http://preservelenoxmountain.org/
The following is in response to a video of a presentation Dr. Ben Luce made at Monument Mountain (Found on the above link to Preserve Lenox Mountain) to a friend Scott Sawyer who still lives in the area where I grew up. Scott and I have been communicating about wind turbines via Facebook.
Hey Scott,
Great presentation on the fallacy of wind power and especially visuals on the "High impact" of creating infrastructure to the sites and the final impact of seeing these turbines along the ridge line. I thought it was ironic the position Texas commanded on the chart showing which state could produce the most. Not only does Texas play a big role in oil and gas but it is tops on the ability to generate wind power!
Ben Luce was very balanced on his presentation, facts, understanding of the balance between need, ability and political and economic reality. He made a resounding "no way" argument to wind turbines. I thought he went off the rails when he began to promote solar power over wind. Yes, solar is excellent in mitigating the negatives of wind generation but as for solving the need for more electrical generation to meet growing needs I think he is as wrong as those proposing wind generation. My philosophy is people are not going to go backwards. The great increase in America's power consumption cannot be mitigated by "weatherization" and "efficiency." American's are not going to give up their laptops, Ipads, Kindles, Iphones, Smart Phones, Facebook, Google, Netflix etc. This is where the consumption is occurring - powering and charging of electronic devices and the enormous consumption by server farms like Facebook, Google and Netflix. The evidence I see is social networking, cloud computing and large corporations providing online selling, services and streaming are growing exponentially and into the future as far as anyone can predict. I also believe there is a revolution of personal servers, not computers, coming where many homes will use these servers to secure proprietary rights to their writing, photographs, music, movies and personal information. These proprietary rights and security are currently under attack from "Big Media" through their attempts to regulate, via legislation, ISP's and large server users like Facebook to root out copyright infringement. Personal servers and virtual private networks will insure individual control, privacy, security and avoid entanglement with these laws by bypassing these corporations. So by my prognosticating the future of conservation of electricity is doomed by the future skyrocketing upward trend of consumption.
My last point I would like to make is: like so many other great ideas of protecting and preserving the environment and resources - it is a fools errand. People wrapped up in doing their part will install their solar panels and reduce their consumption from the grid. But what happens to the electricity they have saved? Is it set aside for them for a later date, or has the power company slowed down the turbines and not produce that small amount? Of course not, it was gobbled up immediately by someone else who wanted it or sent to another power company who wanted it to sell. It really was not saved at all. We especially can see that now as we read reports about gasoline being exported to other countries because American's are not consuming as much. What! you mean they don't slow down production or store it for a later date? Outrageous all our conserving are going to someone else. Like the early economy cars the Pinto, Vega, and Gremlin were soon abandoned when people realized they were not making an impact on the 1970's fuel shortage and what they were actually doing was tolerating horrible cars for a lost cause. So to the solar panels and wind turbines will be left in disrepair when those who have committed themselves to conservation or alternative energies realize they are just living inconveniently.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Is-the-Knowledge-System-Broken
Claire Berlinski - Ricochet "Is the Knowledge System Broken"
"When that paper ceases to be reliable, when it no longer functions as a signal for collateral, as an enforceable guarantee, a credible assurance, or a reasonable measure of risk, then — Whoosh! — private credit vanishes. Just as your identity does when you step up to the immigration counter and discover you’ve lost your passport."
"That’s what happened when the subprime crisis exploded. The derivatives that financed the nonperforming sub-prime mortgages were rapidly losing value, threatening to cause a run on the banks because there was — and remains— so little property knowledge about them."
I like the word "Whoosh!" It is a great descriptor for the devaluation of my own home! I had several posts to Claire on Ricochet I will share here.
So I have two more points the first a prediction - warning, the second a solution to the current horde of toxic assets.
We have yet to see non-high risk homeowners abandoning their homes. These are families who still have great stable jobs, who are affluent and continue to pay their mortgage. But what they have is a monthly mortgage payment for a home worth $1.5 million but is now worth $600,000.00. They will come to realize they were scammed by the overvaluation of housing. They will realize they will never see their home rise back to $1.5 million (Since the valuation was a scam in the first place). The idea of walking into their mortgage company and asking for a refinance to a $600.000.00 level would be smiled up on or laughed at. So what to do - abandon their down payment from their previous house sale - stop paying their mortgage and save what they would have paid for a fairly substantial down payment, abandon their home - laughing at the mortgagee as they are left holding another useless home and bid their time till they can buy a correctly valued $600,000.00 home?
An idea for a solution:
Anyone can buy a foreclosed property with certain caveats:
Must be a conventional loan - 20% down - no mortgage insurance.
Must be a conventional loan from the mortgage company holding the foreclosure.
Can either be a 15 year or 30 year mortgage.
The mortgagee cannot bundle and sell the loan.
In return for the 20% conventional loan the Federal government will allow the buyer of said above foreclosed property a special capital gains timeline:
If sold in the first year 100% capital gains is required.
If sold in the second year 6/7 capital gains is required
If sold the third year 5/7, fourth year 4/7, fifth year 3/7, sixth year 2/7, and finally the seventh year would require 1/7 the capital gains.
The eighth year would require no capital gains if sold.
Then the ninth through fifteenth year the capital gains would rise incrementally by 1/7 till the fifteenth year 100% capital gains would have to be paid.
"When that paper ceases to be reliable, when it no longer functions as a signal for collateral, as an enforceable guarantee, a credible assurance, or a reasonable measure of risk, then — Whoosh! — private credit vanishes. Just as your identity does when you step up to the immigration counter and discover you’ve lost your passport."
"That’s what happened when the subprime crisis exploded. The derivatives that financed the nonperforming sub-prime mortgages were rapidly losing value, threatening to cause a run on the banks because there was — and remains— so little property knowledge about them."
I like the word "Whoosh!" It is a great descriptor for the devaluation of my own home! I had several posts to Claire on Ricochet I will share here.
Well if knowledge about value of property and housing is what has been lost then it might make sense to correct the "perception" of value of property and housing. It is what I call fake money. Property and housing was never worth what we were told, it was always based on inflated value based on supply and demand. Just because someone said the property was worth an amount and someone paid this amount and someone financed this amount does not make it so. So if we assume it was based on falsehoods and overinflated lies then we must assume the correct value is what it will fetch today. This is an unpleasant reality to those who claim they are experts on buying, selling, financing, brokering, predicting trends and policy on real estate since they were scammed more than most. This reminds me of the time I bought a used car and thought I had a great value, till the next day when I went to start the car to find the battery was junk and I needed to purchase a battery. Just because I believed it was valued at what I had agreed to pay did not make it so.
Following my previous post; my solution, to move away from the post-war thinking of housing as an investment up-scaling at several intervals, retirees selling to extricate themselves from their mortgage, moving where housing is cheaper and buying a bigger better home, to housing as a pre-war model. A home is to be lived in, paid off in thirty years and sold with a modest gain. The first model requires inflation and necessitates rising wages leading to boom and bust cycles, less savings for retirement and college. My standard is young families. Young families will fuel the rise in housing prices (Demand) to a certain point, but when they feel too squeezed (They begin to see housing as cutting into their families well being) they will abandon the market and cause a bust or correction. The latter denotes long incremental valuation, modest homes, stable neighborhoods, life long neighbors, planned obsolescence school life cycle, substantial life long savings for retirement and college, Now I know others are going to say post - war investments are in the home, however the miracle of compound interest is in time - changing homes and up-scaling busts long term investments.
We have yet to see non-high risk homeowners abandoning their homes. These are families who still have great stable jobs, who are affluent and continue to pay their mortgage. But what they have is a monthly mortgage payment for a home worth $1.5 million but is now worth $600,000.00. They will come to realize they were scammed by the overvaluation of housing. They will realize they will never see their home rise back to $1.5 million (Since the valuation was a scam in the first place). The idea of walking into their mortgage company and asking for a refinance to a $600.000.00 level would be smiled up on or laughed at. So what to do - abandon their down payment from their previous house sale - stop paying their mortgage and save what they would have paid for a fairly substantial down payment, abandon their home - laughing at the mortgagee as they are left holding another useless home and bid their time till they can buy a correctly valued $600,000.00 home?
An idea for a solution:
Anyone can buy a foreclosed property with certain caveats:
Must be a conventional loan - 20% down - no mortgage insurance.
Must be a conventional loan from the mortgage company holding the foreclosure.
Can either be a 15 year or 30 year mortgage.
The mortgagee cannot bundle and sell the loan.
In return for the 20% conventional loan the Federal government will allow the buyer of said above foreclosed property a special capital gains timeline:
If sold in the first year 100% capital gains is required.
If sold in the second year 6/7 capital gains is required
If sold the third year 5/7, fourth year 4/7, fifth year 3/7, sixth year 2/7, and finally the seventh year would require 1/7 the capital gains.
The eighth year would require no capital gains if sold.
Then the ninth through fifteenth year the capital gains would rise incrementally by 1/7 till the fifteenth year 100% capital gains would have to be paid.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Mark Edwards Uncensored - Is Local Radio Dead? In Some Ways It Is, But Owners Don't Know It Yet
http://markontheweb.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-local-radio-dead-in-some-ways-it-is.html?utm_source=Subscribers&utm_campaign=08e916d06e-TRI_11-08-2011&utm_medium=email
I was in an all day discussion with Mark about my perceptions on Radio. I thought I would present it here:
I was in an all day discussion with Mark about my perceptions on Radio. I thought I would present it here:
I did not see it mentioned - the exclusivity of Radio. Much like telephone and cable - radio and television stations also have a monopoly on access into the American home. (And you do not need to put a crappy looking antenna on the side of your house.) No net-neutrality issues here. If local stations could see this they would understand they have a captured audience whom they should customize their programming to.
Also there has to be a new model. Young people have short attention spans so too many ads break their attention and they move onto some other media, include fewer short adds directed towards younger people, and there must be topics of interest - relationships, tech stuff, local events, reviews of pubs, interviews with brew masters, breweries, interviews with local bands (The only place I learn about local talent is through weekend inserts in the local paper), local mom and pop wineries, non-chain eateries, talk about sex, love, parenting, jobs, careers, starting small businesses, interview (Young)small business people, young people in small towns, young people in city living, security (Way to many CSI police stories.), for some examples; include a twitter account to give young people the ability to customize the programming - and be willing to go with it. Understand young people all have something playing all the times, radio just has to figure out how it will be them i.e. advertise not wasting band width because it is delivered separately via radio wave streaming. Then deliver each programming segment in podcast form downloadable for a fee.
Finally radio must realize they have a great plus - most young people watch video podcasts and they know horrible programming when they see it. Ugly people, pontificating with lousy ideas and opinions - their young, with lousy voices - no one tells them they sound horrible and cannot be understood, with lousy rates of delivery and a constant stream of interrupting or talking over each other at a cascading rate of speed with tons of references to acronyms or initials to speed up the delivery. Most pod casts are only 40 minutes to an hour even though the material they have could be talked about for two hours. Pod casters could never sustain a three hour drive time program - pod casters are not this organized, their thoughts are not organized, succinct or able to be formatted into an easy to listen format. Asking them to prepare and create an agenda with professional transitions with guests who are great interviewers and carry this of over three hours - not happening - to much work. But radio "still" has announcers who know how to do this. Radio personalities understand all of this and podcasters are satisfied with a million "hits" radio personalities are satisfied with several million listeners. Who is more hungry?
I used the word "still" because those in radio believe they are in decline so they exude this aura and young people who would like to break in with talent are discouraged and turned away. The older more distinguished seasoned, finished, professional and successful radio personalities are dissappearing leaving none to mentor, train and coach the new radio announcers. To say nothing about the producers being lost due to attrition.
Also there has to be a new model. Young people have short attention spans so too many ads break their attention and they move onto some other media, include fewer short adds directed towards younger people, and there must be topics of interest - relationships, tech stuff, local events, reviews of pubs, interviews with brew masters, breweries, interviews with local bands (The only place I learn about local talent is through weekend inserts in the local paper), local mom and pop wineries, non-chain eateries, talk about sex, love, parenting, jobs, careers, starting small businesses, interview (Young)small business people, young people in small towns, young people in city living, security (Way to many CSI police stories.), for some examples; include a twitter account to give young people the ability to customize the programming - and be willing to go with it. Understand young people all have something playing all the times, radio just has to figure out how it will be them i.e. advertise not wasting band width because it is delivered separately via radio wave streaming. Then deliver each programming segment in podcast form downloadable for a fee.
Finally radio must realize they have a great plus - most young people watch video podcasts and they know horrible programming when they see it. Ugly people, pontificating with lousy ideas and opinions - their young, with lousy voices - no one tells them they sound horrible and cannot be understood, with lousy rates of delivery and a constant stream of interrupting or talking over each other at a cascading rate of speed with tons of references to acronyms or initials to speed up the delivery. Most pod casts are only 40 minutes to an hour even though the material they have could be talked about for two hours. Pod casters could never sustain a three hour drive time program - pod casters are not this organized, their thoughts are not organized, succinct or able to be formatted into an easy to listen format. Asking them to prepare and create an agenda with professional transitions with guests who are great interviewers and carry this of over three hours - not happening - to much work. But radio "still" has announcers who know how to do this. Radio personalities understand all of this and podcasters are satisfied with a million "hits" radio personalities are satisfied with several million listeners. Who is more hungry?
I used the word "still" because those in radio believe they are in decline so they exude this aura and young people who would like to break in with talent are discouraged and turned away. The older more distinguished seasoned, finished, professional and successful radio personalities are dissappearing leaving none to mentor, train and coach the new radio announcers. To say nothing about the producers being lost due to attrition.
Both the paid podcast model (with very few exceptions) and the "interactive" model (Listener Driven Radio, Jelli) have had little success. One of the most popular podcasters with a subscription model drew just over 3200 unique visitors in September, the most recent month I have metrics for. Another podcaster draws about ten times that much traffic, but his show is advertiser supported, so there are still ads, just like OTA radio.
While some companies are working hard to shorten their ads, commercial broadcasting is still a business and sadly the cost of free over the air radio is commercials. Remember Clear Channel's "Less Is More"? Gone. Companies that capped their spot loads have removed the caps on minutes, units, or both because they have to "hit their number".
There is still a place for the young in radio, and I've worked with some immensely talented people just out of college or younger in the last few years. These people will understand the declining value of sending out one signal for all to hear and embrace the concept, technology, and experience that local radio will need to evolve into over the next decade in order to thrive. It can be done, but not by gimmicks or podcasting, but by creating individualized user experiences.
