 60. That means that those who are over 60 and get cancer don't get treatment - they get management. Pain therapy. Don't treat the problem; manage the symptoms.

Guess what? It's not (for the most part) the Republicans who are telling people to "die quickly". It's those who are pushing for this government takeover of what is right now the best healthcare system in the world.

It's not perfect, and it can use some tweaks (mostly protection from already overbearing government, like allowing frivolous lawsuits and outrageous penalties), but it's the best anyone has.

States can opt out of Federal health care? Really?

2009-11-09T11:10:00.002-05:00

Sorry. After six years, states have to participate, whether they want to or not. If they don't join, they lose the healthcare subsidies that they have had for years, including Medicare matching funds.

New letter to Congressman Rick Boucher

2009-11-04T10:22:00.002-05:00

Subject: DO NOT APPROVE THE CURRENT HEALTHCARE BILL!

An amendment (the Ellsworth-DeLauro amendment) has been added to the healthcare bill that supposedly removes taxpayer funding of elective abortion.

It does not.

Analysis by National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson (http://www.lifenews.com/nat5607.html) reveals that the amendment is complex subterfuge, and that all cases of elective abortion will still be permitted - and funded - by other provisions of the bill.

As you are no doubt aware, Creigh Deeds' candidacy for governor was rejected locally 71.85% to 27.25%. If you support this bill, which local voters such as myself are adamantly against, the same may happen to you next year.

New VA Governor: Bob McDonald in total domination

2009-11-04T00:12:00.004-05:00

The year after every Presidential election since Carter in 1976, the Virginia gubernatorial election has always gone to the candidate of the other party. That means that Bob McDonald had to win, just according to the way Virginia voters always do things.

But we weren't expecting a 17 percent spread between the two candidates. Particularly since there was only a 12% difference in polling yesterday.

In politics, a 6% difference is considered a landslide. What do they call a 17% difference?

Update: It's actually a 17.41% difference, 58.64% to 41.23%. And Bristol, where I live, was 71.85% to 27.25%, an overwhelming 44.6% difference approaching 3-to-1.

Healthcare Bill: Adding 800 MORE pages the day before the vote?

2009-11-03T10:41:00.003-05:00

The current draft of the Congressional healthcare bill is 1990 pages long. Some experts say that it will take a week just to read it, not to mention deciphering it and looking up all the other laws to which it refers.

But wait - there's more!

Nancy Pelosi is working on an 800 PAGE amendment. No telling how much pork and government control is in there.

But that's not all!

She wants a vote on the bill on Friday!

The bill already cuts $500 BILLION from Medicare. Democrats regularly accuse Republicans of wanting to reduce care for seniors. Democrats say that Republicans are against seniors, and that is proven by their opposition to this bill. But this bill will actually do just that.

The bill outlaws any new private health insurance after 2013. We can choose our own insurance? Not with this bill.

The bill pays for elective abortions. Most Americans, even those who think abortion is fine, don't want it paid for by taxes. But this bill will allow mothers to kill their babies and have other people pay for it.

The Congressional Budget Office says that this bill - not including the extra 800 pages - will cost over a TRILLION dollars ($1.055T). Nancy Pelosi says that it won't add anything to the debt? That it won't cost taxpayers "a dime"? Yea, right.

The number Nancy Pelosi herself keeps using is $894 billion, just under the $900 billion cap that President Obama wanted. But that $894 billion is the funding the bill provides for health coverage, not the cost.

Letter to Congressman Rick Boucher

2009-11-02T12:20:00.000-05:00

I just sent this email to my Congressman, Rick Boucher.

----------
Subject: DO NOT APPROVE THE CURRENT HEALTHCARE BILL!

The current healthcare bill requires all private healthcare insurance (new registrations) to end in 2013.

I want to choose my own healthcare plan. Please vote against this bill.
----------

There are many other problems in this 2000-page bill, including $500 Billion in CUTS in Medicare, but letters to Congress or Senate members must be short and to-the-point.

I sent similar letters to my Senators, saying to vote against the bill if it gets approved by the House and comes before the Senate.

Deadliest month in Middle East, still no decision by President

2009-10-28T11:37:00.003-04:00

With the recent deaths in Afghanistan, this month is the deadliest since the war in the Middle East started in 2002. And the deadliest since...well...August.

What do these months have in common? Simple - both months went without the reinforcements requested by the commanders in the field. Reinforcements requested formally in July and repeatedly requested in briefings since May.

Ummm, didn't Candidate Obama say that he, unlike his predecessor, would LISTEN to his commanders in the field? Didn't he say that he would do what it takes to complete the operation in Afghanistan?

Looks like Bush and Obama have more in common than they like to admit. They both dragged out this war without defined objectives and without giving their commanders what they need to get the job done. And they have both stood idly by as men and women of our armed forces die almost daily.

Get it done or get out. I don't care what your party is. Get it done or get out.

H1N1/Swine Flu: NOT a Pandemic or National Emergency

2009-10-26T11:53:00.003-04:00

President Obama just declared H1H1 (Swine Flu) to be a "national emergency".

Why would he think that? And why would we believe that he actually does think that?

In the past year, about 1,000 people have died of H1N1 flu. In the typical year, 36,000 people die of the seasonal flu. Is H1N1 really that bad?

The President and the CDC are pushing that all children need to get the H1N1 inoculation shot. But the President has not had his own kids given the shot he is telling everyone else they need to get.

Does the President really think H1N1 is that bad? Or is he a hypocrite for not doing as he tells everyone else? Or is something else going on?

Remember, his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, said: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." That's why this administration has been nothing but crisis after crisis after crisis. Healthcare crisis, banking crisis, auto crisis, climate crisis, energy crisis, housing crisis, spectrum crisis... Is this one any different? Is it a play for more power, more control?

Pay Czar: Pay caps - not only for bailed-out companies

2009-10-23T13:19:00.000-04:00

You hear about the pay caps for any company that tool any bailout money? You know, taking away the LEGALLY-CONTRACTED and APPROVED BY CONGRESS bonuses for executives who decided to accept a bonus INSTEAD of salary? The bonus they EARNED by MEETING the goals set by Congress? And that if they had not met the goals, they would have only made one penny for the whole year of work?

Well, they met the goals. They earned the bonuses. And the "Pay Czar" is now wanting to take the bonuses away anyway.

But wait - there's more!

These caps don't only apply to the banks that took bailout money. They can apply to all banks, whether or not they were bailed out.

But wait - there's more!

These caps can apply to ANY COMPANY that is deemed to affect the stability of the country. You know, like Walmart or GE?

"And if you act now -"

These caps DO NOT apply to everyone equally. The Pay Czar can choose who to limit and who to not limit.

On the one hand, Walmart has often been criticized by members of Congress and the administration. Some suggest these criticisms are targeted at them largely because they have repeatedly rejected unionization, and the President is - admitted repeatedly - very closely aligned with the largest union, SEIU. You know, the group that causes unrest at healthcare town hall meetings? And tries to make it look like it's the people against the healthcare plan causing the problems? Even while SEIU members are biting people's fingers off? Yea, those people. The President is VERY closely associated with them, and has said - repeatedly - that he consults with them on everything.

On the other hand, GE is closely associated with the Presidential administration, and several top executives have been appointed to plush positions. Guess whose pay is NOT getting capped?

President Obama: Act of Treason?

2009-10-21T12:07:00.004-04:00

President Obama is planning to sign a UN global warming treaty.

The problem is, under the US Constitution, the President does not have authority to sign any treaties until first ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. And with the current members of the Senate, such a treaty will never get anywhere close to a 67/23 vote. Or, not in favor of it anyway. The Senate recognizes that their constituents are so firmly against such a thing that they will never approve it, and even if ALL the Democrats did vote for it (which they won't; the "blue dog" Democrats won't vote for it), there are enough Republicans (even after discounting the RINOs ["Republican In Name Only]) to ensure any such UN treaty to ensure a firm rejection.

Without this authority, the President is undermining the government and meeting the very definition of treason.

Anita Dunn, Pres. Obama's "Fox Watchdog" Admires Mao Tse-Tung

2009-10-15T20:50:00.005-04:00

Anita Dunn, appointed by President Obama to keep an eye on Fox News, gave a speech before a high school group in June.

In that speech, she said - and gave examples - of how much she admires Mao Tse-Tung. She said that he is one of her "favorite political philosophers." She has two favorites, and he is one.

Mao Tse-Tung took over China by killing anyone opposed to him. He killed 70 million of his own people, and put many more in "re-education" camps and slavery. he said that he would be willing to kill 300 million of his own people to get his victory.

Mao Tse-Tung killed more of his own people than Hitler did, 4 to 7 times as many, in fact. Hitler only had 6 million Jews killed, and 11-17 million total killed.

And this man is her "favorite philosopher"?!?

Doubt my text here? Click the link in the title to see it in her own words.

Perfect example of Liberalism

2009-10-09T08:54:00.002-04:00

We have just been handed a perfect example of one side of Liberalism.

That side? Liberalism considered talk to be the same as action.

President Obama has just been given the Nobel Peace Prize. It was given to him for giving "hope for a better future", including reducing nuclear arms and talking with Iran about peace.

But Obama has only TALKED about reducing nuclear arms (which will not actually improve peace, since the radical nations will not give up theirs, but that's another matter), and he has TALKED about meeting with Iran. He has not actually done EITHER. Other Presidents have DONE both; Obama has TALKED about doing both.

Cross in the Mohave Desert

2009-10-07T11:53:00.004-04:00

There is currently a political conflict concerning a cross that is standing in the Mohave desert.

Background: In 1934, a group of veterans erected a cross in the desert as a memorial to those who died in the Great War (now known as World War I). In 1994, this land was made into a national preserve, hence it is now "federal land".

A man, supported by the ACLU (naturally) has filed a suit to have the cross removed, claiming that the cross violates the separation of church and state.

There are several problems here. First, any suit requires that the plaintiff have "standing", that is, he must be personally involved in the case. Unless he was personally harmed ("damaged"), he has no ground to file a suit. But he is claiming that he was offended by the cross, which is argued to give him standing in the case.

Second, the Constitution doesn't require a "separation of church and state". It requires that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". That means that Congress should not make any law that concerns any religious organization. Yea, right. They have made lots of law concerning religious groups. But the Constitution says they are not supposed to. As far as Congress is concerned, religious groups do not even exist. That means no laws for them, and no laws against them.

Third: "Congress". The cross was erected by a group of veterans, not the Congress, so the amendment does not apply. Actually, states can (short of more recent court decisions) establish their own religions, and many did so, though they have since been discontinued. Only Congress is restricted by this amendment.

Fourth: "establishment of religion". This is a cross, not an organization, so the amendment does not apply. Which technically means that Congress would be free to make laws concerning this cross if they wanted to, just not restrictions (see the next point). I'm sure the ACLU would like a law that any cross must be lit 24/7 at government expense, unless requested otherwise by the cross's owner...

Fifth: The amendment doesn't stop with forbidding laws concerning establishments of religion. It goes on: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means that even if a law does not directly concern a religious group, it cannot restrict them. That means that Congress cannot make any law that would restrict this cross in any way. Of course, the lawsuit is handled by the courts, not Congress, so that doesn't apply either.

We see then, that IF this guy is deemed to even have standing to file a suit, the only results would be that he could seek damages for the offense. But he has no monetary claim, since nothing was damaged. He could seek some psychiatric opinion that he has suffered, but he would still have to determine some monetary loss for damages to be awarded - lost productivity or such. Awards for "pain and suffering" generally require gross negligence or some other fault on the part of the defendant.

So, even if this guy won his case, he still gets nothing. Other than maybe an injunction. Yea, issue the cross a restraining order so it can't stalk the guy. If the guy is "harmed" after knowing the "danger", then it's his own fault. You can't sue a stove manufacturer after you've been warned not to put your hand on the burner.

Remember, this cross is only eight-feet-tall, and it's in the middle of the desert. It's not like he's likely to see it on his way to work or anything. But even then, it's freedom. If this guy doesn't like freedom, he can use some of his freedom to move somewhere else.

Chicago Olympics

2009-10-02T12:58:00.002-04:00

At the end of Round One:

Chicago, with the fewest votes for the 2016 Olympic Games...
You are the Weakest Link. Goodbye!

Good news!

2009-10-02T11:32:00.004-04:00

We've just gotten two bits of good news!

1 - Chicago has been eliminated from consideration for the 2016 Olympics. YAY!

We don't want the second most politically-corrupt city (after New Orleans) getting it.

2 - President Obama met with General Stanley McChrystal briefly before leaving Copenhagen. YAY!

Despite last month being the deadliest in the middle east since we went there in 2002,
and despite Obama's loud insistence as a candidate that we need to listen to the commanders on the ground,
he has only met with his commander in Afghanistan (whom he appointed) ONCE in the past 70 days.
OK, now they have met twice.

Now Obama needs to approve the troops that McChrystal says we have to have to avoid losing the war...

President Obama promotes Chicago in Denmark rather than approving Afghanistan needs

2009-09-28T12:09:00.006-04:00

I recently posted that President Obama has still not responded to the general that he appointed concerning needs in Afghanistan. General Stanley McChrystal said over a month ago that we need more troops in Afghanistan or else we will lose the war there.

Now, President Obama has gone to Denmark, with all his staff, to promote his home town of Chicago to get the Olympics.

And our men and women in the military are still fighting and dying, undersupported because President Obama has waited over a month now without even responding to the requests.

Afghanistan: Do it or don't do it

2009-09-25T20:51:00.003-04:00

Did you hear that August was the deadliest month in the Iraq/Afghanistan theater since we went there in 2002? Yes, despite all the protests by Democrats that Bush was killing our troops, Obama has seen more killed himself.

The general that President Obama himself appointed to oversee the war in Afghanistan has strongly recommended that we need more troops. He says we need them NOW.

When healthcare issues or stimulus issues come up, President Obama says these bills must go through now - don't even bother reading it, just pass it - it's too important to get done now. But when his own appointee general gives him a report about Afghanistan, he lets it sit on his desk for WEEKS without action.

Instead, the President goes on TV shows. He's been on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Univision, and The David Letterman Show; he's given talks to the UN (apologizing for the United States again), been to meetings in Russia, and he's taken a vacation on Martha's Vineyard, all since he's gotten the report on Afghanistan. And he has still not done anything about the report, still not approved the troops that are, according to the report, NECESSARY to win the war.

Now, I'm not sure the troops are needed. I think we should be able to use a technological solution, but that's my bias. But I think we should do WHATEVER IT TAKES to get the job done. Get it done, and get our troops home.

If you don't have enough troops available, I have a simple solution. Transfer everyone from Germany, Britain, Australia, Ireland, and anywhere else they are not actively needed for our own defense Close every base in other countries, unless we actively need them for our own defense. Put enough troops in Afghanistan that there will be one every square yard over the entire country. Take out EVERY MEMBER of the Taliban and EVERY MEMBER of Al Qaeda and EVERY MEMBER of any other terrorist group, with, as they say, extreme prejudice. If there's a stronghold and you can't get to it, use a cruise missile with a tactical nuke and destroy it.

Get the job done and bring our troops home.

Or, if you're unwilling to do what it takes, then just bring them home. It's better to admit defeat now, than to wait until you've allowed another few thousand of our men and women die and then pull them out.

Letter to my Senators and Congressman: Do not support ANY bailout of media

2009-09-21T21:38:00.005-04:00

There is now discussion of possible bailouts for newspaper companies. I just sent this letter to my Senators and Congressman.
--------------------
Do not support ANY bailout of media companies, including, but not limited to, as any newspaper company. The majority of media companies are losing market share because they are losing customers, and they are losing customers for many reasons, such as inaccurate, incomplete, and/or biased reporting. The Constitution guarantees the ability to print anything the publisher desires to print. It does not guarantee that anyone wants to read it. And it certainly does not require such printings be conducted at the public expense.

ACORN's out from census and HUD - now get SEIU out

2009-09-17T22:23:00.002-04:00

After all the scandals, ACORN has been removed from the census (which they were going to take) and Housing and Urban Development, which has been giving them lots of money supposedly for helping low-income people to find housing.