While some companies are working hard to shorten their ads, commercial broadcasting is still a business and sadly the cost of free over the air radio is commercials. Remember Clear Channel's "Less Is More"? Gone. Companies that capped their spot loads have removed the caps on minutes, units, or both because they have to "hit their number".
There is still a place for the young in radio, and I've worked with some immensely talented people just out of college or younger in the last few years. These people will understand the declining value of sending out one signal for all to hear and embrace the concept, technology, and experience that local radio will need to evolve into over the next decade in order to thrive. It can be done, but not by gimmicks or podcasting, but by creating individualized user experiences.
Mark,
I was not writing of a straight pod cast show. More like Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt etc. where I can listen via AM radio to their regular show but their online content (Pod casts, interview transcripts, show notes, links discussion etc.) require a monthly fee for access. Two birds with one stone. With my limited understanding of Social Media (Twitter and Facebook) it is supposed to drive people to a product or company, help products or companies be better known to the internet consumer and to identify consumer trends for companies to capitalize on. Is radio outside such a model to be more listener driven through social media?
This is the problem with on air advertising - does the show support the advertisements or the advertisements support the show. For young people who have grown up with so much access to media without advertising, reduced advertising or what I call passive advertising - banner ads and flashing ads around what they are attending to, but not interrupting or stopping the stream. They are used to this way of receiving advertisements and are not tolerant of interruptions. I on the other hand have grown up and had been desensitized to the interruptions. After no television or cable and getting my media off the web with no, or reduced number of ads I am appalled at the interruptions on television even though I do not believe the quantity of ads has increased. I also listen to AM radio and know when the hard breaks are coming and mute the advertisements. This is what happens to consumers when there is a choice. This is what has happened to commercial radio and television when the age old proven model (From the dawn of radio) ran into internet delivery. I think the answer is time because for most of the existence of the web content has been undervalued i.e. giving away content. Lately the internet has been more on a bent of locking down content and requiring a fee. As this behavior increases it will become the norm and consumers will understand the pay to play mentality. Best example is Netflix. The moment they proposed, what I saw as a modest increase, a whole lot of people bailed, why because they are used to undervalued content. Where are they going to go? Back to commercial television? No more streaming? Eventually content will be seen as more valuable and the older model of advertising interruptions or a Netflix style flat fee for content will win out making commercial television and radio competitive. (At least there is no up front fee to the Telephone Company or Cable Company to hook up to radio. Think about this. My Comcast bill currently is $39.99. That fee is necessary to visit any web site. To listen to radio requires no ISP or fee. And there are still advertisements when I get to most web pages. Radio has none of this tethering to an ISP.)
Your last paragraph is totally correct. But if you think of the internet as each web site is a radio station and each web site is out to capture a specific audience or provide a portal (Google) to all the other content. Web sites are not trying to capture all the traffic only a portion - your words - "These people will understand the declining value of sending out one signal for all to hear..." Most people who run web sites, blog, sell or provide content know they are targeting only certain people not "for all to hear" or read. If you can imagine a porn site with news, weather, interviews and a tech show wrapped around porn. You would say, "That is ludicrous, those who want the porn would be put off by all the other stuff and those wanting all the other stuff would be put off by the porn." Targeting your audience and competing for this select group - which station or web site provides the pertinent content, does it in an entertaining way, making it a finished product is going to get the listeners or the hits. I keep thinking of NPR "All Things Considered" and some of their other programming. My 23 year old son listens to these shows today. We never listened to NPR when he was growing up. I think the attraction is exactly these things. These are not gimmicks they are the nature of radio, the strength of radio and the history of entertainment in this country. Consumers will purchase great programming and radio has a history of providing such a product.
I was not writing of a straight pod cast show. More like Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt etc. where I can listen via AM radio to their regular show but their online content (Pod casts, interview transcripts, show notes, links discussion etc.) require a monthly fee for access. Two birds with one stone. With my limited understanding of Social Media (Twitter and Facebook) it is supposed to drive people to a product or company, help products or companies be better known to the internet consumer and to identify consumer trends for companies to capitalize on. Is radio outside such a model to be more listener driven through social media?
This is the problem with on air advertising - does the show support the advertisements or the advertisements support the show. For young people who have grown up with so much access to media without advertising, reduced advertising or what I call passive advertising - banner ads and flashing ads around what they are attending to, but not interrupting or stopping the stream. They are used to this way of receiving advertisements and are not tolerant of interruptions. I on the other hand have grown up and had been desensitized to the interruptions. After no television or cable and getting my media off the web with no, or reduced number of ads I am appalled at the interruptions on television even though I do not believe the quantity of ads has increased. I also listen to AM radio and know when the hard breaks are coming and mute the advertisements. This is what happens to consumers when there is a choice. This is what has happened to commercial radio and television when the age old proven model (From the dawn of radio) ran into internet delivery. I think the answer is time because for most of the existence of the web content has been undervalued i.e. giving away content. Lately the internet has been more on a bent of locking down content and requiring a fee. As this behavior increases it will become the norm and consumers will understand the pay to play mentality. Best example is Netflix. The moment they proposed, what I saw as a modest increase, a whole lot of people bailed, why because they are used to undervalued content. Where are they going to go? Back to commercial television? No more streaming? Eventually content will be seen as more valuable and the older model of advertising interruptions or a Netflix style flat fee for content will win out making commercial television and radio competitive. (At least there is no up front fee to the Telephone Company or Cable Company to hook up to radio. Think about this. My Comcast bill currently is $39.99. That fee is necessary to visit any web site. To listen to radio requires no ISP or fee. And there are still advertisements when I get to most web pages. Radio has none of this tethering to an ISP.)
Your last paragraph is totally correct. But if you think of the internet as each web site is a radio station and each web site is out to capture a specific audience or provide a portal (Google) to all the other content. Web sites are not trying to capture all the traffic only a portion - your words - "These people will understand the declining value of sending out one signal for all to hear..." Most people who run web sites, blog, sell or provide content know they are targeting only certain people not "for all to hear" or read. If you can imagine a porn site with news, weather, interviews and a tech show wrapped around porn. You would say, "That is ludicrous, those who want the porn would be put off by all the other stuff and those wanting all the other stuff would be put off by the porn." Targeting your audience and competing for this select group - which station or web site provides the pertinent content, does it in an entertaining way, making it a finished product is going to get the listeners or the hits. I keep thinking of NPR "All Things Considered" and some of their other programming. My 23 year old son listens to these shows today. We never listened to NPR when he was growing up. I think the attraction is exactly these things. These are not gimmicks they are the nature of radio, the strength of radio and the history of entertainment in this country. Consumers will purchase great programming and radio has a history of providing such a product.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Wind Turbines, Hancock MA,, November 3, 2011 - Scott Wright Sawyer
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150373431195502
What I said about the above video presented by Mr. Sawyer on his Facebook Wall:
What I said about the above video presented by Mr. Sawyer on his Facebook Wall:
What a way to decimate the beauty and charm of New England ridge lines and forests. Yeah, in Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma where there are desolate places nobody relishes living and not known for their beauty, but their starkness.
I give it five years when we will read about towns and counties in New England, New York and the whole of the Northeast in litigation with bankrupt businesses over abandoned windmills; which will not only be eyesores, but monuments to an abandoned industry like the mills and factories all over the northeast, not to say a danger to public safety of falling apart, blowing down or attractions for the curious and thrill seeker. Expect regular budget items for securing these sites or their removal in governmental budgets in the future as bankruptcy stipulations disavow any responsibility by the failed business. Expect a new industry to arise, requiring enormous sums of money from taxpayers, to sweep behind this failed attempt at power generation and remove these windmills.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Defending Sarah Palin
Defending Sarah Palin
I wrote the following to my brother in-law and thought I would share it here.
I followed a link from NRO about defending Michelle Bachmann to the above commentary. I can't help but remembering, as a wet behind the ears voter hearing and - I have to confess - believing much of the same about another republican outsider called Ronald Reagan. I believe this is exactly why the American people adored him and the "chattering class" and "party elites" could not stand him. I know it is why I admire him. Wasn't there a phrase - "the Teflon president" to describe how all the crap thrown at him never stuck; all the while being gracious, humorous and - the dreaded word - detached. Now when he is gone, everyone comes out from whence they hid and say, "Yes he was one of the best presidents of all time." I can't help but feel the same way I did when Barack Obama came on the scene as the outsider claiming I am an outsider and I will change the atmosphere of Washington DC. I said, "I know these lies, I have herd these lies, I have seen these lies lead to ruin!" Oh, it is Jimmy Carter again!" Well I have the same affinity to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann especially when the party elite say, "NO, no, no, she is unelectable, she is too conservative with her talk of constitutional government, not centrist enough for the independent vote with her patriotism and pride with American exceptional-ism. She will lead the Republican party to dooom, never to recover in our lifetime." I know these truths she talks about, I have heard these truths in the founding documents, I have seen these truths turn this country around and bring prosperity to millions who had little hope and dashed dreams ten years earlier. And I saw a president who believed all of this be despised and ridiculed, stick to his guns under relentless mockery and turn this country around because of his exceptional leadership. "Oh it is Ronald Reagan again." This is why I am all in for a crap shoot for Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann than the white elite smarmy big government centrists of Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich etc. At least Palin and Bachmann generate the ire of the opposition and party elite which is worth a whole lot in political capital.
I wrote the following to my brother in-law and thought I would share it here.
I followed a link from NRO about defending Michelle Bachmann to the above commentary. I can't help but remembering, as a wet behind the ears voter hearing and - I have to confess - believing much of the same about another republican outsider called Ronald Reagan. I believe this is exactly why the American people adored him and the "chattering class" and "party elites" could not stand him. I know it is why I admire him. Wasn't there a phrase - "the Teflon president" to describe how all the crap thrown at him never stuck; all the while being gracious, humorous and - the dreaded word - detached. Now when he is gone, everyone comes out from whence they hid and say, "Yes he was one of the best presidents of all time." I can't help but feel the same way I did when Barack Obama came on the scene as the outsider claiming I am an outsider and I will change the atmosphere of Washington DC. I said, "I know these lies, I have herd these lies, I have seen these lies lead to ruin!" Oh, it is Jimmy Carter again!" Well I have the same affinity to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann especially when the party elite say, "NO, no, no, she is unelectable, she is too conservative with her talk of constitutional government, not centrist enough for the independent vote with her patriotism and pride with American exceptional-ism. She will lead the Republican party to dooom, never to recover in our lifetime." I know these truths she talks about, I have heard these truths in the founding documents, I have seen these truths turn this country around and bring prosperity to millions who had little hope and dashed dreams ten years earlier. And I saw a president who believed all of this be despised and ridiculed, stick to his guns under relentless mockery and turn this country around because of his exceptional leadership. "Oh it is Ronald Reagan again." This is why I am all in for a crap shoot for Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann than the white elite smarmy big government centrists of Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich etc. At least Palin and Bachmann generate the ire of the opposition and party elite which is worth a whole lot in political capital.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077943,00.html
An open letter to my son about the above article.
Thomas,
I read the article you sent me and I understand the argument about how non-conservatives could see this ongoing conservative unwillingness to see any other solution than budget cuts and lower taxes. I think this unwillingness is based on years of rising spending and taxing in this country. I also believe taxpayers have a sense they are getting less and less from the government for more taxes. On a personal note - do you think you should pay more taxes? And if you did how would you manage your budget if you had less money in your pocket because of raised taxes? Do you believe your money which you pay in taxes should be given to a bureaucrat to run an important government program? Or is your circumstance as important or more important than the above bureaucrat and government program? For me, you and Rachelle, your marriage, your dreams, the family you are going to create, your career are infinitely more important than 99.9% of government programs past, present and in the future. So I say do away with them all if it allows you two unlimited opportunities to be successful and accomplished. For me, as a conservative, I have come to believe I can waste my own money just fine, I really don't need government or bureaucrats wasting my money. In fact I believe this sediment runs so deep that in places like California - the state is losing billions in tax revenue because taxpayers are buying outside the state and having things shipped into the state therefore avoiding California sales taxes. A direct byproduct of the tax and spend attitude of California. I mean if a business treats you badly with customer service or the service they claim to provide is less than advertised do you or I continue to populate such a place - "Hell, no" we move on to businesses which treat us well. Why not a state government?
Another observation for conservatives to bolster their understanding of cutting taxes and spending; the situation in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, Ireland and soon to be England and France. These are all fantastic examples of the tax and spend mentality, followed by bureaucrats requesting just a little more taxes and the problems - they will go away. The problems have not been fixed in those countries and it appears the only out is default or austerity programs - cutting spending i.e. cutting government programs. This is a far larger disaster and hardship i.e. losing all your pension money, paying out of control inflation, double digit interest rates and having what savings you have wiped out by the same inflation than it is to have controlled reduction of government spending and more money in citizens pockets from reduced taxes so they can prosper rather than default in bad economic times. A side note to the reduction in taxes - the thinking is with less taxes collected this should lead to an offset of less programs because some conservatives are eternally optimistic that politicians will suddenly wake up out of their slumber and live within their means - has not happened in my lifetime.
Historically the writer is correct. Under Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Reagan economically it was probably harder than it is now. However what he did not say was... Lyndon Johnson! [Updated July 5, 2001 - supporting reference from Walter Russell Mead: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/07/04/the-shame-of-the-cities-and-the-shade-of-lbj/ ]. President Johnson ramped up the Vietnam War, instituted the war on poverty and created Medicare during his presidency which all lead to unprecedented government spending (Deficits, inflation and a burgeoning national debt) and higher taxes - which all the above presidents followed and had to deal with the consequences of. So historically it is not today we should be most concerned about... it is the long term consequences of the current tax and spend behaviors. That is what is most disturbing. And let me be clear all politicians are fraught with this blindness - it is the nature of not always going to be around (Consequences) and special privileges which insulate them from real world circumstances. I find Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, Socialists and Communists unable to think ahead into the future to see what they have set in motion and the eventual consequence.
There are two testimonies which the "raise more taxes and don't cut spending" criers usually will not mention. [July 5, 20011 update supporting article by Thomas Sowell: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271038/politics-vs-reality-thomas-sowell#.ThM1g4Z4MJk.blogger] President Kennedy's reduction of tax rates and cutting of spending and President Reagan's cutting of tax rates and cutting of government spending. Both created a huge increases in tax revenues being collected (President Kennedy's were the impetus for President Johnson's spending.) even though tax rates were cut! Why? Because people worked harder because they got to keep more of their money rather than sending it to the government - people like to do this - make more money without having to give it to someone who may not be working nearly as hard as they are. And because citizens have more money... they spend, save or invest their surplus money stimulating the economy.