But SEIU is cut from the same cloth. Two brothers, Wade and Dale Rathke, control both. Wade is over ACORN and Dale is over SEIU. They share a headquarters. They share funding. They share a shell company that handles all the funding (a private not-for-profit company, so all their records are private).

Get SEIU out too. And get both of them all the way out, not just partway out.

ACORN: Promoting prostitution, including child prostitution

2009-09-10T20:33:00.005-04:00

News broken this morning:

ACORN, the organization that President Obama worked for as an attorney and "community organizer", the organization that has been given charge of the 2010 census by the White House - and the organization that has been charged in many states with election fraud...

ACORN - has been caught on tape with several members, not just a "rogue" employee, actually showing people how to engage in prostitution, including child prostitution, and how to do so with the appearance of legality.

They said to report the business activity as "performing arts", and to register the children as dependents for tax credit.

This group is getting MILLIONS, maybe even BILLIONS of dollars from US, the American taxpayers.

We've seen before how they register people like "Mickey Mouse" and others as voters.

We've seen how they bus people in from out of state to vote in places where advance registration is not required.

We've seen them organize protests and bus tours of the AIG executive homes, to make it seem that the general public was upset.

We've seen them "participate" at town hall forums concerning the President's healthcare agenda and we've seen them yell and get violent, so as to give the impression that those who object to the plan were unruly - when it was actually ACORN (and SEIU) people doing it all along.

And now we see them showing others how to do what they do best - how to game the system for personal benefit, even when the "personal benefits" are clearly and notoriously illegal.

Hewalthcare: "A means to an end"

2009-09-09T19:18:00.002-04:00

President Obama said in preparation for his speech tonight that a public option of healthcare is not an end in itself, but is only a means to and end.

Well, we already knew that. The public option is a means to the total government takeover of our healthcare system. And the takeover of healthcare is but one step in a takeover of all aspects of our society.

They have started with banks and auto manufacturing, and these people in charge, some of whom call themselves "progressive" (a system where all wealth is redistributed according to the dictates of the ruling party), some of whom call themselves "socialist" (a system where the government controls all business without owning it directly), and some of whom call themselves "communist" (a system where the government outright owns all business) will not be satisfied until they, as the President himself has said, "fundamentally transform America".

Van Jones: Gone, but not forgotten

2009-09-06T09:07:00.003-04:00

Van Jones, the self-proclaimed Communist Green Jobs Czar, uh, Special Advisor on Green Jobs, has resigned due to the controversy surrounding his involvement with a 9-11 conspiracy group (a group that believes the US government caused the 9-11-2001 disaster).

But is he really gone? Is he still advising President Obama, whether in an official capacity or otherwise?

And what about the affiliated group The Apollo Project that wrote the stimulus / Recovery Act and got $11 billion out of it for themselves and more for the unions they represent?

And what about the other, less vocal but nevertheless strong, Communists, Marxists and Socialists in the administration? Remember, President Obama himself proclaimed himself as a Marxist in college, and was friends in Chicago with the founder of the terrorist group Weather Underground - and initiated his run for Senate in his house.

In other words, Van Jones is no longer in an official position. But we still have to watch these people very closely. Remember, President Obama himself said that we can judge him by the people with which he surrounds himself.

Senator Edward Kennedy and Health Care

2009-08-26T10:13:00.004-04:00

Senator Edward Kennedy died last night.

He has had a year and a half of treatments trying to save his life.

If the healthcare plan he has pushed passes, other people will not be able to get similar care. They will be given pain treatments instead.

This is not my opinion; Health Czar Dr. Ezekial Emanuel says that care will be provided based on "quality-adjusted life years." That means that if treatment costs more than $50,000 per anticipated year of quality life, the treatment will be denied.

It also means that if treatment will not significantly improve either length or quality of life, the treatment will be denied - for instance, if the procedure will just reduce pain (say, back surgery or knee/hip replacement), they'll just give pain treatments instead.

Of course, the current Democratic healthcare plan exempts the Congress and Senate members from itself; it only applies to "regular people"...

Reasonable Questions

2009-08-25T22:03:00.002-04:00

On his show and copied on his website, Glenn Beck (Fox News) has posed some good questions. Questions that aren't being answered.

Questions like:

- Who is "surrounding" the President in the White House?

- Do any of the President's advisers have criminal records?

- Are the President's advisers working to better the country or their own ideals?

- Who are the anti-capitalists in Washington?

- What roles do they have in crafting bills?

- What was "STORM"? What happened to the founders, where are they now?

- What qualifications must one have to be a Presidential adviser?

- What is the difference between a community organizer and a community activist?

- Do the czars have power?

- Should a communist have the ear of the President of the United States?

- What role did the Apollo Alliance play in crafting bills?

- Does the President know the co-founder of the Weather Underground is a board member of the Apollo Alliance?

- How many people in the administration are connected to the movement for a democratic society?

- What role does George Soros play... CONSTITUTIONALLY?

----
- Our unfunded liability for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is close to $100 trillion. Is there any way to pay for these programs without bankrupting America?

- We are in so much debt, why spend more borrowed money on cap-and-trade and healthcare programs before we stop the flow of red-ink?

- The stimulus package funneled billions of dollars to ACORN. How does giving billions of dollars to ACORN stimulate the economy?

- If it was so important for congress to pass the stimulus bill before they even had time to read it why has only a fraction of the stimulus money been spent 6 months later?

- Bush said he had to abandon free market principles in order to save them, how exactly does that work?

- Why won’t members of Congress read the bills before they vote on them?

- Why are citizens mocked and laughed at when they ask their congressman to read the bills before they vote on them?

- Was the cash-for-clunkers program meant to save the earth or the economy? Did it accomplish either?

- How did Van Jones, a self-proclaimed communist become a special advisor to the president?

- Did President Obama know of Van Jones’ radical political beliefs when he named him special advisor?

- The Apollo Alliance claimed credit for writing the stimulus bill—why was this group allowed to write any portion of this bill?

- If politicians aren’t writing the bills and aren’t reading the bills, do they have any idea what these 1000 page plus bills actually impose on the American people?

- If the ‘public option’ health care plan is so good why won’t politicians agree to have that as their plan?

- If town hall meetings are intended for the politicians to learn what’s on our mind—why do they spend so much time talking instead of listening?

- Politicians are refusing to attend town hall meetings complaining, without evidence, that they are scripted. Does that mean we shouldn’t come out and vote for you since every campaign stop, baby kiss and speech you give is scripted?

- Why would you want to overwhelm the system?

- Is using the economic crises to rush legislation through congress what Rahm Emanuel meant when he talked about "not letting a crises go to waste"?

- What are the czars paid? What is the budget for their staffs/offices?

Green Job Czar: Avowed Radical Communist

2009-08-25T21:52:00.005-04:00

You read that right. Van Jones, the President's appointed "Special Adviser on Green Jobs," AKA "Green Jobs Czar"is a self-proclaimed Radical Communist. He has been in prison for radical activities, and spent time in jail associated with the Rodney King riots in LA.

That's not me or anyone else calling him a "communist" - it's him calling himself that.

How did he get past the FBI's vetting (background check) process? Simple. The White House does their own vetting now; they won't let the FBI look into his past.

War: Either Do It or Don't Do It

2009-08-25T13:16:00.003-04:00

Just like with George H W Bush and George W Bush in Iraq:

Mr. President, either get the job done in Afghanistan or get out.

Don't just play around with it. Let the men and women who are trained to take down an enemy do what they are trained to do. Or bring them home.

Either way, finish there. Don't drag it out for the next eight years and wait for somebody else pull them out for you.

My personal preference: Take out Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Completely. (I am considering that "if you cut off the head, the snake will die;" ex-members of a dead group don't need to be individually taken out unless they are themselves a continuing threat.)

Don't play around with threats to our national security. Like poisonous snakes, either kill them or leave them alone. We don't want to get bitten again, because that would probably mean thousands (or more) of more people would die.

Of course, if they nuke DC, we'll get a new Congress and Senate out of it... But that's no excuse for the collateral damage of possibly millions of people to die because you just wouldn't let our military and intelligence services do their jobs.

It should be quite simple, really. We know our services have the ability to infiltrate them, a few people in varied positions. They can take out the leadership. In a manner that allows deniability, obviously. (Yea, the Taliban leadership must have gotten some dirty water or something. Always drink UPstream from the horses. We had nothing to do with it...)

Dems say Republicans only complain, no ideas

2009-08-24T23:17:00.002-04:00

The Democrats repeatedly say that the Republicans only complain about the Democrat healthcare bill and offer no ideas of their own.

Well, I will readily admit that the Republicans aren't doing nearly as much as they could. That the Democrats can say what they do without getting laughed at is a case in point.

But the simple matter is that while the Democrats have put out one healthcare plan, the Republicans have put out three.

There is a saying that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it as true. The Democrats are telling lie after lie, but the Republicans aren't standing up to them.

"Stimulus" Exposed, This Week on Fox News

2009-08-24T10:34:00.004-04:00

This week on Fox News (each night at 5PM EDT), Glenn Beck is going to expose the people and motives behind the "Stimulus" package.

He has given some information already on his radio show.

Rep. John Conyers said that he didn't need to read the bill, and mocked those who said he needed to, not because the bill isn't important, but because he trusts those who wrote it. This is a key in the Progressive movement - you don't need to actually do your job (that is, read the bill and make sure it is good for your constituents); just trust those who work with you in your movement.

So, who wrote the bill? Glenn gave some info on some of the people, but it's a long list. It includes heads / key figures in the big unions (United Steelworkers, SEIU), extreme environmental groups, Zero Population Growth, and members of the Revolutionary Communists. Not just "regular" Communists, but "Revolutionary" Communists.

Watch Glenn Beck at 5PM on Fox News for all the details. He is not speculating on this; he has all the documentation. (5PM EDT - adjust the time for your situation of you're not in Eastern Time.)

Our Federal Government is Financially Irresponsible

2009-08-21T20:02:00.004-04:00

Our federal government can't handle $1 billion for Cash for Clunkers. The money was supposed to last 5 months, but it was gone in the first weekend.

Their response? Triple the funding. As it turned out, that only lasted a few more weeks. The Cash for Clunkers program, which was supposed to last until November 1, will now end on Monday, August 24.

A simple rebate requires 30 pages of paperwork, which has 136 pages of documentation. Rebate forms are being returned unpaid for simple spelling mistakes. The user agreement on the government website (though it was later changed after people complained) said that any computer that accessed the site became the property of the federal government and all information on it could be copied and any communications could be monitored and all information could be shared with any government entity, national or international.

Car dealers aren't getting reimbursed. They are giving out $3500-4500 per customer out of their own pockets (literally - most dealerships are sole proprietorships), but a month later, the government has only repaid 2% of the amount they've promised. Dealerships are stopping using the program because they can't afford it. And some in positions to know such things suggest that if the federal money runs out, the dealerships will just be out of luck on getting repaid at all.

Our federal government can't handle $1 billion for Cash for Clunkers.

But the same government, with the same legislators and the same bureaucrats, says they want $1.5 trillion for healthcare. They say they'll improve things. They really expect us to trust them?

With healthcare, the $1.5T will be spent in just as short a time. Then they'll just pass increases. Of course, they won't be able to just end the program once they've dismantled our current system, so they'll have to increase the funding again. Obviously, this means taxes. They've already long forgotten the campaign promises for no tax increases of any kind on anyone making less than $250,000/year, so there's no telling where things will head at that point.

There's no telling how much paperwork will be involved for a simple checkup, an x-ray of a suspected broken leg, a cut that needs stitches. Will the doctor be required to complete the 30 pages (or 300 pages, the way things are heading) before giving someone a drug for a heart attack? Or will the patient be expected to complete the paperwork himself before he can receive any treatment?

Will costs be unreimburseable if the form has a spelling mistake? Will coverage be denied if an emergency procedure isn't approved in advance by a government bureaucrat? Will doctors have to wait months for reimbursement? Will doctors stop accepting the government "insurance" plan like car dealers are doing with Cash for Clunkers, even if it means moving out of the country?

Unreasonable? Yes. But remember, the people passing the regulations won't have to deal with it themselves. Congress has already exempted themselves; they have their own plan for themselves and their families.

"Community Organizers" = Thugs for Hire

2009-08-13T11:13:00.003-04:00

OK, there are exceptions. But in general, the big well-known "community organizer" groups, particularly ACORN and SEIU, are acting as thugs hired out to left-wing / liberal / progressive political parties.

Several examples:

Black Panthers blocked entrances to a number of polling locations last fall. They wouldn't allow the white voters to enter. There was a lawsuit, but the newly-appointed public prosecutor dropped the case.

All the protests in front of AIG executive's houses? All the death threats? Paid for by ACORN. Bus tours chartered by ACORN.

The fights in Healthcare Reform town hall meetings? The rowdy protesters? All the ones who were actually rowdy were SEIU members. SEUI members have actually beat up - to the point that the people had to go to the hospital - people who disagree with the "reform" that is being proposed.

Again, "Community Organizers" = Thugs for Hire

Healthcare "Reform" - mandatory abortion coverage

2009-08-09T19:44:00.004-04:00

The current healthcare "reform" plan requires - REQUIRES - all insurance plans, public or private, to pay for abortion.

There are many problems with this.

One, I'm a single man. Why should I have insurance for childcare, whether killing the baby or live birth? And why should my parents in their senior years be required to have childcare insurance coverage?

Two, I don't want to pay for other people's elective abortion. And most people agree with me; a Zogby poll last year says 71% of Americans don't want insurance to be required to cover abortion.

Three, I believe abortion kills babies. 82% of Americans believe there should be at least some limits on abortion, and 11% believe all elective abortion should be illegal.

In contrast, President Obama is part of the only 9% of Americans (Harris) that believes that abortion should be legal for any reason at any point in the pregnancy. But more than that, he wants it paid for at taxpayer expense.

Why? Some experts believe that the purpose is population control. This will come in two ways.

One, many people will choose abortion over children. Some women will gladly take the simplicity of a minor surgical procedure (nevermind that only one of the two patients will survive the process) to the extended difficulty of a pregnancy followed by the pain of the birth. And some people, given the choice between meeting their obligations as human beings and actually caring for their own children or discarding their own offspring as "inconvenient" will take the easy way out. Then factor in that they don't actually have to pay for even the abortion themselves, and you have a "no-brainer".

Two, we will soon see encouragement to reduce childhood disorders. We will see efforts to reduce issues like Down's Syndrome, autism, and the 2% of all children who are technically "mentally retarded". How will these be reduced? Simple - fetal tests. And if the baby, that is, "fetus" has signs of a concern, the mother will be advised to abort the child. Later, this "advice" may become stronger. Parents have recently become legally criminal for not having their children vaccinated as instructed; parents may soon become required to kill "substandard" children. Obviously, these steps will require that the abortion be funded.

There may be portents of a third step to come later. Obama's "Science Czar", John P. Holdren (director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) has written (another reference) that he does not believe a child to be a "human being" until he, excuse me, "it", is several years old, and then only if "given the opportunity to develop properly" including "essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food". Those who don't "develop properly"? They are never deemed human at any age, and as such can be eliminated without consequence. You know, Christians, Jews, homosexuals, conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians - anybody the ruling authority deems to have a negative influence in society. I would hope that one individual with radical ideas will not unduly influence the rest, but you never know.

I would have hoped that the second phase would not come in my lifetime, if at all. This is the stuff of science fiction, and not the good kind. But experts are now expecting this to come soon. Phase One within months, if the current "reform" passes, and Phase Two soon afterward. On the other hand, it has only been sixty-some years since the third phase was used extensively in Europe.

Cash for Clunkers Fiasco

2009-08-07T12:29:00.003-04:00

Cash for Clunkers was supposed to run July 1 to November 1, four full months. But the money ran out after four days. Now they are trying to add another $2B to the $1B that was already used.

The program was supposed to start on July 1. But the program details weren't finalized until July 24.

The application form is 30 pages long, and the instructions are 136 pages.

The privacy policy said that using the CARS system will cause your (the car dealer's) computer and any networked systems to become property of the Federal government, and any information in this system, including usernames and passwords, can be copied and any communication can be monitored, and any of this can be sent to any government organization, either national or international. (This policy has since been changed, due to the loud feedback.)