Finally the last observation of conservatives is the economy - working, spending, investing, buying however you want to describe the act of money, goods and services - is not the responsibility of the government it is the exclusive area, authority, responsibility and privilege of the citizens to manage and run. That is why you see trillions legislated to "Shovel Ready Jobs" by the government to no avail! Why? Because the citizens do not like government legislating where money should go. (They really hate the slimy people who lobby the politicians into giving them portions of this waste.) See above - citizens want to be in charge of spending, saving and investing and resent the know-it-all politicians confiscating their money to waste. And when they get this feeling they hunker down, stop working hard, cut their expenses, pay less taxes, begin to barter and work under the table, move to places with better jobs and more amicable tax code and punish the politicians because they know they can persevere longer and get rid of them in the short term. If politicians want to stimulate the economy they jump in bed with the citizens and do what the citizens are doing - cutting expenses, paying off debt, saving and collect less taxes from them.
Love you,
Dad
An open letter to my son about the above article.
Thomas,
I read the article you sent me and I understand the argument about how non-conservatives could see this ongoing conservative unwillingness to see any other solution than budget cuts and lower taxes. I think this unwillingness is based on years of rising spending and taxing in this country. I also believe taxpayers have a sense they are getting less and less from the government for more taxes. On a personal note - do you think you should pay more taxes? And if you did how would you manage your budget if you had less money in your pocket because of raised taxes? Do you believe your money which you pay in taxes should be given to a bureaucrat to run an important government program? Or is your circumstance as important or more important than the above bureaucrat and government program? For me, you and Rachelle, your marriage, your dreams, the family you are going to create, your career are infinitely more important than 99.9% of government programs past, present and in the future. So I say do away with them all if it allows you two unlimited opportunities to be successful and accomplished. For me, as a conservative, I have come to believe I can waste my own money just fine, I really don't need government or bureaucrats wasting my money. In fact I believe this sediment runs so deep that in places like California - the state is losing billions in tax revenue because taxpayers are buying outside the state and having things shipped into the state therefore avoiding California sales taxes. A direct byproduct of the tax and spend attitude of California. I mean if a business treats you badly with customer service or the service they claim to provide is less than advertised do you or I continue to populate such a place - "Hell, no" we move on to businesses which treat us well. Why not a state government?
Another observation for conservatives to bolster their understanding of cutting taxes and spending; the situation in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, Ireland and soon to be England and France. These are all fantastic examples of the tax and spend mentality, followed by bureaucrats requesting just a little more taxes and the problems - they will go away. The problems have not been fixed in those countries and it appears the only out is default or austerity programs - cutting spending i.e. cutting government programs. This is a far larger disaster and hardship i.e. losing all your pension money, paying out of control inflation, double digit interest rates and having what savings you have wiped out by the same inflation than it is to have controlled reduction of government spending and more money in citizens pockets from reduced taxes so they can prosper rather than default in bad economic times. A side note to the reduction in taxes - the thinking is with less taxes collected this should lead to an offset of less programs because some conservatives are eternally optimistic that politicians will suddenly wake up out of their slumber and live within their means - has not happened in my lifetime.
Historically the writer is correct. Under Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Reagan economically it was probably harder than it is now. However what he did not say was... Lyndon Johnson! [Updated July 5, 2001 - supporting reference from Walter Russell Mead: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/07/04/the-shame-of-the-cities-and-the-shade-of-lbj/ ]. President Johnson ramped up the Vietnam War, instituted the war on poverty and created Medicare during his presidency which all lead to unprecedented government spending (Deficits, inflation and a burgeoning national debt) and higher taxes - which all the above presidents followed and had to deal with the consequences of. So historically it is not today we should be most concerned about... it is the long term consequences of the current tax and spend behaviors. That is what is most disturbing. And let me be clear all politicians are fraught with this blindness - it is the nature of not always going to be around (Consequences) and special privileges which insulate them from real world circumstances. I find Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, Socialists and Communists unable to think ahead into the future to see what they have set in motion and the eventual consequence.
There are two testimonies which the "raise more taxes and don't cut spending" criers usually will not mention. [July 5, 20011 update supporting article by Thomas Sowell: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271038/politics-vs-reality-thomas-sowell#.ThM1g4Z4MJk.blogger] President Kennedy's reduction of tax rates and cutting of spending and President Reagan's cutting of tax rates and cutting of government spending. Both created a huge increases in tax revenues being collected (President Kennedy's were the impetus for President Johnson's spending.) even though tax rates were cut! Why? Because people worked harder because they got to keep more of their money rather than sending it to the government - people like to do this - make more money without having to give it to someone who may not be working nearly as hard as they are. And because citizens have more money... they spend, save or invest their surplus money stimulating the economy.
Finally the last observation of conservatives is the economy - working, spending, investing, buying however you want to describe the act of money, goods and services - is not the responsibility of the government it is the exclusive area, authority, responsibility and privilege of the citizens to manage and run. That is why you see trillions legislated to "Shovel Ready Jobs" by the government to no avail! Why? Because the citizens do not like government legislating where money should go. (They really hate the slimy people who lobby the politicians into giving them portions of this waste.) See above - citizens want to be in charge of spending, saving and investing and resent the know-it-all politicians confiscating their money to waste. And when they get this feeling they hunker down, stop working hard, cut their expenses, pay less taxes, begin to barter and work under the table, move to places with better jobs and more amicable tax code and punish the politicians because they know they can persevere longer and get rid of them in the short term. If politicians want to stimulate the economy they jump in bed with the citizens and do what the citizens are doing - cutting expenses, paying off debt, saving and collect less taxes from them.
Love you,
Dad
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Howard Dean warns Democrats Sarah Palin could beat Obama in 2012 - TheHill.com
Operative quote:
"Bruce Cain, a political science and public policy professor and director of the University of California Washington Center, subscribes to the prevailing view that Palin would be a weak opponent against Obama.
“I stand with conventional wisdom that she’s way too flawed,” Cain. “Polls show that many women and independent voters aren’t happy with her.”"
Wow! Then I guess the Democrats are looking for a new nominee? Because "conventional wisdom" is Barrack Obama has the same problem of being "...way too flawed..."
Let me clarify - polls also show "...that many women and independent voters aren’t happy with ...[Barrack Obama].” I would bet my bottom dollar that there are more women and independents unhappy with Barrack Obama than with Sarah Palin, or for that matter any of the known Republican nominees. What a bunch of gobbledygook from a nobody!
"Bruce Cain, a political science and public policy professor and director of the University of California Washington Center, subscribes to the prevailing view that Palin would be a weak opponent against Obama.
“I stand with conventional wisdom that she’s way too flawed,” Cain. “Polls show that many women and independent voters aren’t happy with her.”"
Wow! Then I guess the Democrats are looking for a new nominee? Because "conventional wisdom" is Barrack Obama has the same problem of being "...way too flawed..."
Let me clarify - polls also show "...that many women and independent voters aren’t happy with ...[Barrack Obama].” I would bet my bottom dollar that there are more women and independents unhappy with Barrack Obama than with Sarah Palin, or for that matter any of the known Republican nominees. What a bunch of gobbledygook from a nobody!
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Netanyahu Addresses Congress - HUMAN EVENTS
The operative paragraphs I will be pulling from:
"Netanyahu knows that Israel is “the one anchor of stability in a sea of shifting alliances.” It is the beacon of freedom and democracy in a land sick with violence and oppression. “Israel has always been pro-America,” he told Congress. “Israel will always be pro-America. You don’t need to do nation building in Israel. We’re already built. You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it. You don’t need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves!”
"Netanyahu knows that Israel is “the one anchor of stability in a sea of shifting alliances.” It is the beacon of freedom and democracy in a land sick with violence and oppression. “Israel has always been pro-America,” he told Congress. “Israel will always be pro-America. You don’t need to do nation building in Israel. We’re already built. You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it. You don’t need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves!”
He contrasted Israel with the “medieval rule of Hezbollah inflicted on Lebanon after the Cedar Revolution,” and especially Iran, foremost among the “powerful forces that oppose modernity, democracy, and peace.” Meanwhile, “only in Israel to Arabs enjoy real democratic rights. Only one-half of one percent of Arabs are truly free, and they’re all citizens of Israel.”
As the Prime Minister put it, “Israel is not what is wrong with the Middle East. Israel is what is right with the Middle East.”"
Nor is this the first time Obama has been rolled by the Israeli prime minister. Obama came into office demanding an end to all new or expanded settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, and subsequently backed down from each and every demand. Fed up, his Mideast peace negotiator George Mitchell has quit. Politically, too, the president has been hurt. To the world, and not just the Arabs, he appears weak. In Israel, Netanyahu is seen as having stood up for Israel's vital interests and forced an American president to back down. His right-wing coalition is cheering him on.
Indeed, the issue is not whether Obama has been hurt, but why Bibi, raised in the U.S.A., who knows American politics better than any previous Israeli prime minister, did it. Why wound Obama like that?
Why would the leader of a nation of 7 million that is dependent on U.S. arms, foreign aid and diplomatic support choose to humiliate a president who could be sitting in that office until 2017?"
So what is the leader of Israel accomplishing in this climate in words and deeds? Well I believe the environment in the Middle East is positive for the future and the opening act to this positive change is already playing. Part of this first act has been taken by both Presidents Bush and Obama by both pushing for Israel to concede more land and concessions for peace; by refusing to ally with Israel in an attack on Iran's nuclear bomb production facilities; by not insisting on the symbolic move of the US embassy to Jerusalem and finally by not clearly delineating the vast chasm between Israel the Arab states and Iran in the middle east. So what would the leader of a vibrant - powerful - democratic - prosperous - global - stable - resolute - nuclear nation, who sees a weak leader in the US President - who has by his remarks rebuffed the strongest horse in the Middle East and has instead thrown in with thugs and murderers - decide to do differently? I remember a line from a movie "I don't like you because you're going to get me killed!" Benjhamin Netanayahu has decided going down the same road with Obama and the US is going to get a lot of Israeli citizens killed. For the first time a Prime Minister has stopped kowtowing to a US President and the US itself, put the strategic national interests of Israel as the priority and stated by his words and deeds we are going to make and take a new road - the democratic lead and go it alone. Look what he said to the Joint session of congress: "Israel will always be pro-America." Does that sound like the weak horse talking to the strong horse? Is it not historically said, "America will always be pro-Israel?" Or this, "You don’t need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves!” How does the weak horse tell the strong horse we don't need you to defend us, unless you believe you are the stronger horse! Or this,“only in Israel do Arabs enjoy real democratic rights. Only one-half of one percent of Arabs are truly free, and they’re all citizens of Israel.” Are not Arabs who are American citizens also free? Look at his deeds: "Obama came into office demanding an end to all new or expanded settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, and subsequently backed down from each and every demand." Or this, "The president was humiliated in the Oval Office, and in his trip to AIPAC's woodshed he spoke of the future peace negotiations ending just as Israelis desire and demand." There is no reference to Netanyahu in these quotes, but it is because of his leadership and resolution Obama's demands have been rebuffed.
I believe for the first time Israel, under Benjamin Netanyahu, has come out of the shadows of America and stepped one up on the podium of democracies over America. Notice what Pat Buchanan alludes to: "Politically, too, the president has been hurt. To the world, and not just the Arabs, he appears weak." It reminds me of the scene in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" where Butch's authority is being questioned - he humiliates the challenger in a fight to send a message. If you want your enemies and friends to know where you are in the pecking order you humiliate the top dog into deference and a clear message is sent. And Benjamion Netanyahu clearly sent a message to Israel's friends and enemies - Israel is not going to wait on the United States or the weak President to spank anyone of them. And what a time to send this message, because which legitimate Arab country is going to try and spank Israel? Egypt? Libya? Syria? Jordan? Saudi Arabia? Yemen? How about Iran? The world for more than half a century lived the delusion these were legitimate countries. We believed these "leaders" were leading legitimate countries. They are not, they are just despots, dictators supported by oligarchies and military's. The rest of the people have been, or know people who have been brutalized, or murdered by the loyal oligarchy. Despots usually kill any opposition leaders and any intelligent elite whom might be able to mount a rebellion or overthrow the dictator.. So any loyalty by the boots on the ground soldier is only to his survival. There is no loyalty to cruelty. If you assassinate the despot, wipe out the oligarchy and drop a few bombs on the military's foot soldiers they will run away into the desert. These "nations" have no identity, no national pride, no national values, no national institutions, no meaningful societal structure or stability. Any structure in place is to secure the dictators place in power. If you wipe out the top the "Arab Street" falls back into seventh century tribal affiliations and Islamic law. From the West's perspective neither the infighting of tribes nor the division of Islam into Shia and Sunni produces a peace or solidarity. Instead they have lead to an exponential number of killings among Arabs and Persians as compared to infidels. From where will the foot soldiers come from then to attack Israel? Will they be jihadists attacking Israels borders? We recently saw how well thugs did attacking Israel's secure borders.
In contrast Israel is a country with the necessary elements of a civilized nation, firmly rooted in laws thousands of years old, a history thousands of years old followed by generations, and with a resolve to never again be endangered by any nation or peoples. Israel's resolve is not just in the Jewish psyche, but it's manifested in it's military might and ability - the military has atomic weapons at it's disposal. America does not have the history of the Holocaust and the resolve which comes from such a horrific event. What fool thinks the mirages of Arab/Persian power and authority are going to somehow dislodge and overpower such a spirit? The fools in Iran believe they can by developing atomic weapons. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust at his peril for it is what drives the Jewish people of Israel to excel, succeed and prevail. The only nation in the Mideast which can come close right now to Israels nuclear might is Pakistan but lo they have limited missile range (300 Kilometers) and F16's only for delivery (http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/panukes.html). So with Israels greater nuclear arsenal (estimated at 200) and vastly superior delivery system of missiles capable of 1500 kilometers (http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/isnukes.html#mirage5 - I noticed the date of publication is 1996 and submarine delivery was not mentioned which I believe Israel is working on.) can we conceivably assume Israel is on a long range strategic military offensive to stay on top of the heap? Of course they are. They are most assuredly retrofitting an airliner (http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=204626) into a midair tanker for long range flying, developing conventional bunker buster bombs, refreshing it's intelligence, retrofitting their fighters to counter antiaircraft missiles and putting into play the attack plan. The Stuxnet worm was the opening salvo - slow down the Iranian development and buy the Israelis time to perfect and practice the attack plan; assure the attack plan includes vital facilities in the chain of development of the Iranian nuclear bomb. Maybe the Israelis are actually preparing something more spectacular like missile attacks rather than conventional fighter delivery, or maybe both. How do I know this is happening? Because it is what a strong Israel will do with leadership from Benjamin Netanyahu. It is what an America with strong leadership would do! Which brings me back to who is on top of the heap. Who would you bet on in this little skirmish?
So what is the middle east going to look like when Iran is spanked? Will the naysayers tremble at the upset of power by such a provocation? Oh wait where are the legitimate naysayers? The U.N.? Hah, there is a den of whores, thieves, despots and delegitimate cretins. The EU? The beaurocrats in Brussells will deliver proclamation after proclamation with meaningless authority as will the U.N. Oh and the powerful Arab League - see above. China? Russia? Japan? No, I count a few legitimate countries which I would see as holding sway and the U.S. is clearly not one of them - again see above. The two I see as bringing strength to bear are Canada and Germany by their economic strength, but alas where are their military's? Where is their strength of force - they obfuscated it to a super power which appears to no longer want to be a super power - kind of a dilemma when you want to have legitimacy. So Israel will do what it needs and nations will lament and foment with rhetoric about the Jewish Zionist nation stepping out of line, all for naught - Israel will still be on top. Will the Iranian's boldly mine the Persian Gulf and attack tankers to disrupt the oil supply chain? Or is there a more positive outcome of the attack - cutting the legs out from under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and making him a weak power by destroying the thing which would bring him legitimacy. By undermining his legitimacy might this do more to hasten his exit by the people, to embolden the opposition, to deflate the Imams, Hamas, The Taliban and Al Queda of the notion of a Calaphate and instead bring about the rebirth of the Jewish state of The Old Testament?
I believe a time is coming when Israel will be the preeminent and soul major power in the Mideast even eclipsing America's influence. If Israel draws itself up for the monumental task - there will be sacrifice and loss of life in the destruction of the Iranian nuclear weapon. The jihadists will delight in, cheer and feel emboldened by the death of the infidel Jews, but miss the bigger historical significance of "The Little Satan" Israel decapitating the greatest Islamic nation - it's worst threat ever and ending up being the 21st century democratic nation.
End Medicare - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online
The operative quote - and this is a very well written piece about Medicare and it's history all taxpayers should read -:
"Medicare is a scam. The people who designed and perpetuated it would be serving more jail time than Bernie Madoff if they pulled a fraud like it in the private sector. As it is for the victims Madoff swindled, so it is for we who’ve been swindled by Washington: The money is gone. We can make provisions for the needy elderly who are about to hit eligibility and have relied on Medicare in their assumptions. But the party is over — and the sooner we grasp that, the fewer victims there will be.
Preserving a scam in the vain hope of making it less offensive may be well-meaning, but it’s not right, and it’s not courageous."
My first thought is to substitute "Social Security" anywhere there is a "Medicare" since I consider both scams. So if this was a private investor who scammed me out of my money I would be talking to them about, "What is it that you do have for me to compensate me for my loss?" "That or jail time, which shall it be?" Well I believe this is the answer for taxpayers, yes you - The Federal Government - the bureaucracy - and our representatives - long dead socialists shysters have scammed us, "So what do you have for us to compensate us for your incompetence, lying and stealing?" "It's that or go to jail" "So how about - at 65 years of age as long as I never take a penny of Social Security, pay for my own medical needs out of my own pocket, ah, lets see, um, I don't ever have to file a federal tax return or have any federal taxes or medicare taken out of my paycheck whether I am working or not!" This means all I file is a tax exemption form with an attached document from Social Security and Medicare stating I am 65 or older and have not accessed either program for that year. The minute I use either program I fall back into the "regular tax scam" called the "Tax Code." Or we could offer a stepped approach you don't use Social Security but you access medicare then you pay half federal taxes no social security and full medicare taxes. If you use Social Security but not Medicare then vise versa. The point is you scammed us, you - bureaucrats and politicians - said it would be solvent the money would be there, it is not so we want a real "New Deal" without your dirty corrupt hands controlling our retirements and old age.
So I can think of three arguments against - "It would be unfair to those who have to stay on Social Security and Medicare!" How is a scam fair in the first place? Now some may say it is unequal and it is, but the alternative is no Social Security and Medicare security for those who need it, and that would also be just as unequal.
The second argument is that what about those paying into the system how is it fair to them. My answer is there are two parts to deconstructing Social Security and Medicare. The first is the payees the baby boomers who were born in the middle of the last century - which I addressed above, they were the ones the grand promises were made to by long dead socialists shysters and who paid into both these programs from the day they began working - and the payers who were born in the eighties and nineties of the last century and they have not been promised anything and probably believe they will never draw anything from these entitlement programs. These are two separate problems which when combine make up Social Security and Medicare. They are also two different mind sets - one an expectation of deservedness and the other and expectation of unjustness. So the incentive for those paying into Social Security to do something different will be different from those who are receiving payments. So the answer is to offer an incentive as lucrative to the payer as the incentive to the payee.
The third argument is: "We will always need Social Security and Medicare. The stock market, retirement plans and medical costs are unreliable and most Americans cannot manage this by themselves, why look at the situation we are in right now the Stock Market is down, retirees are not making any interest on their accounts, etc., etc., etc!" (Sound of gnashing of teeth, wailing and bemoaning) And how is that going - which institution is in the news right now predicted to default - the stock market or, or, or the federal government! So much for reliability! And why is it that countries are not buying US treasury securities, yes you guessed it they are worthless! But the Stock Market is up. So the answer as always is to give American citizens an incentive to go it alone without the federal governments interference.
My mindset for all voters when listening to politicians speak about solving Social Security and Medicares insolvency; if they are not talking about fundamental change from the last century model of government managed to the 21st model of citizen managed they should turn away and listen for the lonesome voice for real change.
"Medicare is a scam. The people who designed and perpetuated it would be serving more jail time than Bernie Madoff if they pulled a fraud like it in the private sector. As it is for the victims Madoff swindled, so it is for we who’ve been swindled by Washington: The money is gone. We can make provisions for the needy elderly who are about to hit eligibility and have relied on Medicare in their assumptions. But the party is over — and the sooner we grasp that, the fewer victims there will be.
Preserving a scam in the vain hope of making it less offensive may be well-meaning, but it’s not right, and it’s not courageous."
My first thought is to substitute "Social Security" anywhere there is a "Medicare" since I consider both scams. So if this was a private investor who scammed me out of my money I would be talking to them about, "What is it that you do have for me to compensate me for my loss?" "That or jail time, which shall it be?" Well I believe this is the answer for taxpayers, yes you - The Federal Government - the bureaucracy - and our representatives - long dead socialists shysters have scammed us, "So what do you have for us to compensate us for your incompetence, lying and stealing?" "It's that or go to jail" "So how about - at 65 years of age as long as I never take a penny of Social Security, pay for my own medical needs out of my own pocket, ah, lets see, um, I don't ever have to file a federal tax return or have any federal taxes or medicare taken out of my paycheck whether I am working or not!" This means all I file is a tax exemption form with an attached document from Social Security and Medicare stating I am 65 or older and have not accessed either program for that year. The minute I use either program I fall back into the "regular tax scam" called the "Tax Code." Or we could offer a stepped approach you don't use Social Security but you access medicare then you pay half federal taxes no social security and full medicare taxes. If you use Social Security but not Medicare then vise versa. The point is you scammed us, you - bureaucrats and politicians - said it would be solvent the money would be there, it is not so we want a real "New Deal" without your dirty corrupt hands controlling our retirements and old age.
So I can think of three arguments against - "It would be unfair to those who have to stay on Social Security and Medicare!" How is a scam fair in the first place? Now some may say it is unequal and it is, but the alternative is no Social Security and Medicare security for those who need it, and that would also be just as unequal.
The second argument is that what about those paying into the system how is it fair to them. My answer is there are two parts to deconstructing Social Security and Medicare. The first is the payees the baby boomers who were born in the middle of the last century - which I addressed above, they were the ones the grand promises were made to by long dead socialists shysters and who paid into both these programs from the day they began working - and the payers who were born in the eighties and nineties of the last century and they have not been promised anything and probably believe they will never draw anything from these entitlement programs. These are two separate problems which when combine make up Social Security and Medicare. They are also two different mind sets - one an expectation of deservedness and the other and expectation of unjustness. So the incentive for those paying into Social Security to do something different will be different from those who are receiving payments. So the answer is to offer an incentive as lucrative to the payer as the incentive to the payee.
The third argument is: "We will always need Social Security and Medicare. The stock market, retirement plans and medical costs are unreliable and most Americans cannot manage this by themselves, why look at the situation we are in right now the Stock Market is down, retirees are not making any interest on their accounts, etc., etc., etc!" (Sound of gnashing of teeth, wailing and bemoaning) And how is that going - which institution is in the news right now predicted to default - the stock market or, or, or the federal government! So much for reliability! And why is it that countries are not buying US treasury securities, yes you guessed it they are worthless! But the Stock Market is up. So the answer as always is to give American citizens an incentive to go it alone without the federal governments interference.
My mindset for all voters when listening to politicians speak about solving Social Security and Medicares insolvency; if they are not talking about fundamental change from the last century model of government managed to the 21st model of citizen managed they should turn away and listen for the lonesome voice for real change.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Mother of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Love Child Revealed - ABC News
There are some very pleasant silver linings for conservative Republican voters who refused to hold their nose and "vote for the win" as they were instructed to when Arrrrrrrrrnold was running for governor and the incumbent reelection. There are two which I wish to address.
This messy, nasty sorrid, shocking, dishonarable affair has done what only Arrrrrrrrrrrrrnold could do - drive a stake in his own political career and end allllllll speculation of him ever moving on into a larger political career! He will now crawl back under the rock he came from and never be referred to again by Country Club Republicans as an up and coming shinning star. Egg on face is not a positive image and does not win others to your side.
The second is a myth which has had a stake driven into it - the myth that voting for the win is all that matters. I submit honor is a higher standard than holding your nose and voting for the party candidate. At the end of the day - or at the end of a life - most of us want to be able to say we have been honorable, had integrity and made mostly good decisions. This is a decision - not voting for Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnold - I will not have to cop to. Yeah! I wish I had some good whiskey I could toast with - knowing I stuck to my principles and got one over on the elite know-it-alls. This should become a verb - Arrrrrrrrrrrnolized. Meaning hood winked, scammed, suckered by a slimy, low life of a candidate. Or maybe Edwardized after John Edwards? Or it could be - like in Spanish the feminine and masculine form - in this case the democrat and republican form of the word. Needless to say when the Republican elite say this is the candidate you must vote for "for the win" I believe we all now have been bestowed to repudiate their choice and to say something like, "" a verb & a pronoun," I have some honor, a little integrity and a whole lot of wisdom and I will not be Arrrrrrrrrrrnolized."
This messy, nasty sorrid, shocking, dishonarable affair has done what only Arrrrrrrrrrrrrnold could do - drive a stake in his own political career and end allllllll speculation of him ever moving on into a larger political career! He will now crawl back under the rock he came from and never be referred to again by Country Club Republicans as an up and coming shinning star. Egg on face is not a positive image and does not win others to your side.
The second is a myth which has had a stake driven into it - the myth that voting for the win is all that matters. I submit honor is a higher standard than holding your nose and voting for the party candidate. At the end of the day - or at the end of a life - most of us want to be able to say we have been honorable, had integrity and made mostly good decisions. This is a decision - not voting for Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnold - I will not have to cop to. Yeah! I wish I had some good whiskey I could toast with - knowing I stuck to my principles and got one over on the elite know-it-alls. This should become a verb - Arrrrrrrrrrrnolized. Meaning hood winked, scammed, suckered by a slimy, low life of a candidate. Or maybe Edwardized after John Edwards? Or it could be - like in Spanish the feminine and masculine form - in this case the democrat and republican form of the word. Needless to say when the Republican elite say this is the candidate you must vote for "for the win" I believe we all now have been bestowed to repudiate their choice and to say something like, "" a verb & a pronoun," I have some honor, a little integrity and a whole lot of wisdom and I will not be Arrrrrrrrrrrnolized."
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Carbon Monoxide Detectors, Doug Brown, Neighbors InDeed, Sun City Lincoln
Sorry no link to the article. The story came through the local neighborhood paper "The Woodcreek News" May 20111 edition.
Operative quotes:
"On July 1 of this year, a new [Another] California law goes into effect.... Senate Bill 183 requiring placement of carbon monoxide detectors in all California single family dwellings."
"There are 30 to 40 "avoidable deaths" each year in California stemming from CO poisoning. So an easily plugged-in "gizmo" is well worth the minor cost, right?"
"And of course, if you plan to sell your house, or you're a landlord, you must install one or risk a fine of about $200.00. Ouch!"
This is so do-goodery - if there is such a word - and so misconceived and heavy handed as to be only from communist California. There are 36,961,664 people (Google - http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html ) in California. So the percentage of population 40 people represents is: .00000108220236. So much for risk analysis and cost effectiveness studies. Are the do-gooders at the state capitol insane? Has life in California come to this kind of risk avoidance where we are chasing this infinitesimal number in saved lives?
Second there are 11.5 million (Google -http://www.zillow.com/advice-thread/How-many-Single-family-homes-are-in-California/226480/) "single family dwellings." My home, built in 1996, has 6 smoke alarms which I assume the law says I have to replace them all. But for an average overall for California lets assume 50% or 3 carbon monoxide detectors per home. so again math is great! 11,500,000 X 3 X $20.00(The cheapest cost of detectors from the above article.). A whopping total of $690,000,000.00 spent on just the detectors. So much for the above statement "...well worth the minor cost, right?" Love the "right?" at the end - like Mr. Brown is saying, "any imbassile can see it is worth the cost!" No Mr. Brown not everyone assumes it is "worth the cost." I surely don't think it is worth the cost when I divide the $690,000,000 by the 40 lives it will save and see it is costing: $17,250,000 to save each of these 40 lives. Geez with this kind of cost analysis and cost effectiveness the do-gooders are going to pass a law to - save the 350 children who die in car accidents from head trauma - all children 4 years old ( 4 years and older because younger toddler's neck will be broken by the weight of the helmet in an accident.) to 18 years old must wear crash helmets in the car at all times. Better still - all children to age 15 or 165 pounds, which ever comes first, will have to be strapped into a car seat and cannot ride in the front because we can save another 125 children from vehicle deaths (Most California parents will take their kids to McDonalds and supersize their kid's meals so they can become obese and go over the 165 pound limit earlier.). Absolutely not Mr. Brown. I don't think this is a very good idea. I think the housing market and the state economy cannot absorb 690 million dollars worthlessly spent on carbon monoxide detectors. This is like the state throwing $690,000,000 worth of taxes away. The
"ouch," Mr. Brown, is in this whole cockamamy idea to try and save 40 people.