Do we really want these people in charge of out healthcare?

Private Jets

2009-08-07T12:25:00.004-04:00

Do you remember back when Congress got all over the heads of the auto manufacturers for flying to DC in private jets?

Well, Congress has now ordered half a billion dollars in private jets for their own use.

The Air Force maintains the aircraft for Congressional use, and they say only two jets are needed (to replace old ones), not all the ones that have been ordered. They say that they don't need them and that they didn't order them. Congress went around the AF and ordered the jets themselves.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor Confirmed for Supreme Court

2009-08-06T21:22:00.005-04:00

I have said before that "race", someone's culture, heritage and background, are a person's flavor, a seasoning of life.

If someone is from Georgia, grown up with fried chicken and grits, that person is no more inherently "right" or "wrong" than someone from Washington State with their apples and cherries. Do you like New York foldable pizza better than Chicago's thick-crust pizza? Fine. Do you like Texas spicy baked beans better than Boston's sweet baked beans? OK. Neither is right or wrong, just personal preference, and someone should be neither qualified nor disqualified from public office on the basis of such personal culture.

Similarly, is not voting for someone exclusively because of skin color or gender the very definition of racism or sexism? I have no problem with a person being elected (or "confirmed", as the case may be) to office, who may happen to be of a particular heritage or gender, but nobody should be elected or confirmed primarily because of such bias.

Voting for such a person in large part because of a bias is just as bad as voting against the person because of a bias.

A Senator who confirmed Judge Sonia Sotomayor primarily because she has a Latina heritage is just as bad as someone who voted against Barack Obama just because he's black. There is no difference.

Decreased posting frequency

2009-08-04T08:54:00.002-04:00

Some may note that my blog postings have become less frequent. This is because I have been listening less to politics. It has gotten depressing.

Examples, from memory:

One of President Obama's appointees (I think a czar of some sort) is a Communist. Not a "he has some positions I see as being Communist" Communist, but a"he is an official member of the Communist Party" Communist.

One of President Obama's appointees (maybe a czar of some sort, and maybe the person above) has said that he thinks offspring (that is, children) who have undesirable characteristics (defects, less desirable genetics) should be terminated. You're thinking, "So? Many people think fetuses with problems should be aborted." The problem is that he doesn't think it should be a problem whether or not the "fetus" happens to already be born. By several years. He thinks any person with a genetic defect should be "terminated" for the good of the society. So, what constitutes a "genetic defect"? Blacks? That's why Planned Parenthood got started, to eliminate black reproduction so the "defective genes" would die out. Christians? Jews? Homosexuals? These were part of Hitler's "cleansing," why not part of this one?

The proposed "healthcare reform" is expected by many experts to end care for many diseases. The University of Tennessee cancer care center is creating plans to close in the event this legislation passes. People who develop issues which are not "cost effective" to treat or are deemed "less beneficial to society" will not be treated. They will be "made comfortable" and allowed to die. This is how things are currently done in some countries with government-run healthcare, and many experts believe it will soon be this way here if this legislation passes. And they believe it enough to already be planning the shutdowns of major centers.

The people pushing for healthcare reform are now trying to change the term from "healthcare reform" to "health insurance reform' because their studies show people respond better to that term. They insist you will be able to keep your doctor. Whatever treatment he recommends just won't be covered under the new plans. And new people won't want to become doctors, because they aren't expected to get paid much. Why pay hundreds of thousands for education when you'll only get paid what the government says you get paid?

The proposed "healthcare reform" includes "end-of-life counseling", required every six months for anyone over 65 years of age. In other words, they are going to tell everyone over 65 just how big a drain they are on society and how they should just remove themselves from being a burden. And then they will repeat it every six months, in one-on-one "counseling" sessions with anyone who chose not to off themselves since the last meeting.

The "Cash for Clunkers" program pays people to buy a car that gets at least 25 miles per gallon in the idea of increasing fuel efficiency. 25MPG isn't very efficient, but someone can get paid up to $4500 for getting one. And the trade-in can't be resold, even if it's in perfect shape; it has to be scrapped. And used cars don't qualify; the bought car has to be new - used car dealers don't get any stimulus out of this.

The cars.gov website for the "Cash for Clunkers" program has an unusual usage agreement. It states that if you use that website, your computer becomes property of the US Government and anything on your computer can be copied and anything you do with your computer can be monitored. Emails, instant messages, Internet-based phone calls, anything.

Democrats: Time to get off the Obama Boat...

2009-07-31T00:12:00.002-04:00

As a preface, I'm not a Republican. Or not lately, since they haven't done much in a long while to help our country.

But it's time for the Democrats to get off the "Obama Boat" as well. President Obama's approval numbers have dropped as fast as the economy.

His approval rating is now lower than Carter's at the same point in his presidency. President Obama's approval index, those who strongly approve minus those who strongly disapprove, is negative - there are 10% more people who STRONGLY disapprove what he's doing than strongly approve.

His own timetable to turn the economy around has passed; we were supposed to have seen recovery by today (7/31). Instead, unemployment keeps growing. And GDP keeps dropping.

The stimulus was "required" to keep the unemployment from climbing above 8 1/2%; it was about 7% at the time. It's now 9.7% as a nationwide average.

He just pushed through (granted, it took a lot of help) the LARGEST TAX INCREASE in history, with the cap-and-trade bill. A bill that NOBODY read before it was passed, because another 300 pages were added at 2AM (or was that 3AM, I don't remember) the DAY OF THE VOTE. The extra pages were pork to swing votes for it.

He wants to pass a healthcare bill that will require everyone who ever changes their employment to start using a government-supplied insurance plan. He says that you can keep your insurance and your doctor? That's not what the bill says; if your insurance ever needs to change, for any reason (add a dependent, drop one, change your job), that's it - your out of your insurance. And when someone asked him, he admitted that HE had not read the bill himself. His talks are based not on what IS in the bill, but what he WANTS in the bill.

He keeps talking about the $1.5T deficit that he "inherited" from Bush. He doesn't talk about the extra $4T he has added himself. So far, and only for bills that have already passed.

He showed racism the other day, after police responded by-the-book and very respectfully to a breaking-and-entering 911 call, when he said that the police "acted stupidly" when he, admittedly, didn't know anything of the situation other than that a black Harvard professor complained about them. It turned out, from radio recordings, that the professor had refused to identify himself and cursed at the police officer. Oh, and he did break into the house; it was just his own house.

Oh, and having Secret Service point guns out of vehicles at the crowds as his motorcade passes by doesn't help his image any. That's right, yesterday at his healthcare promotional stop at the Kroger in Bristol Virginia, reported by thirty-something different people who saw for themselves - rifles pointed out of vehicle windows as they moved down the street. And reported on a local radio call-in show by several of them. On the topic of that meeting, there were some 1500 people that showed up. National news only reported 250 people, because that was all that had tickets for the employees-only meeting inside the store.

Honduras Interference

2009-07-03T13:31:00.005-04:00

President Obama says that we don't get involved in other countries' internal politics. He said this when many people contested Iran's election results, which clearly had tampering (some districts had more votes cast than registered voters).

But when the government of Honduras LEGALLY removes a President who ILLEGALLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY tries to stay in office AFTER HIS TERM HAS ENDED, the same President Obama insists that they reinstate him. What's up with that?

As a reminder, the Constitution of Honduras limits Presidents to a single term. President Manuel Zelaya served his term, but he didn't want to leave. He filed with the court, and they said that, nope, you only get one term. He filed with the congress, and they said that, nope, you only get one term. He said that he wanted a public referendum, and they said that, nope, the president can't constitutionally issue one. So he decided that he just wouldn't leave. So they arrested him and ejected him from the country. Now President Obama is trying to get them to take him back anyway? They say they don't care what some President in another country says, even if its from the United States. Good for them; if you're doing what's right, don't back down from the neighborhood bully.

The US press is saying this was a coup. Sorry; it was the Constitutional process. Besides, in any normal coup, you don't calmly eject the previous leader - you execute them.

McCain doesn't get it

2009-07-02T00:26:00.002-04:00

For some reason, McCain (or his staff) still believes that Sarah Palin was the reason he lost the election. He doesn't get it.

Sarah is the only reason he did as well as he did. I know people that if it weren't for Sarah, they wouldn't have voted at all. The option was "Socialist vs Socialist Lite". Americans don't want our car companies run by the government. Americans don't want the banks run by the government. And Americans don't want healthcare run by the government. President Obama has effected some of these and is pushing for it all. But McCain was also pushing in this direction.

McCain just went to DC to meet with Obama. Why? McCain is upset with the unions. Why? Because he wants them to ease up on hiring restrictions against ILLEGAL ALIENS!

Even now, while Americans need jobs, McCain wants to give MORE of them away to ILLEGALS!

No, "no person is illegal". But many people are in the US illegally. That doesn't make their existence illegal. But it does make their presence in this country illegal. And it makes them criminals.

VA: Rick Boucher votes to increase taxes

2009-07-02T00:03:00.003-04:00

I live in southwest Virginia. My US Representative, Rick Boucher, voted to approve the "American Clean Energy and Security Act".

This act is 1200 pages long and includes BILLIONS in pork, including 300 pages that was added early in the morning before the vote. Worse for us, it includes the so-called "cap-and-trade" provisions.

The Wall Street Journal says that the bill will "impose crushing costs on...consumers" (Review & Outlook, June 25, 2009). Estimates are that residential electricity costs may increase 90%.

Despite what anyone says, this act will dramatically increase energy costs, and when we can least afford them.

And it will cost jobs. Much of US "green jobs" policy, which is in this act, is based on Spain's policy. Policies that has caused Spain's unemployment to go to 17.4% as of April.

To put it simply, Rep. Rick Boucher voted to increase our energy bills as much as 90%. And he voted to support a bill that will increase unemployment even worse than it already is.

If you don't live near me, check here to see how your Representative voted.

And vote against him or her the next chance you get. I will.

Health care: Rationing required

2009-06-23T07:36:00.002-04:00

President Obama now admits that his healthcare plan will require service rationing.

That is, only x number of y services can be performed in z period of time. That means that when you can now just go into your doctor and get, say, a mammogram done, you will instead need to sign up on a list.

In Canada, you generally have to wait 6-12 months for a mammogram, even if you have a lump. This person (second Google result for "canada mammogram wait") was 34 and had a lump; she could not get approved for a mammogram until she had an ultrasound, which itself a had 6-month wait. That's the difference between easy treatment with little or no side effects and go home and wait to die.

Regulatory reform: unnecessary and doesn't even do what it intends

2009-06-20T22:00:00.005-04:00

Two major bills are currently being proposed. One is finance oversight regulation, the other is health care reform.

1: Finance oversight.

The major financial problems we've had over the last year was, and most people know this, due largely to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They encouraged, financed, and in many cases even required, lenders to make home loans to "underqualified buyers".

"Underqualified" means that the people couldn't afford them, like someone who makes $20k/year getting a $200k house. How could they even work that? Simple. Give them a low-interest, interest-only loan for the first five years. They don't have to pay on the $200k at all, only the 3% interest. They know that in five years they'll have to start paying principal too, and the interest will go to 9%. They pay $500/month for now. But in five years, that will go to $2028. Why would they even do that? They probably plan to either sell the house at a profit in five years, with a side thought of refinancing into a 30-year fixed at 6% ($1200/month) on an increased income. Problem is that housing values went down. They couldn't sell at a profit. They are "upside-down" in a house they couldn't afford. The bank should never have even lent to them. But Fannie Mae required that they make a certain number of these loans, or else risk losing access to financing sources.

The problem with the proposed legislation?

The new regulation DOES NOT APPLY TO FANNIE MAE OR FREDDIE MAC! AT ALL! The area that actually needs oversight doesn't get it!

2: Health care reform.

President Obama has pushed for this reform, in large part using General Motors as an example. The union "legacy costs", primarily health insurance, is too high, and has greatly contributed to their bankruptcy.

The problem with the proposed legislation? (Ignoring many other issues, like estimated costs of $1 trillion with no funding, and expectations that many employers will dump their current better insurance since the new stuff won't cost them anything...)

The new regulation grandfathers in the union plans! If you have a union, YOU CAN'T GET INTO THE NEW PLAN EVEN IF YOU WANT TO! The industries that need the reform most aren't allowed to use it!

Transparent and Ethical Government as promised?

2009-06-18T13:29:00.004-04:00

AmeriCorps is a public service organization under the Federal Government.

President Obama just fired the Inspector General of AmeriCorps. Why? He was "confused and disoriented". What's that mean? Is that like Joe Biden is everytime he speaks publicly? Or like Obama is everytime he doesn't have his teleprompter?

Obama sent notification to the Senate seven days after the firing. Part of the problem is that a law THAT OBAMA SIGNED requires 30-days advance notice is to be given to the Senate before starting procedures to fire any Inspector General. In other words, President Obama expressly broke the law, and a law he himself approved.

Why was Inspector General Walpin fired? Because the board of directors wanted him fired. Why did they want him fired? Because he had just investigated an organization for misuse of taxpayer funds provided by AmeriCorps. That organization, the St. HOPE Academy of Sacramento, was founded by an Obama supporter who used the $850,000 he got from AmeriCorp (for arts programs) for things like increasing salaries for his organization and personal car washes. After the investigation, While St. HOPE was not charged criminally, they agreed to repay half the grants.

In other words, Inspector General Walpin was doing his job, investigating misuse of taxpayer funds. But it turned out that those he was investigating supported Obama. And he was fired, without valid reason and directly contrary to the law.

Reference: http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/16/obama-accuses-fired-inspector-general-of-americorps-of-being-confused-disoriented

Moon / Space missions

2009-06-17T00:47:00.001-04:00

OK, it's a toss-up, regular blog or political...

NASA has regular space missions. Some say they are useless. There's also the point that they're expensive in a time that we're having economic problems.

My thoughts?

First, on the economy, that's a valid point. My first thought was that we could delay missions for now until we can better afford them. Then I realized that large economies are built around these industries; if we shut them down, that would just cause more economic problems, albeit in specialized sectors. If it were planned properly, maybe, but we now have people and companies relying on these missions for their incomes and salaries.

Second, on the missions themselves:
Step it up! We should have manned stations on the moon by now. And civilian colonies on the moon. We've been visiting for FORTY YEARS! Why are we just playing with it? Most of the missions we're doing are with obsolete equipment. The only good these missions do is to enable scientific labs on the space station. Why have we not developed better propulsion systems? Better defensive systems? Antigravity systems?

It seems like our space administration is, like most in government, more interested in saving their own jobs than actually developing new tech and making new discoveries. How else can you explain our more advanced space tech being 20-year-old shuttles? If the problem is that they don't have sufficient funding, maybe they need to use the money more wisely. They're not getting anything done as it is. Maybe they, like many government agencies, are paying too much in too many salaries, and not on the research and equipment.

Bill for a specific purpose is only 80% for that purpose, and that's fine?!?

2009-06-17T00:02:00.003-04:00

A bill to fund military operations includes $5 billion in lending to the International Monetary Fund, money that some expect will be lent to countries like Iran and North Korea. Money that will be borrowed (by us) largely from China, since we don't have it.

But the Democrat House Majority Leader, says that it's not a problem since 80% of the bill is still going to the military.

That's part of the problem. As long as over half of the funds of a bill go to the EXPRESS PURPOSE OF A BILL go to that purpose, the bill is "close enough" on target. That's why they have no problem with "pork". They are including in a bill $5 BILLION that is for something entirely different? I'm not even getting into the wrongness (or whatever) of what that money is for. If they want the money for IMF, put a bill through for that; don't tack it onto something else.

Ahmadinejad Reelected?!?

2009-06-14T08:24:00.002-04:00

So, Iran's "president" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the man often referred to as "Hitler in a head scarf", was reelected in a landslide, despite polling that showed him tied with the other candidate.

Who'd have thunk it?

On another note, there are people protesting the election results. If I were them, I'd stop - now. And either get out of Iran or distance myself from the protests, and quickly. Especially if they have families to think of. Because, one way or another, there probably won't be any of these protesters left in another month or so.