The fine; for me, I am making an assumption about having to replace all my hard wired smoke detectors because assuming I sell my house and I have installed combination detectors where my smoke detectors were I cannot be held liable for incorrect installation when the new buyers die from carbon monoxide poisoning. I also assume, in my case, the cost of each is going to be above the $20.00 and more like $35.00 (Hard wired devices). So the cost, plus installation and risk of falling and killing myself (There is a risk they did not factor in - the number of deaths caused by people falling off ladders and killing themselves installing carbon monoxide detectors in place of smoke detectors. Probably 80 people will die.) I will pay the $200.00 fine or reduce the cost of my home $500.00 so the new buyer can install carbon monoxide devices.
As a political person this is obviously a quid-pro-quo law lobbied for by the 2, or 3 manufacturers of smoke alarms/carbon monoxide detectors who's business has tanked with the crashing of the housing market. What a better way to create new business. Rather than businesses depending on the free market and advertising to convince consumers of the need for carbon monoxide detectors, they lobby some state do-gooder legislator to introduce a law, have it passed by the lock-step do-gooders at the California Capitol and signed by Moonbeam do-gooder Jerry Brown, or is it do-gooder Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhrnold - Girlie Boy - Schwarzenegger which requires all "single family dwellings" be required to install carbon monoxide detectors or replace older smoke detectors with newer smoke detectors with carbon monoxide detectors. I guess this is a prime example of follow the money, or (Estimated) $640,000,000. Which leads me to the next scam. Aren't most carbon monoxide producing devices in California "single family units" required to have a permit and inspection when installed? The only ones I am aware of which do not require such an inspection are gas stoves, gas driers and space heaters using kerosene or natural gas. So how are those 40 "avoidable deaths" dieing? Now if they are dieing from permitted and inspected installations should not the law address engineers and inspectors being held liable rather than assuming they did not investigate, approve and inspect the installation and there is a need for detectors to protect citizens from their incompetence? And if the deaths are caused by the improper use, or installation of fireplaces, stoves, space heaters and driers maybe the law should only apply to those who purchase such devices - like a mandatory carbon monoxide device sold with each of these devices; or better yet a carbon monoxide detector built into each of these devices to sound when they malfunction! What am I doing! It doesn't matter we don't need any of this the likely hood you are going to die from carbon monoxide poisoning is .00000108220236 as a percentage of the population; nothing, nada, zilch.!
Operative quotes:
"On July 1 of this year, a new [Another] California law goes into effect.... Senate Bill 183 requiring placement of carbon monoxide detectors in all California single family dwellings."
"There are 30 to 40 "avoidable deaths" each year in California stemming from CO poisoning. So an easily plugged-in "gizmo" is well worth the minor cost, right?"
"And of course, if you plan to sell your house, or you're a landlord, you must install one or risk a fine of about $200.00. Ouch!"
This is so do-goodery - if there is such a word - and so misconceived and heavy handed as to be only from communist California. There are 36,961,664 people (Google - http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html ) in California. So the percentage of population 40 people represents is: .00000108220236. So much for risk analysis and cost effectiveness studies. Are the do-gooders at the state capitol insane? Has life in California come to this kind of risk avoidance where we are chasing this infinitesimal number in saved lives?
Second there are 11.5 million (Google -http://www.zillow.com/advice-thread/How-many-Single-family-homes-are-in-California/226480/) "single family dwellings." My home, built in 1996, has 6 smoke alarms which I assume the law says I have to replace them all. But for an average overall for California lets assume 50% or 3 carbon monoxide detectors per home. so again math is great! 11,500,000 X 3 X $20.00(The cheapest cost of detectors from the above article.). A whopping total of $690,000,000.00 spent on just the detectors. So much for the above statement "...well worth the minor cost, right?" Love the "right?" at the end - like Mr. Brown is saying, "any imbassile can see it is worth the cost!" No Mr. Brown not everyone assumes it is "worth the cost." I surely don't think it is worth the cost when I divide the $690,000,000 by the 40 lives it will save and see it is costing: $17,250,000 to save each of these 40 lives. Geez with this kind of cost analysis and cost effectiveness the do-gooders are going to pass a law to - save the 350 children who die in car accidents from head trauma - all children 4 years old ( 4 years and older because younger toddler's neck will be broken by the weight of the helmet in an accident.) to 18 years old must wear crash helmets in the car at all times. Better still - all children to age 15 or 165 pounds, which ever comes first, will have to be strapped into a car seat and cannot ride in the front because we can save another 125 children from vehicle deaths (Most California parents will take their kids to McDonalds and supersize their kid's meals so they can become obese and go over the 165 pound limit earlier.). Absolutely not Mr. Brown. I don't think this is a very good idea. I think the housing market and the state economy cannot absorb 690 million dollars worthlessly spent on carbon monoxide detectors. This is like the state throwing $690,000,000 worth of taxes away. The
"ouch," Mr. Brown, is in this whole cockamamy idea to try and save 40 people.
The fine; for me, I am making an assumption about having to replace all my hard wired smoke detectors because assuming I sell my house and I have installed combination detectors where my smoke detectors were I cannot be held liable for incorrect installation when the new buyers die from carbon monoxide poisoning. I also assume, in my case, the cost of each is going to be above the $20.00 and more like $35.00 (Hard wired devices). So the cost, plus installation and risk of falling and killing myself (There is a risk they did not factor in - the number of deaths caused by people falling off ladders and killing themselves installing carbon monoxide detectors in place of smoke detectors. Probably 80 people will die.) I will pay the $200.00 fine or reduce the cost of my home $500.00 so the new buyer can install carbon monoxide devices.
As a political person this is obviously a quid-pro-quo law lobbied for by the 2, or 3 manufacturers of smoke alarms/carbon monoxide detectors who's business has tanked with the crashing of the housing market. What a better way to create new business. Rather than businesses depending on the free market and advertising to convince consumers of the need for carbon monoxide detectors, they lobby some state do-gooder legislator to introduce a law, have it passed by the lock-step do-gooders at the California Capitol and signed by Moonbeam do-gooder Jerry Brown, or is it do-gooder Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhrnold - Girlie Boy - Schwarzenegger which requires all "single family dwellings" be required to install carbon monoxide detectors or replace older smoke detectors with newer smoke detectors with carbon monoxide detectors. I guess this is a prime example of follow the money, or (Estimated) $640,000,000. Which leads me to the next scam. Aren't most carbon monoxide producing devices in California "single family units" required to have a permit and inspection when installed? The only ones I am aware of which do not require such an inspection are gas stoves, gas driers and space heaters using kerosene or natural gas. So how are those 40 "avoidable deaths" dieing? Now if they are dieing from permitted and inspected installations should not the law address engineers and inspectors being held liable rather than assuming they did not investigate, approve and inspect the installation and there is a need for detectors to protect citizens from their incompetence? And if the deaths are caused by the improper use, or installation of fireplaces, stoves, space heaters and driers maybe the law should only apply to those who purchase such devices - like a mandatory carbon monoxide device sold with each of these devices; or better yet a carbon monoxide detector built into each of these devices to sound when they malfunction! What am I doing! It doesn't matter we don't need any of this the likely hood you are going to die from carbon monoxide poisoning is .00000108220236 as a percentage of the population; nothing, nada, zilch.!
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Leahy urges Apple, Google to testify at Senate privacy hearing - The Hill's Hillicon Valley
Operative quotes:
"The incidents come as bipartisan momentum builds on the Hill for new legislation that lays out how companies must use and protect consumers' personal information. Lawmakers from both parties and both chambers have recently introduced privacy legislation, while consumer advocates have pressed for the creation of a Do Not Track list for consumers.
"The collection and storage of sensitive location information has serious implications regarding the privacy rights and personal safety of American consumers," Leahy said.
"While there are many benefits to innovative technologies like the [Android Phone/iPhone], American consumers deserve to know the potential risks that these new technologies pose to their privacy and security.""
Ah, another Boozo caught in Googles web and forever trapped by his own words! The federal government - represented by Mr. Leahy - shoving it's oversized bulbous alcoholic nose into the affairs of private corporations and declaring: "The collection and storage of sensitive location information has serious implications regarding the privacy rights and personal safety of American consumers," Leahy said." Oh really? What overreaching, massive, unaccountable, law busting, inconsistent, irresponsible organization overshadows all others in it's lackadaisical behaviors with secretly investigating, securing and it's dissemination of citizens private communications, documents and personal information? "What is that saying, hummm, something about healing and thyself - oh yeah right - physician heal thyself!" Better yet, Mr. Leahy - take the log out of the Federal Governments eye before addressing the sliver in Google's and Apples' eyes!
Mr. Leahy if you would like credibility, open a hearing on testimony about The Federal Government and it's attack on citizens 4th Amendment Rights, mainly: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
"The incidents come as bipartisan momentum builds on the Hill for new legislation that lays out how companies must use and protect consumers' personal information. Lawmakers from both parties and both chambers have recently introduced privacy legislation, while consumer advocates have pressed for the creation of a Do Not Track list for consumers.
"The collection and storage of sensitive location information has serious implications regarding the privacy rights and personal safety of American consumers," Leahy said.
"While there are many benefits to innovative technologies like the [Android Phone/iPhone], American consumers deserve to know the potential risks that these new technologies pose to their privacy and security.""
Ah, another Boozo caught in Googles web and forever trapped by his own words! The federal government - represented by Mr. Leahy - shoving it's oversized bulbous alcoholic nose into the affairs of private corporations and declaring: "The collection and storage of sensitive location information has serious implications regarding the privacy rights and personal safety of American consumers," Leahy said." Oh really? What overreaching, massive, unaccountable, law busting, inconsistent, irresponsible organization overshadows all others in it's lackadaisical behaviors with secretly investigating, securing and it's dissemination of citizens private communications, documents and personal information? "What is that saying, hummm, something about healing and thyself - oh yeah right - physician heal thyself!" Better yet, Mr. Leahy - take the log out of the Federal Governments eye before addressing the sliver in Google's and Apples' eyes!
Mr. Leahy if you would like credibility, open a hearing on testimony about The Federal Government and it's attack on citizens 4th Amendment Rights, mainly: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Obama releases birth certificate; condemns ‘carnival barkers’ - TheHill.com
The operative quotes:
"President Obama said Wednesday that he released his long-form birth certificate to end the distraction and return the debate in Washington to fiscal matters.
Obama, appearing in the White House briefing room shortly after senior administration officials distributed the document to reporters, blasted the “sideshows and carnival barkers” who have pushed the birther conspiracy instead of focusing on important issues"
I have been a Birther from the beginning, but not for the fact of whether he was, or was not a citizen, or whether the “sideshows and carnival barkers” (Birthers) were right or wrong to press this issue. No my point of view is about the president himself and his behavior. I know for myself as a patriotic American the first and foremost desire is to establish myself as an American Citizen so I can be afforded all my inalienable rights. If someone asks me for proof - I pull out.... my birth certificate! I raise it high and say, "Here it is, anything else?" If I was an American Citizen in far off lands and I was in some sort of trouble - I would wave it - or my passport - and say, "I am an American Cirizen, I have inalienable rights guaranteed by this document." (95% of the rest of the world's population do not. So being American means you are in an exclusive group.) It also used to be if you were mistreated, the perpetrators could be held accountable by the full wrath and power of the US Government in the form of a squad, or company of US Marines and nobody desired that. So declaring you were an American citizen brought about a change in peoples behavior.
So if this is the normal, expected behavior - and don't take my anecdotal evidence as proof - see how new legal citizens declare their allegiance and display their Certificate of Citizenship - not with dower looks, but with joy, happiness and enthusiasm at being declared a Citizen of The United States of America. This is what we expect from patriotic Americans - an allegiance to this country which all are proud to declare and prove through birth certificate, passport, or documents issued to legalize citizens. Why is it the president did not behave in this manner and fashion for all these years? What does it say about his thinking and his American Citizenship? Is he embarrassed to be American? Does he not know the first step to declaring your patriotism; is he just thumbing his nose at the rest of us who stand up to show and declare we were born here and declare our inalienable rights? Maybe he believes it is beneath him to be an American, or he does not want to be counted among the masses?
No, I will declare here and now - he is an American Citizen by birthright, but he has declared he is not American by his unwillingness, to enthusiastically declare - the first time his birth certificate became an issue - "Here it is, I am an American! Nan, nan, nan, nan, nan, nah! Now I am taking my girls for ice cream!" This would be the normal behavior from all us birthed here in America - a joy, peace, happiness, assuredness and righteousness about our birthright. President Obama's behavior should bring great consternation about the standard he brings as the POTUS - do we really want the leader of The United States of America lukewarm about citizenship and allegiance to this country - "hell no!" We want a leader who is all in for this country and sees himself as part of the whole. As Dennis Prager declares - "The Trinity of American values" - of which one is - "E Pluribus Unum." This behavior is revealing in relation to Mr. Obama's thinking and goes a long way explaining much of his policies, politics and official actions and behaviors.
"President Obama said Wednesday that he released his long-form birth certificate to end the distraction and return the debate in Washington to fiscal matters.
Obama, appearing in the White House briefing room shortly after senior administration officials distributed the document to reporters, blasted the “sideshows and carnival barkers” who have pushed the birther conspiracy instead of focusing on important issues"
I have been a Birther from the beginning, but not for the fact of whether he was, or was not a citizen, or whether the “sideshows and carnival barkers” (Birthers) were right or wrong to press this issue. No my point of view is about the president himself and his behavior. I know for myself as a patriotic American the first and foremost desire is to establish myself as an American Citizen so I can be afforded all my inalienable rights. If someone asks me for proof - I pull out.... my birth certificate! I raise it high and say, "Here it is, anything else?" If I was an American Citizen in far off lands and I was in some sort of trouble - I would wave it - or my passport - and say, "I am an American Cirizen, I have inalienable rights guaranteed by this document." (95% of the rest of the world's population do not. So being American means you are in an exclusive group.) It also used to be if you were mistreated, the perpetrators could be held accountable by the full wrath and power of the US Government in the form of a squad, or company of US Marines and nobody desired that. So declaring you were an American citizen brought about a change in peoples behavior.
So if this is the normal, expected behavior - and don't take my anecdotal evidence as proof - see how new legal citizens declare their allegiance and display their Certificate of Citizenship - not with dower looks, but with joy, happiness and enthusiasm at being declared a Citizen of The United States of America. This is what we expect from patriotic Americans - an allegiance to this country which all are proud to declare and prove through birth certificate, passport, or documents issued to legalize citizens. Why is it the president did not behave in this manner and fashion for all these years? What does it say about his thinking and his American Citizenship? Is he embarrassed to be American? Does he not know the first step to declaring your patriotism; is he just thumbing his nose at the rest of us who stand up to show and declare we were born here and declare our inalienable rights? Maybe he believes it is beneath him to be an American, or he does not want to be counted among the masses?
No, I will declare here and now - he is an American Citizen by birthright, but he has declared he is not American by his unwillingness, to enthusiastically declare - the first time his birth certificate became an issue - "Here it is, I am an American! Nan, nan, nan, nan, nan, nah! Now I am taking my girls for ice cream!" This would be the normal behavior from all us birthed here in America - a joy, peace, happiness, assuredness and righteousness about our birthright. President Obama's behavior should bring great consternation about the standard he brings as the POTUS - do we really want the leader of The United States of America lukewarm about citizenship and allegiance to this country - "hell no!" We want a leader who is all in for this country and sees himself as part of the whole. As Dennis Prager declares - "The Trinity of American values" - of which one is - "E Pluribus Unum." This behavior is revealing in relation to Mr. Obama's thinking and goes a long way explaining much of his policies, politics and official actions and behaviors.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Re: Vaughn Walker’s Continuing Defiance on Prop 8 Trial Recordings - By Ed Whelan - Bench Memos - National Review Online
One operative quote:
"Walker submitted a letter yesterday in response to the motion. In his letter, Walker acknowledges that he took a full set of the video recordings with him when he retired from the court and re-entered private life. He also acknowledges that he used a three-minute excerpt of the recordings, consisting of cross-examination of an expert witness for the Prop 8 proponents, in one public presentation before he retired (on February 28)—the University of Arizona speech that he knew was videotaped by C-SPAN for broadcast—and that he has already used the same excerpt in two public presentations since his retirement (with a third planned use scheduled for next week).
Walker has thus confirmed the factual basis for Prop 8 proponents’ charge that he has violated his own order placing the video recordings under seal, that he has violated the Northern District of California’s local rules barring transmission of trial proceedings beyond “the confines of the courthouse,” and that he has acted in defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling barring broadcast of the trial proceedings—a ruling that weighed heavily, in its balance of equities, the threat of harm and harassment that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would face from broadcast.
What legal defense does Walker offer? Walker simply asserts that he “decided that in the presentation on February 18 at the University of Arizona it would be permissible and appropriate to use the actual cross-examination,” but he does not accompany that assertion with any explanatory reasoning."
Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial
Second operative quote:
""There is nothing about Walker as a judge to indicate that his sexual orientation, other than being an interesting factor, will in any way bias his view," said Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is supporting the lawsuit to overturn Prop. 8.
As evidence, she cites the judge's conservative - albeit libertarian - reputation, and says, "There wasn't anyone who thought (overturning Prop. 8) was a cakewalk given his sexual orientation."
State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who has sponsored two bills to authorize same-sex marriage that were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said that as far as he's concerned, Walker's background is a nonissue. "It seems curious to me," he said, that when the state Supreme Court heard a challenge to Prop. 8, the justices' sexual orientation "was never discussed."
Leno added, "I have great respect for Judge Walker, professionally and personally.""
This is preposterous! A group of people who want justice and fairness and to be recognized as wanting and being normal people have attached themselves to a case presided over by a nut of a judge, who should have refused the case on the grounds he had no authority to question the California State Constitutional process, who should have never taken the case because of his own sexual orientation, who couldn't come up with a legal reason to overturn Prop 9 other than all 7 million voters were Christian bigots and therefore their decision was discounted accordingly, who recorded the case even though the Supreme Court said. "no" and then after giving his word to proponents the recording was for his review and would not reveal it outside the court - goes back on his word and does so.
The opponents of Prop 8 are the laughing stock of the Judicial world - they did not win on merit they won on a circus act; on the lunatic behavior and illogic of a gay judge; on the ruling of a egomaniac; on a magic trick! This case not only discredited the opponents it discredited the whole Federal Court System as kooky, unreliable and down right thuggish. So why would normal citizens believe and take stock in such a system and not be as defiant as this retired judge? Have not a clue - it is what I probable will do. I will never again vote for a California Constitutional proposition knowing some idiotic federal judge is going to stick their nose in the decision and void it by judicial fiat.
Again if I could bend the opponents ear I would suggest - this is not how you want this to go down. With all this kookiness and attempts at shuffling justice their way the likelyhood the Supreme Court is going to put their stamp of approval to this ruling is getting slimmer and slimmer as ex-judge (Thank God) Egomaniac Walker crashes around in his little world trying to appear as a little Napolean. Cut your loses and ask for the ruling to be voided because of all this shenanigans so you can proceed judicially somewhere else in one of the other Fifty States (Retreat to fight another day.) - if not you are reliant on just 3 -4 Supreme Court justices to hold their nose and agree with with ex-judge (Thank God) Egomaniac Walker and go to their graves forever tagged with this horrendous episode of Judicial quackery.
If I could bend the ear of the Federal Court System - just void the ex-judge (Thank God) Egomaniac Walker's decision because of the above messiness. Avoid making yourselves even more irrelevant, stupid, illogical, laughable, dumb - i.e. add whatever negative quality you can think of - than you already are. This will be another albatross along with Rowe v Wade around the Supreme Court justices necks
"Walker submitted a letter yesterday in response to the motion. In his letter, Walker acknowledges that he took a full set of the video recordings with him when he retired from the court and re-entered private life. He also acknowledges that he used a three-minute excerpt of the recordings, consisting of cross-examination of an expert witness for the Prop 8 proponents, in one public presentation before he retired (on February 28)—the University of Arizona speech that he knew was videotaped by C-SPAN for broadcast—and that he has already used the same excerpt in two public presentations since his retirement (with a third planned use scheduled for next week).
Walker has thus confirmed the factual basis for Prop 8 proponents’ charge that he has violated his own order placing the video recordings under seal, that he has violated the Northern District of California’s local rules barring transmission of trial proceedings beyond “the confines of the courthouse,” and that he has acted in defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling barring broadcast of the trial proceedings—a ruling that weighed heavily, in its balance of equities, the threat of harm and harassment that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would face from broadcast.
What legal defense does Walker offer? Walker simply asserts that he “decided that in the presentation on February 18 at the University of Arizona it would be permissible and appropriate to use the actual cross-examination,” but he does not accompany that assertion with any explanatory reasoning."
Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial
Second operative quote:
""There is nothing about Walker as a judge to indicate that his sexual orientation, other than being an interesting factor, will in any way bias his view," said Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is supporting the lawsuit to overturn Prop. 8.
As evidence, she cites the judge's conservative - albeit libertarian - reputation, and says, "There wasn't anyone who thought (overturning Prop. 8) was a cakewalk given his sexual orientation."
State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who has sponsored two bills to authorize same-sex marriage that were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said that as far as he's concerned, Walker's background is a nonissue. "It seems curious to me," he said, that when the state Supreme Court heard a challenge to Prop. 8, the justices' sexual orientation "was never discussed."
Leno added, "I have great respect for Judge Walker, professionally and personally.""
This is preposterous! A group of people who want justice and fairness and to be recognized as wanting and being normal people have attached themselves to a case presided over by a nut of a judge, who should have refused the case on the grounds he had no authority to question the California State Constitutional process, who should have never taken the case because of his own sexual orientation, who couldn't come up with a legal reason to overturn Prop 9 other than all 7 million voters were Christian bigots and therefore their decision was discounted accordingly, who recorded the case even though the Supreme Court said. "no" and then after giving his word to proponents the recording was for his review and would not reveal it outside the court - goes back on his word and does so.
The opponents of Prop 8 are the laughing stock of the Judicial world - they did not win on merit they won on a circus act; on the lunatic behavior and illogic of a gay judge; on the ruling of a egomaniac; on a magic trick! This case not only discredited the opponents it discredited the whole Federal Court System as kooky, unreliable and down right thuggish. So why would normal citizens believe and take stock in such a system and not be as defiant as this retired judge? Have not a clue - it is what I probable will do. I will never again vote for a California Constitutional proposition knowing some idiotic federal judge is going to stick their nose in the decision and void it by judicial fiat.
Again if I could bend the opponents ear I would suggest - this is not how you want this to go down. With all this kookiness and attempts at shuffling justice their way the likelyhood the Supreme Court is going to put their stamp of approval to this ruling is getting slimmer and slimmer as ex-judge (Thank God) Egomaniac Walker crashes around in his little world trying to appear as a little Napolean. Cut your loses and ask for the ruling to be voided because of all this shenanigans so you can proceed judicially somewhere else in one of the other Fifty States (Retreat to fight another day.) - if not you are reliant on just 3 -4 Supreme Court justices to hold their nose and agree with with ex-judge (Thank God) Egomaniac Walker and go to their graves forever tagged with this horrendous episode of Judicial quackery.
If I could bend the ear of the Federal Court System - just void the ex-judge (Thank God) Egomaniac Walker's decision because of the above messiness. Avoid making yourselves even more irrelevant, stupid, illogical, laughable, dumb - i.e. add whatever negative quality you can think of - than you already are. This will be another albatross along with Rowe v Wade around the Supreme Court justices necks
Friday, April 22, 2011
Trump Hints at Presidential Run - By Katrina Trinko - The Corner - National Review Online
Some operative quotes:
"He also continued his criticism of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan, saying that Ryan had “put himself too far out in front.”
“I’m not for doing anything at all negative to senior citizens,” Trump said. “I want to make the country strong so that we don’t have to do the kind of cutting that a lot of people are talking about doing.”
“I don’t want to hurt senior citizens with Medicare or Medicaid. I don’t want to be involved in big cutting or any cutting at all in terms of those things. … The greatest way to solve the problems, the deficits, is to have the country roaring,” he added.
Trump also lashed out at Karl Rove, after a clip was aired of Rove dismissing Trump’s birther promotion as a “losing strategy.”
“I don’t have to listen to Karl Rove,” Trump said. “[Rove] gave us Obama because he gave Bush advice and look what happened. Abraham Lincoln couldn’t have beaten Obama or any other Democrat after what happened with Karl Rove. So he doesn’t have to give me advice.”"
I just grabbed a bunch of stuff to post because, if I was a political hack and could bend some ears I would suggest to some candidates - i.e. Sarah, "Drill Baby Drill," to jump in right after he announced. What better way for someone big media, "Country Club Rebuplicans" and the party elite have labeled foolish, unbalanced and out-of-touch with the American voters to appear wise, rational and on track with American voters than follow Donald Trump and his flappying attention getting mouth and his poorly thought out policies and political views. "The Donald", in my opinion, is in the same general category as The President, you can just shoot from the hip and you are going to do a whole lot of damage.
Another perspective might be - if I was a political hack and could bend some ears I would suggest all Republican candidates hold off announcing. The greatest weapon Republican's have against the President is... none other than The President! The longer time goes on and Barack Obama's ineptitude, ignorance, inability to lead and poor decision making is on display - American voters will continue to abandon his "Hope and Change." Making the target of Barack Obama even a greater size (Exponentially) to hit and the campaign about him.
Finally - watch out! Some journalist is actually going to have a brain fart, do some work and investigate Mr. Trumps voting record. Mr. Trump is going to end up in the wealthy Country Club Republican non-voting clubhouse with Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorinna.
"He also continued his criticism of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan, saying that Ryan had “put himself too far out in front.”
“I’m not for doing anything at all negative to senior citizens,” Trump said. “I want to make the country strong so that we don’t have to do the kind of cutting that a lot of people are talking about doing.”
“I don’t want to hurt senior citizens with Medicare or Medicaid. I don’t want to be involved in big cutting or any cutting at all in terms of those things. … The greatest way to solve the problems, the deficits, is to have the country roaring,” he added.
Trump also lashed out at Karl Rove, after a clip was aired of Rove dismissing Trump’s birther promotion as a “losing strategy.”
“I don’t have to listen to Karl Rove,” Trump said. “[Rove] gave us Obama because he gave Bush advice and look what happened. Abraham Lincoln couldn’t have beaten Obama or any other Democrat after what happened with Karl Rove. So he doesn’t have to give me advice.”"
I just grabbed a bunch of stuff to post because, if I was a political hack and could bend some ears I would suggest to some candidates - i.e. Sarah, "Drill Baby Drill," to jump in right after he announced. What better way for someone big media, "Country Club Rebuplicans" and the party elite have labeled foolish, unbalanced and out-of-touch with the American voters to appear wise, rational and on track with American voters than follow Donald Trump and his flappying attention getting mouth and his poorly thought out policies and political views. "The Donald", in my opinion, is in the same general category as The President, you can just shoot from the hip and you are going to do a whole lot of damage.
Another perspective might be - if I was a political hack and could bend some ears I would suggest all Republican candidates hold off announcing. The greatest weapon Republican's have against the President is... none other than The President! The longer time goes on and Barack Obama's ineptitude, ignorance, inability to lead and poor decision making is on display - American voters will continue to abandon his "Hope and Change." Making the target of Barack Obama even a greater size (Exponentially) to hit and the campaign about him.
Finally - watch out! Some journalist is actually going to have a brain fart, do some work and investigate Mr. Trumps voting record. Mr. Trump is going to end up in the wealthy Country Club Republican non-voting clubhouse with Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorinna.
Graham Takes on Bill Daley, NLRB - By Robert Costa - The Corner - National Review Online
Yes I am back. I could not pass up yours and my old friend RINO, yes our old time RINO Lindsey Graham! (Music) Dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah (Think Circus music.).
The operative quote:
"“Unelected bureaucrats are doing the bidding of special-interest groups,” Graham says. “This is going to play out badly for the NLRB and the unions pushing this. The NLRB is trying to have veto power over business decisions.”"
How long has he been a political elite in Washington? And he just discovered: “Unelected bureaucrats are doing the bidding of special-interest groups,...” This is, no let me change that, he is why the Republican Party is known as the "Party of Stupid." Lindsey, please, please, please don't say your Republican! Do us all a favor and change your party affiliation to Independent so the party elite cannot run you anymore as a Republican.
It is most funny that as long as the NLRB was screwing with companies in other states, The Honorable Mr. Graham was pleased with it. But screw with Boeing in South Carolina and the wrath of The Honorable Mr. Graham suddenly erupts with indignation and empty threats of defunding a bureaucracy. Dear Honorable Mr. Graham, have you ever met a bureaucracy you did not fund? Honorable Mr. Graham, if you occasionally had whined and lamented about the size and scope of Washington bureaucracy instead of happily voting to enlarge and concede power to every bureaucratic agency we might have taken you seriously. But alas your words are hollow and daft.