Pay controls for everyone

2009-06-11T14:17:00.004-04:00

The President's office has just announced pay "guidelines" that apply to all employees at all public companies. Not just financial companies, not just companies that accepted bailout funds. Everyone.

Do you expect executives for companies that have been growing and making lots of money will keep working hard when their pay is cut? Do you think they will work hard to keep as many jobs as they can? Will they work to keep costs down so they can keep wages high?

Why should they try to keep employee wages up if the government will mandate lower wages?

Do you work at a fast-food restaurant or big box store? Any job that could be considered entry-level? Do you want to have your pay changed to minimum wage?

This is un-Constitutional. There is no provision in the Constitution for government to get involved in regulating business. At all.

If the Federal government wants to tie wages to performance, let them start at home. Cut Congressional pay rates. Tie the President's pay to performance - as the economy dries up, let his pay dry up. Drop the excuses blaming everything on a guy who left office in January when you've effectively been in charge since last November. Try pay for performance there first before you mandate it on everyone else in the country and kill off what economy we still have.

Global Warming: Winds - a quick comment

2009-06-10T14:05:00.005-04:00

It has just been noticed, with preliminary study results, that global wind speeds seem to be slowing.

This is inconsistent with "warming". It is also inconsistent with the dire warnings some have been screaming.

But it is consistent with a global "greenhouse" environment. The idea is not warming, but moderating. That means that while winters may be warmer, summers will be cooler. Winds will be lower because the temperature extremes are not as extreme. Weather storms, one of the major threats of global warming extremists, will actually reduce, because they are created by temperature extremes, both locally and globally.

Of course, all this is theory since no studies along these lines have been done. Studies of global warming have been done, and the earth has been seen to be cooling instead of warming over the last decade. But I suggest that the earth is moderating in true "global greenhouse" style. Think "global Hawaii". Moderate temperatures year-round. Weather storms will get milder and milder in general, though there will be exceptions. As long as politicians do not do anything extreme, since our interference in this natural process could cause problems.

The earth is generating large amounts of carbon dioxide. Not man, but natural processes. And the plants love it.

Definitions: Racism and Sexism

2009-06-05T11:16:00.003-04:00

Racism: The belief that one race/ethnicity is inherently superior to another.

Sexism: The belief that one gender is inherently superior to the other.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said that she believes a woman would make better decisions than a man, and that a Latina (a woman from a Spanish-heritage country) would make better decisions than a white man.

President Obama said he would hope that she would restate it given the chance. She did. She said effectively the same thing repeatedly over a number of years in a variety of situations.

So, you decide. Are these racist or sexist comments?

Do these statements have any place whatsoever coming from someone nominated to a position which is supposed to be "blind" and completely impartial to all circumstances in all decisions?

Reference

The President seeks to appease a religion?!?

2009-06-04T09:32:00.003-04:00

Why does our President feel it necessary to appease a religion, to meet with leaders of that religion, fly to nations with majorities of that religion, and have long, extended speeches specifically to speak to members of that religion?

He flew to Egypt to speak to "the Muslim world". Not the Arab world, not the middle eastern world. The Muslim world. Did he fly to Italy to speak to "the Catholic world"? Did he fly to Israel to speak to "the Orthodox Jewish world"? Did he fly to Germany to speak to "the Lutheran world"? Did he fly to Japan to speak to "the Buddhist world"?

Then why select one specific religion to speak to? Repeatedly? And specifically to apologize to them? On two separate world tours?

GM Bankruptcy, review

2009-06-03T02:04:00.003-04:00

I just saw in my post from April 30 that I thought GM's bankruptcy would get the government out of their management at last.

WRONG!

The US government now owns 60% of General Motors. (Or Government Motors, whatever.) And Canada gets 12.5%. The UAW (United Auto Workers union) gets 17.5%.

And the bondholders, the people who were originally guaranteed by bankruptcy law to get at least their principal back, those who didn't take risk, those who needed stable investments, like school, fire department and police department pension funds, will get the remaining 10%, mere pennies on the dollar.

Stockholders get zip. Preferred stockholders (retirees living on a fixed income from dividends) get zip. Common stockholders (holding them as they split and increase value over time) get zip.

GM Being Run by Inexperienced Dropout

2009-06-03T00:37:00.005-04:00

GM is now being run by Brian Deese, a 31-year-old Yale drop-out.

He got his undergrad degree in Political Science from a small private school in Vermont, and has had no formal econonomics education. His only previous experience with the auto industry was sleeping in his car in a Pontiac plant parking lot.

He worked with several Democratic-financed think-tanks, and after the stint at Yale, went to Hilary Clinton's Presidential campaign as her economic advisor. When that folded, he went to the Obama campaign as deputy economic policy director, then with the transition team as an economic advisor. Then, despite having neither any economic or business education, nor any private-sector experience, he was the only full-time member of the auto task force between the election and mid-February.

He is now managing the government investment of $458,000 per day in GM. And that plant at which he slept in the parking lot? The entire brand is being closed under his management.

Reference for much of this, though I found it elsewhere citing this article.

Abortion is murder. But murder is also murder.

2009-06-02T23:31:00.002-04:00

Some over-zealous individual (or nutjob, or psycopath - I don't know his story) killed an abortion doctor Sunday morning.

Yes, I believe abortion is wrong. But murder is also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. And a wrong done for the right reasons is still wrong.

How should this have been handled? Since elective abortion is murder, the laws should reflect such and those who do elective abortions under such law should be found by the courts to be guilty of murder. (No, the law should not be retroactive, as no laws should be.) The law should then act and serve justice. If a murder is, for some reason, not legally considered such (whether unborn children as now, or members of unfavored ethnicities as in the past), then the law should be changed, not the enforcement of laws.

However, this individual who murdered the doctor finds himself in the same place he wished the doctor. The doctor is legally not guilty and the individual guilty. When these persons come before God for judgment, they will both be deemed guilty of the same crime.

Wasteful spending

2009-05-13T00:39:00.001-04:00

The US National Institutes of Health is spending $2.6M to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly on the job. You can't make this stuff up!

A union that supports itself, not its members

2009-05-11T21:19:00.002-04:00

The Service Employees International Union, SEIU, self-noted as the second-largest union of government employees, gave $33M to President Obama's campaign.

California is out of money. They are losing residents who are fleeing increasing state taxes. They are being forced to close offices, lay off people, and reduce hours of those who stay. The White House has just informed the State of California that if they proceed in their plan to trim $74M in worker pay they will lose $6.8B in stimulus.

The SEIU may have a legitimate mission; I'm not arguing that. They are free to support political candidates that best reflect their members. My problem is with the politicians. Rather than doing what is best for all the people, they would rather pay back their supporters. This is not even in the best long-term interests of the members of the union; if California is not allowed to trim costs now, the problems will just get bigger. This rewards the union leaders at the expense of the union members. We can't afford the paybacks anymore.

GM Restructuring

2009-05-09T19:10:00.002-04:00

GM's restructuring plan includes more jobs manufacturing cars. But those jobs will be in Mexico and China, because they are moving some of the manufacturing there.

But...I thought this bailout was to save the "American auto industry"? So we are now bailing out the Mexican and Chinese auto industry, while those who really make cars here, like Honda and Toyota, are on their own?

More government "savings"?

2009-05-09T19:07:00.002-04:00

It turns out more of those budget cuts that the President just found include cancelling the extension of the fence on the Mexico border, and cutting funding to detect nuclear bombs at our seaports, an area reports have repeatedly warned is our weakest point.

We want our rights back!

2009-05-08T10:50:00.001-04:00

Wow! We've got some REALLY positive news for a change!

Several states are putting together similar laws. The law is that guns made, sold, and remaining within that state are not subject to any federal gun laws, but will only be subject to state laws. The federal gun laws are under the authority of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, and since these items do not have anything to do with interstate commerce, those laws do not apply.

And a major factor is that 20 states are working on these laws; the Court strongly considers societal trends in its decisions. They could easily decide that a strong federal government was the way people wanted it fifty years ago, but now people want decisions to be more local. It's the same idea as with gay marriage; the courts decide, not based on law, but on what most people want. If you are in state government and reading this, push for state laws matching the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. The more states that have this law, the more ground the court will have to expand on it.