The operative quote:
"“Unelected bureaucrats are doing the bidding of special-interest groups,” Graham says. “This is going to play out badly for the NLRB and the unions pushing this. The NLRB is trying to have veto power over business decisions.”"
How long has he been a political elite in Washington? And he just discovered: “Unelected bureaucrats are doing the bidding of special-interest groups,...” This is, no let me change that, he is why the Republican Party is known as the "Party of Stupid." Lindsey, please, please, please don't say your Republican! Do us all a favor and change your party affiliation to Independent so the party elite cannot run you anymore as a Republican.
It is most funny that as long as the NLRB was screwing with companies in other states, The Honorable Mr. Graham was pleased with it. But screw with Boeing in South Carolina and the wrath of The Honorable Mr. Graham suddenly erupts with indignation and empty threats of defunding a bureaucracy. Dear Honorable Mr. Graham, have you ever met a bureaucracy you did not fund? Honorable Mr. Graham, if you occasionally had whined and lamented about the size and scope of Washington bureaucracy instead of happily voting to enlarge and concede power to every bureaucratic agency we might have taken you seriously. But alas your words are hollow and daft.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Home / News / State And Regional News Wildlife officials urge caution as bears emerge in Wyoming
actual link: http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_485c2355-3992-5a62-b958-4658595b1e93.html
operative quote:
"Bear managers are cautioning people to carry a defense in bear country, such as pepper spray, and to be aware of bear activity. Last year saw a rise in bear-human conflicts, including two rare cases [Soon to become much more common] of fatal grizzly maulings and bear managers say there is no way to predict the level of conflicts in store for this season."
So when I read the line: "Bear managers are cautioning people to carry a defense in bear country, such as..." to Doris, I paused and Doris chimed in on cue "a big powerful gun!" We both laughed loudly in the Busy Bee Resturant in Buffalo Wyoming.
So first I wonder if anyone has done any effectiveness studies on pepper Spray and Grizzlie bears, or has everyone been eaten so nobody can say one-way-or-the-other if it is effective. I also wonder who are those guys,"bear managers" are these people who have personal experience stopping a charging Grizzly from eating them by spraying Pepper Spray? If the article had been clear about the "bear managers" qualifications - like "Mr. Jones survived, without a scratch, a 2004 attack by a 1500 pound Grizzly known as "Killer" by spraying it with Pepper Spray" I would surely follow their advice. However I have never read about a charging Grizzly being stopped by Pepper Spray. I have read about charging Grizzly Bears being killed by people with guns. What attacks I have read about some survived - barely, the rest died. They probably sprayed to their hearts content but failed to hit the Grizzly anywhere in its face; A charging Grizzly galloping at 20 to 30 miles per hour is formidable and not a good target for a terrified novice.
My -little knowledge- recommendation is carry a firearm. Specifically a large caliber handgun or revolver. Carry it uncovered, holstered in front - in easy reach of your dominante hand. The reason is - in case you startle a bear and he is on top of you before you can fire - your hand will instinctively already be on the weapon so you can pull it and fire in close improving your chances of survival.
The other thing about firearms is you can practice and prepare for a bear attack - over and over and over perfecting speed, agility and evasive manuvers while firing. With Pepper Spray how many containers can you possibly use to perfect a technique? Can you prepare to spray in wind, rain and while evading? What happens if the bear pounces and the Pepper Spray is not deployed - do you still use it, or will it infuriate the bear more and cause you more harm? In the article they do mention "a bear spray demonstration." Is this going to be an infuriated animal charging full speed looking to kill the sprayer? I.E. true to the real world and valid. The point is defensive methods must be practiced and a gun is ideal for practice and it erases the uncertainties of Pepper Spray.
The final thought: Wyoming will not stand for such a dangerous situation to engulf it's tourism trade. Wyoming is all about getting and taking people into the wilderness to enjoy it's amazing scenery. It cannot tolerate site seers, vacationers and tourists - especially foreign tourists - being mauled and eaten in the back country by Grizzly Bears. The tourism trade will not be able to absorb the liability insurance costs such a dangerous undertaking will require.
operative quote:
"Bear managers are cautioning people to carry a defense in bear country, such as pepper spray, and to be aware of bear activity. Last year saw a rise in bear-human conflicts, including two rare cases [Soon to become much more common] of fatal grizzly maulings and bear managers say there is no way to predict the level of conflicts in store for this season."
So when I read the line: "Bear managers are cautioning people to carry a defense in bear country, such as..." to Doris, I paused and Doris chimed in on cue "a big powerful gun!" We both laughed loudly in the Busy Bee Resturant in Buffalo Wyoming.
So first I wonder if anyone has done any effectiveness studies on pepper Spray and Grizzlie bears, or has everyone been eaten so nobody can say one-way-or-the-other if it is effective. I also wonder who are those guys,"bear managers" are these people who have personal experience stopping a charging Grizzly from eating them by spraying Pepper Spray? If the article had been clear about the "bear managers" qualifications - like "Mr. Jones survived, without a scratch, a 2004 attack by a 1500 pound Grizzly known as "Killer" by spraying it with Pepper Spray" I would surely follow their advice. However I have never read about a charging Grizzly being stopped by Pepper Spray. I have read about charging Grizzly Bears being killed by people with guns. What attacks I have read about some survived - barely, the rest died. They probably sprayed to their hearts content but failed to hit the Grizzly anywhere in its face; A charging Grizzly galloping at 20 to 30 miles per hour is formidable and not a good target for a terrified novice.
My -little knowledge- recommendation is carry a firearm. Specifically a large caliber handgun or revolver. Carry it uncovered, holstered in front - in easy reach of your dominante hand. The reason is - in case you startle a bear and he is on top of you before you can fire - your hand will instinctively already be on the weapon so you can pull it and fire in close improving your chances of survival.
The other thing about firearms is you can practice and prepare for a bear attack - over and over and over perfecting speed, agility and evasive manuvers while firing. With Pepper Spray how many containers can you possibly use to perfect a technique? Can you prepare to spray in wind, rain and while evading? What happens if the bear pounces and the Pepper Spray is not deployed - do you still use it, or will it infuriate the bear more and cause you more harm? In the article they do mention "a bear spray demonstration." Is this going to be an infuriated animal charging full speed looking to kill the sprayer? I.E. true to the real world and valid. The point is defensive methods must be practiced and a gun is ideal for practice and it erases the uncertainties of Pepper Spray.
The final thought: Wyoming will not stand for such a dangerous situation to engulf it's tourism trade. Wyoming is all about getting and taking people into the wilderness to enjoy it's amazing scenery. It cannot tolerate site seers, vacationers and tourists - especially foreign tourists - being mauled and eaten in the back country by Grizzly Bears. The tourism trade will not be able to absorb the liability insurance costs such a dangerous undertaking will require.
Monday, April 4, 2011
41 senators vow to oppose Planned Parenthood rider - TheHill.com
"Forty-one senators have pledged to filibuster any bipartisan spending bill that includes an amendment to strip federal funding from Planned Parenthood
“stand with us against extreme proposals by some members of the House to eliminate support for women’s health and family planning programs and providers that service millions of women and families.”
“oppose the provision in the House-passed continuing resolution that cuts Planned Parenthood health centers off from federal funds used to provide cancer screenings, birth control and other preventative health care services to three million Americans every year.”
“Without access to these services, many of these women will be unable to get preventive screenings, be at far greater risk for diseases such as cancer and will face more unintended pregnancies,”"
Again I refer to the my previous blog about Scott Brown idiotic statement about his opposing cutting Planned Parenthood changed to reflect the plural.
This is stunning, absolutely stunning! [Republican and Democratic] idiot[s] who believe women go into Planned Parenthood for "family planning" and "health services" To the [Republican and Democratic] idiot[s] - what women do you know that go to Planned Parenthood for PAP smears, Mammograms, Flu shots and etc?" "[Republican and Democratic] idiot[s], how does a woman plan a family at Planned Parenthood? Better yet - "[Republican and Democratic] idiot[s], I again pose the question, do you know any women who have gone to Planned Parenthood to plan a family?"
Only idiot politician[s] must not know what everyone else knows - Planned Parenthood does abortions period. And women go there for abortions period. For everything else there is VISA - I mean - General Practitioners or real doctors in real doctors offices.
So a vote by these misguided, immoral and evil politicians - is a vote not for "women's health and family planning," or whatever non-sequitur is used to take our eyes off the real vote - the continued killing of American citizens.
“stand with us against extreme proposals by some members of the House to eliminate support for women’s health and family planning programs and providers that service millions of women and families.”
“oppose the provision in the House-passed continuing resolution that cuts Planned Parenthood health centers off from federal funds used to provide cancer screenings, birth control and other preventative health care services to three million Americans every year.”
“Without access to these services, many of these women will be unable to get preventive screenings, be at far greater risk for diseases such as cancer and will face more unintended pregnancies,”"
Again I refer to the my previous blog about Scott Brown idiotic statement about his opposing cutting Planned Parenthood changed to reflect the plural.
This is stunning, absolutely stunning! [Republican and Democratic] idiot[s] who believe women go into Planned Parenthood for "family planning" and "health services" To the [Republican and Democratic] idiot[s] - what women do you know that go to Planned Parenthood for PAP smears, Mammograms, Flu shots and etc?" "[Republican and Democratic] idiot[s], how does a woman plan a family at Planned Parenthood? Better yet - "[Republican and Democratic] idiot[s], I again pose the question, do you know any women who have gone to Planned Parenthood to plan a family?"
Only idiot politician[s] must not know what everyone else knows - Planned Parenthood does abortions period. And women go there for abortions period. For everything else there is VISA - I mean - General Practitioners or real doctors in real doctors offices.
So a vote by these misguided, immoral and evil politicians - is a vote not for "women's health and family planning," or whatever non-sequitur is used to take our eyes off the real vote - the continued killing of American citizens.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Santorum says 'abortion culture' to blame for problems with Social Security - The Hill's Ballot Box
The operative quote"
"Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said Tuesday that America's "abortion culture" is at the heart of problems with the nation's Social Security system. The likely 2012 presidential contender, who earned a reputation as a hardcore social conservative during his time in Congress, said thanks to the number of abortions in the United States each year, not enough children are being born to support the system in the long term.
"The Social Security system, in my opinion, is a flawed design, period," Santorum said in a Tuesday morning interview with WEZS Radio in Laconia, N.H. "But having said that, the design would work a lot better if we had stable demographic trends." Santorum said the reason for the trouble is that "we don't have enough workers to support the retirees. Well, a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion.""
Exactly! When you have a forced confiscatory tax to fund a ponzi scheme and you start running out of suckers to continue to fund the ponzi scheme; well guess what, it goes broke. So the federal government had one branch of government telling all workers they had to pay because it was necessary to achieve full retirement for all and another branch of government making it acceptable to kill millions of future American citizens necessary to carry out retirement nirvana. This is what is called an unintended consequence. From this we can further extrapolate that many baby boomers were complicit in the demise of their own future retirement.
The other interesting revelation about the "Rowe effect" is it casts a bright light on Republicans who run around claiming they are "fiscal conservatives" and not "social conservatives." Here is the most socially liberal ruling/procedure/policy/belief/program - call it what you want - known in America and guess what, it has had a huge negative fiscal impact on the United States. Not only on the funding of Social Security but on the huge transfer of wealth from Americans to Planned Parenthood and NARAL. What the RINO's don't know, or don't want you to know, is there is always a fiscal hit to the economy for social program. So if a Republican says they are "fiscally conservative" and not "socially conservative" you know better - they are just smarmy.
"Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said Tuesday that America's "abortion culture" is at the heart of problems with the nation's Social Security system. The likely 2012 presidential contender, who earned a reputation as a hardcore social conservative during his time in Congress, said thanks to the number of abortions in the United States each year, not enough children are being born to support the system in the long term.
"The Social Security system, in my opinion, is a flawed design, period," Santorum said in a Tuesday morning interview with WEZS Radio in Laconia, N.H. "But having said that, the design would work a lot better if we had stable demographic trends." Santorum said the reason for the trouble is that "we don't have enough workers to support the retirees. Well, a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion.""
Exactly! When you have a forced confiscatory tax to fund a ponzi scheme and you start running out of suckers to continue to fund the ponzi scheme; well guess what, it goes broke. So the federal government had one branch of government telling all workers they had to pay because it was necessary to achieve full retirement for all and another branch of government making it acceptable to kill millions of future American citizens necessary to carry out retirement nirvana. This is what is called an unintended consequence. From this we can further extrapolate that many baby boomers were complicit in the demise of their own future retirement.
The other interesting revelation about the "Rowe effect" is it casts a bright light on Republicans who run around claiming they are "fiscal conservatives" and not "social conservatives." Here is the most socially liberal ruling/procedure/policy/belief/program - call it what you want - known in America and guess what, it has had a huge negative fiscal impact on the United States. Not only on the funding of Social Security but on the huge transfer of wealth from Americans to Planned Parenthood and NARAL. What the RINO's don't know, or don't want you to know, is there is always a fiscal hit to the economy for social program. So if a Republican says they are "fiscally conservative" and not "socially conservative" you know better - they are just smarmy.
Senators defend civil rights of Muslim Americans, warn against unfair judgment - TheHill.com
Operative quote:
"“Many law-abiding Muslim Americans face discrimination and charges that they are not real Americans, simply because of their religion. It’s wrong to blame the entire community for the wrongdoing of a few,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “Guilt by association is not the American way. And American Muslims are entitled to the same constitutional protections as every other American,” he said."
Well Mr. Durbin also said:
Durbin slams Tea Party, rallies local Dems
"He delivered a stinging rebuke to the Tea Party, which he castigated as misguided defenders of the super-rich.
“They don’t speak for America, they barely speak for their own party,” he said. “Now, the Tea Party can take over the Republican Party, they can have them, but they are not going to take over this country.”"
So which is it Honorable Senator Dick Durbin "Guilt by association is not the American way," or guilt by association is the American way? Or is it just the Honorable Senator Dick Durbin's way however the political winds of fortune blow?
This is way to easy - you shoot from the hip and the target is so big it all hits something.
"“Many law-abiding Muslim Americans face discrimination and charges that they are not real Americans, simply because of their religion. It’s wrong to blame the entire community for the wrongdoing of a few,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “Guilt by association is not the American way. And American Muslims are entitled to the same constitutional protections as every other American,” he said."
Well Mr. Durbin also said:
Durbin slams Tea Party, rallies local Dems
"He delivered a stinging rebuke to the Tea Party, which he castigated as misguided defenders of the super-rich.