They are gearing this to go quickly to the courts, and then to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has been leaning this way, as shown in recent decisions, but those cases were too small to bother with.

This involves guns, so everybody will be watching. The government knows that gun and ammo sales are a direct indicator of trust in the government. When people trust the government, sales are flat; but when people don't trust the government, sales go through the roof.

If this goes well, it can lead to overturning all regulatory laws that affect anything other than interstate commerce. After all, the laws were based on interstate commerce; they've just gotten WAY out of control. Minimum wage laws are based on interstate commerce. Maximum hours per week are based on interstate commerce. The entire EPA is based on interstate commerce!

Mind you, these regulations may continue for businesses that deal across state lines, but small businesses, those that are only in one state, those that are currently getting regulated TO DEATH since they can't afford to hire hundreds of people just to deal with the regulations, may find some relief in the next few years. The ultimate solution may take two or three years to come, but it's heading that way.

Government running our businesses

2009-05-07T23:37:00.003-04:00

The government is insistent on taking over the banks. They started by loaning the TARP/bailout money to the banks. They they changed that to preferred stocks - some more risk than bonded loans, but still higher in the food chain. Now the government wants to change it to common stock. You know, the stuff that becomes worthless in bankruptcy? Why? Because common stock is VOTING stock! The government wants to tell the banks exactly what to do! (They also get four of nine directors of Chrysler. with the UAW getting one and Canada getting one, totalling six of the nine directors.)

Since when has the government been any good at running a business? Just look at the Postal Service. They keep raising rates all the time. They are slow, and they lose a lot of mail. They don't guarantee their service unless you get the highest (most expensive) options. The major competitors at least guarantee they won't lose your stuff - and they offer tracking included at no extra charge. But they AREN'T ALLOWED to handle non-priority letters! The government knows it's doing such a bad job that it won't let others compete!

Keep the government's hands off of businesses!

FYI on a label I used.

Fascism: One of the major components is the government telling businesses what to do even while those businesses maintain the fascade of being private. Communism includes when those businesses are directly government-owned. Look it up.

Banking "stress test"

2009-05-07T23:35:00.001-04:00

We've just gotten results from a "stress test" done on banks by the FDIC. The FDIC does these regularly anyway! It's just more politics.

And the bad news took the Dow Jones down another 102.43 points. Thanks - my 401K (what's left of it) needed that.

Government "savings"?

2009-05-07T23:30:00.001-04:00

The President has announced he has found ways to cut 1/2 of 1% of the budget. how has he done it?

A big chunk came from cutting the death benefit for police officers killed in the line of duty to less than half what it was.

ACORN

2009-05-07T23:07:00.000-04:00

You might have already heard that the White House is taking control of the census, which used to be an independent organization to keep it out of politics. You might have also heard that in some areas, they will be allowed to "estimate" the populations rather than actually counting people. You know, like the word "census" means, "to count"?

Well, much of actually taking the census is being handed to ACORN. You know, the group President Obama used to work with and got his experience as a "community organizer"? And they are being investigated in 14 states for voter fraud, under charges brought by Democrats. They registered thousands of voters under duplicate names, fake names (like - and I'm not making this up - "Mickey Mouse"), forged applications, and busing people from other states to register and vote the same day.

And there are eight ex-executives of ACORN who have quit and are pursuing corruption charges against them. But these are "racists" and "black-haters"? Sorry - ALL EIGHT of these are African-Americans.

Stimulus oversight?

2009-05-07T00:05:00.000-04:00

We were promised close oversight of the stimulus, right? The Congressional oversight committee just had their second meeting.

Only three of the ten members bothered to show up for the meeting!

Transparency?

2009-05-06T23:38:00.001-04:00

You may wonder, where's all the "transparency" we were promised? We just found out with Chrysler that we lost $4.3 billion from TARP. Wasn't "every last dime" supposed to be accounted for?

It turns out that they aren't going to give us any information on this until next year.

Chrysler bankruptcy

2009-05-06T23:17:00.002-04:00

The company Cerberus owned 81% of the company, was owed $500M, and owned the Chrysler Building. They lose everything in the bankruptcy. They get repaid zero. They even lose the building.

The company Daimler that used to own Chrysler is owed another $1.5B. They get repaid zero.

Banks are owed $6.9B. They get $2B, 29 cents on the dollar.

The US government has put in $4.3B from the TARP bailout. They are also owed $300M in fees. This was supposed to be a great investment Chrysler would repay with interest. What do we get on our investment? Zero. No, worse than zero. We will give them another $3.2B in the restructuring and another $4.7B later.

The United Auto Workers has $10.6B in Chrysler debt. Remember from my last note that this is unsecured debt; they are only supposed to get what's left over after the secured debt is FULLY repaid. So, what do they get? A note for $4.6B (at 9% interest!), or 43 cents on the dollar, more than anybody else. Plus - and a big plus - they get 55% of the equity of the company. They went from not actually owning anything, and being last in line for repayment, to owning 55% of the company. Oh, and they also get $600M in "legacy costs", for stuff like pension and healthcare benefits, from Daimler.

Guess what? The "Car Czar", Steve Rattner, was Finance Chair for the Democratic National Committee. And guess what else? The UAW gives 99% of their political contributions to the DNC. Makes things clearer, doesn't it?

Unions vs The Law

2009-05-05T18:48:00.002-04:00

For some reason, the Obama administration seems to really like the unions. Two situations that seem to show this:

The "Employee Free Choice Act", also known as "Card Check".

This act, which Obama sponsored last year in the Senate, will eliminate the secret ballot for unionizing a business. Whether a business will be unionized used to be determined by secret ballot. The "Employee Free Choice Act" will remove this, instead requiring employees to sign a card while being observed by a union official.

In the past, the pressure step, signing while being watched, was only a petition of intent; it only allowed the organization to proceed with the secret ballot. With the "Employee Free Choice Act", unions can return to early 1900's tactics of pressuring a person to vote for the union or else suffer some kind of punishment.

The Chrysler bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy law requires that secured lenders, those who have some kind of collateral with the company, like a home loan that has the house for collateral, or a car loan which has the house for collateral, get their money before those who have unsecured debt, those who lent the money just on the credit of the company, like a credit card.

In this case, the main secured debt is corporate bonds. The biggest investors in bonds are the fund companies; these in turn wind up with our retirement accounts and such. The main unsecured debt is common stock. The major unsecured investor is the union. According to the law, the bond holders should get all their money before the stock holders get anything.

Well, Obama doesn't like that idea. He, and those who work for him, call the investment funds things like "greedy", "speculators", and "refusing to sacrifice like everyone else". Instead, he wants the unions to get all their money, and the bond holders to settle for 35% of theirs. Excuse me, but it's not just "greed" or "speculation". It's called "the law".

Government waste, on both sides

2009-05-05T17:55:00.001-04:00

That Air Force One photo op that probably cost $200,000? Turns out it cost $328,000. And they don't even want to give us the pictures we paid for! But we will get them - Fox News has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to get them.

Another proof that it's BOTH parties that are causing problems. The National Institutes of Health, under a plan created under Bush, is spending $400,000 to study the link between drinking and risky sexual behavior... but only among homosexuals... and only in Argentina. That seems to be wise use of taxpayer dollars. As a reminder, this is dollars of US taxpayers, not Argentinian taxpayers.

Green jobs

2009-05-04T20:17:00.001-04:00

The current administration wants to expand our economy using Spain's example of producing "green jobs".

One problem. No, make that two problems.

First, these jobs in Spain cost them the equivalent of over $750,000 per job. And these are low-paying, mostly manual-labor jobs.

Second, Spain has unemployment of 17.8%!

Do we want to follow their example on job creation?!? Our unemployment has gone from 6% last September to 9% in March. Do we really want to double that again to match their 18%?

Understand this: You are not "creating" jobs when you actually reduce jobs.

Don't get me wrong. I love the idea of cheap/free energy. But this is not free energy if it doubles unemployment.

Besides, whatever happened to fusion? Huge amounts of energy created from readily-available materials like hydrogen? It's not practical? We've had SIXTY YEARS using fission to get it working! And we can't even use widespread solar or wind energy because environmental types say they harm the local environment!