“They don’t speak for America, they barely speak for their own party,” he said. “Now, the Tea Party can take over the Republican Party, they can have them, but they are not going to take over this country.”"
So which is it Honorable Senator Dick Durbin "Guilt by association is not the American way," or guilt by association is the American way? Or is it just the Honorable Senator Dick Durbin's way however the political winds of fortune blow?
This is way to easy - you shoot from the hip and the target is so big it all hits something.
The Senate's 'iron woman' - TheHill.com
Operative quote:
"“Her body of work, the fact that she’s now the longest-serving female senator, her efforts on behalf of educational initiatives, veterans’ affairs, women’s health issues, I think all combined to make her an exceptional candidate,” said Christine Moulton, executive director of the Hall.
“I am so honored to be inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame,” Mikulski wrote in an e-mail to The Hill. “My fellow inductees inspire women around the world with their strength, courage and commitment to service.”Among the other 2011 inductees are such trailblazers as jazz great Billie Holiday and civil rights advocate Coretta Scott King. This year’s class also features a familiar face for the Maryland senator: that of the namesake of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which passed in 2009 and for which Mikulski was a co-sponsor."
So I read this: “My fellow inductees inspire women around the world with their strength, courage and commitment to service.” I first thought who is this woman? I've never heard of her! Then I wondered what is the "National Women’s Hall of Fame?" I had no idea this even existed! So I wondered, if I, an American citizen, who has never heard of the "longest-serving female senator" and the "National Women's Hall of Fame" how "inductees inspire women around the world" when 99.9% of the women in the world have never heard of these people. It is clearly a stretch to imagine the Honorable Sen. Barbara Mikulski having anything but a breath of influence to the World. Then I reread her accomplishments and suddenly it all became clear. "...educational initiatives, veterans’ affairs, women’s health issues..." and "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act" are why I have never heard of her - these are non-issues. These are problems conjured up in Western Universities - Women's studies courses to conjure up victims needing the Honorable Sen. Barbara Mikulski's to muddle around in their business. Which is why she has no influence over 99.9 % of the Worlds women these are non-issues to them also. If she really wanted to have an influence she would co-sponsor real bills addressing real problems like: clean water, vaccinations for childhood diseases, China's one child policy - female genocide, the slave trade in women, persecution of Christians, increasing western style democracy (So women can be born, live, go to school, not be prostituted, vote, have children, granchildren and great-grandchildren and the ability to choose all this, receive protection from their governments and not have it taken away from them at any moment)
"“Her body of work, the fact that she’s now the longest-serving female senator, her efforts on behalf of educational initiatives, veterans’ affairs, women’s health issues, I think all combined to make her an exceptional candidate,” said Christine Moulton, executive director of the Hall.
So I read this: “My fellow inductees inspire women around the world with their strength, courage and commitment to service.” I first thought who is this woman? I've never heard of her! Then I wondered what is the "National Women’s Hall of Fame?" I had no idea this even existed! So I wondered, if I, an American citizen, who has never heard of the "longest-serving female senator" and the "National Women's Hall of Fame" how "inductees inspire women around the world" when 99.9% of the women in the world have never heard of these people. It is clearly a stretch to imagine the Honorable Sen. Barbara Mikulski having anything but a breath of influence to the World. Then I reread her accomplishments and suddenly it all became clear. "...educational initiatives, veterans’ affairs, women’s health issues..." and "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act" are why I have never heard of her - these are non-issues. These are problems conjured up in Western Universities - Women's studies courses to conjure up victims needing the Honorable Sen. Barbara Mikulski's to muddle around in their business. Which is why she has no influence over 99.9 % of the Worlds women these are non-issues to them also. If she really wanted to have an influence she would co-sponsor real bills addressing real problems like: clean water, vaccinations for childhood diseases, China's one child policy - female genocide, the slave trade in women, persecution of Christians, increasing western style democracy (So women can be born, live, go to school, not be prostituted, vote, have children, granchildren and great-grandchildren and the ability to choose all this, receive protection from their governments and not have it taken away from them at any moment)
Monday, March 28, 2011
Reid urges GOP to ditch Tea Party - The Hill's On The Money
Operative quote:
"Reid insisted it is those GOP internal divisions that are threatening to shut down the government after April 8, in less than two weeks.
“For the sake of our economy, it’s time for mainstream Republicans to stand up to the Tea Party and rejoin Democrats at the table to negotiate a responsible solution that cuts spending while protecting jobs," he said.
Last week Reid put $7.5 billion in discretionary cuts and $3.5 billion in mandatory savings on the table as a counteroffer to the $51 billion in additional cuts the GOP is seeking."
The Honorable Senator Harry Reid is so much fun! Are you sure Harry - "For the sake of our economy...?" "Those dastardly Tea Party candidates are going to ruin, yes I say ruin, ruin, ruin or economy." The "mainstream Republicans" (Who are those guys anyway?) better control those Tea Party Republicans and rejoin the Democrats at spending more tax dollars to save the economy!
$7.5 billion + $3.5 billion = $11 billion - there is a great negeotiating position for Harry Reid to counter the $51 billion proposed by Republicans. This is where I distance myself from Republican politicians and admit they are the "party of stupid." Have not one of them ever sold an automobile, or bargained with anyone. Even my daughter knows you throw a high number out there so the buyer will counter with a number close to what you expect. So if you want to hit $100 billion in budget cuts - you propose $500 billion in cuts. But you don't negotiate low at $51 billion in cuts and then go lower when you have told the voters you want to slash $100 billion! Stupid, stupid, stupid politicians.
I say vote out the non-Tea Party Candidates and the incumbent "Do what Harry Reid tells you" Republicans who still believe it is their job to compromise and reach across the isle and do something. No, we are the party of Hell No! Just do nothing and take up space in your seat. Shut down the government for two months so all the "Public Servants," can drift away in desperation for some job to pay their mortgages and bills. With the savings pay off what we borrowed from China.
"Reid insisted it is those GOP internal divisions that are threatening to shut down the government after April 8, in less than two weeks.
Last week Reid put $7.5 billion in discretionary cuts and $3.5 billion in mandatory savings on the table as a counteroffer to the $51 billion in additional cuts the GOP is seeking."
The Honorable Senator Harry Reid is so much fun! Are you sure Harry - "For the sake of our economy...?" "Those dastardly Tea Party candidates are going to ruin, yes I say ruin, ruin, ruin or economy." The "mainstream Republicans" (Who are those guys anyway?) better control those Tea Party Republicans and rejoin the Democrats at spending more tax dollars to save the economy!
$7.5 billion + $3.5 billion = $11 billion - there is a great negeotiating position for Harry Reid to counter the $51 billion proposed by Republicans. This is where I distance myself from Republican politicians and admit they are the "party of stupid." Have not one of them ever sold an automobile, or bargained with anyone. Even my daughter knows you throw a high number out there so the buyer will counter with a number close to what you expect. So if you want to hit $100 billion in budget cuts - you propose $500 billion in cuts. But you don't negotiate low at $51 billion in cuts and then go lower when you have told the voters you want to slash $100 billion! Stupid, stupid, stupid politicians.
I say vote out the non-Tea Party Candidates and the incumbent "Do what Harry Reid tells you" Republicans who still believe it is their job to compromise and reach across the isle and do something. No, we are the party of Hell No! Just do nothing and take up space in your seat. Shut down the government for two months so all the "Public Servants," can drift away in desperation for some job to pay their mortgages and bills. With the savings pay off what we borrowed from China.
Fast to begin Monday to protest proposed GOP budget cuts - The Hill's On The Money
Operative quote:
"Former Rep. Tony Hall (D-Ohio), the head of the Alliance to End Hunger, told The Hill Friday that Democrats are not doing enough to ensure the cuts do not become law, and he is fasting to give a “voice to the voiceless.”"
What is wrong with this quote? Not sure? That's OK you have to know things about non-profit organizations and being "head." The "head" is another name for the CEO, the executive officer, the top honcho. This means if the federal government cuts the funding for Allince to End Hunger it means "former Rep. Tony Hall (D-Ohio)" will not be living off the public dole and be forced to find private funds to pay his wages. So much for "...fasting to give a "voice to the voiceless"" Now if the head of the Alliance to End Hunger - "former Rep. Tony Hall (D-Ohio)" had been doing his job he would have found private funding to continue operations without the need for government funding. But alas most non-profits relying on Federal funding never meet the requirement to get off the public dole as their funding regulations require; they always come back to the government because they can never sell private individuals on investing (Donating) into their mismanaged non-profit. My personal experience is the top 4 or 5 individuals (Executive, vice president, CFO and HR director) usually consume 25% of the funding stream for their over inflated salaries.
"Former Rep. Tony Hall (D-Ohio), the head of the Alliance to End Hunger, told The Hill Friday that Democrats are not doing enough to ensure the cuts do not become law, and he is fasting to give a “voice to the voiceless.”"
What is wrong with this quote? Not sure? That's OK you have to know things about non-profit organizations and being "head." The "head" is another name for the CEO, the executive officer, the top honcho. This means if the federal government cuts the funding for Allince to End Hunger it means "former Rep. Tony Hall (D-Ohio)" will not be living off the public dole and be forced to find private funds to pay his wages. So much for "...fasting to give a "voice to the voiceless"" Now if the head of the Alliance to End Hunger - "former Rep. Tony Hall (D-Ohio)" had been doing his job he would have found private funding to continue operations without the need for government funding. But alas most non-profits relying on Federal funding never meet the requirement to get off the public dole as their funding regulations require; they always come back to the government because they can never sell private individuals on investing (Donating) into their mismanaged non-profit. My personal experience is the top 4 or 5 individuals (Executive, vice president, CFO and HR director) usually consume 25% of the funding stream for their over inflated salaries.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Conyers calls for inquiry of treatment of Muslim Americans - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Operative quote:
"With federal hearings on radicalization and intense scrutiny by law enforcement of religious institutions, the American-Islamic community today is living in a climate that has the risk of producing a siege mentality,” said Conyers in a statement.
“The American-Islamic community should know that the federal government will protect the interests of the community, while maintaining the appropriate focus on national security.”"
Heck with the "American-Islamic community" how about the "American-Christian community," or the "American Patriot community," or the "American Teaparty community," or the "American Vast Right Wing Conspiracy community," or just the "American community" forget the hyphens. There is a sence today by a significant majority of Americans who believe we are "...living in a climate that has the risk of producing a siege mentality" and it is not between law enforcement and Americans it is between Honorable Congressmen like John Conyers and Americans. At least we have a politician understanding the mood of the country, it is just to bad he does not realize the disdain is for himself.
Well I sure hope The Honorable Congressman Mr. Conyers is willing to extend his promise of the federal government protecting the interests of the community to all Americans. Oh wait, The Honorable Congressman Mr. Conyers has not a clue - by his votes - about the interests of regular Americans. How could he know the interests of the "American-Islamic community?"
"With federal hearings on radicalization and intense scrutiny by law enforcement of religious institutions, the American-Islamic community today is living in a climate that has the risk of producing a siege mentality,” said Conyers in a statement.
“The American-Islamic community should know that the federal government will protect the interests of the community, while maintaining the appropriate focus on national security.”"
Heck with the "American-Islamic community" how about the "American-Christian community," or the "American Patriot community," or the "American Teaparty community," or the "American Vast Right Wing Conspiracy community," or just the "American community" forget the hyphens. There is a sence today by a significant majority of Americans who believe we are "...living in a climate that has the risk of producing a siege mentality" and it is not between law enforcement and Americans it is between Honorable Congressmen like John Conyers and Americans. At least we have a politician understanding the mood of the country, it is just to bad he does not realize the disdain is for himself.
Well I sure hope The Honorable Congressman Mr. Conyers is willing to extend his promise of the federal government protecting the interests of the community to all Americans. Oh wait, The Honorable Congressman Mr. Conyers has not a clue - by his votes - about the interests of regular Americans. How could he know the interests of the "American-Islamic community?"
Tax break for charitable giving targeted for elimination again - The Hill's On The Money
Operative quote:
“We don't like doing this,” Geithner told the Senate Finance Committee. “The only reason we're doing this is because, as many people have recognized in this room, we have unsustainable deficits. We've got to bring them down over time. And that's going to force us to do things we'd otherwise not like to do.”
"We don't like doing this." "...force us to do things we'd otherwise not like to do." Does anyone believe these continued lies? Usually when I don't like something... I don't do it! And when I like something I do it! Therefore logically - they want to do this and like doing it.
When they give less of a percentage for itemized deductions specifically - charitable giving - it is a tax increase. If they really wanted to improve the economy, put more revenue into the confiscatory tax bucket and help Americans in these difficult times they would increase - yes increase - charitable giving because most of the new charitable giving to non-profits would be used for buying supplies, increased payrolls for hiring more staff to provide more services, increasing wages to low paid workers, and increased wages to management staff which would generate a significant increase in taxes back to the federal government. This in itself dispels the assumption the Democratic Party is the party of the less fortunate.
Think about this - what is a more subversive way for Democratic Politicians to get "the wealthy" to voluntarily transfer their wealth to the less fortunate than through charitable giving? Is this not what they ultimately want? Do you understand why Democrats cannot think this way? You are right! Democrats are not charitable givers so they assume everyone has to be forced to give up their wealth through taxation.
There should not be wealthy, or non-wealthy people. There should be American Taxpayers only.
"Ah, the world of counter intuitiveness - think smart, think new, 180 degrees with the few."
“We don't like doing this,” Geithner told the Senate Finance Committee. “The only reason we're doing this is because, as many people have recognized in this room, we have unsustainable deficits. We've got to bring them down over time. And that's going to force us to do things we'd otherwise not like to do.”
"We don't like doing this." "...force us to do things we'd otherwise not like to do." Does anyone believe these continued lies? Usually when I don't like something... I don't do it! And when I like something I do it! Therefore logically - they want to do this and like doing it.
When they give less of a percentage for itemized deductions specifically - charitable giving - it is a tax increase. If they really wanted to improve the economy, put more revenue into the confiscatory tax bucket and help Americans in these difficult times they would increase - yes increase - charitable giving because most of the new charitable giving to non-profits would be used for buying supplies, increased payrolls for hiring more staff to provide more services, increasing wages to low paid workers, and increased wages to management staff which would generate a significant increase in taxes back to the federal government. This in itself dispels the assumption the Democratic Party is the party of the less fortunate.
Think about this - what is a more subversive way for Democratic Politicians to get "the wealthy" to voluntarily transfer their wealth to the less fortunate than through charitable giving? Is this not what they ultimately want? Do you understand why Democrats cannot think this way? You are right! Democrats are not charitable givers so they assume everyone has to be forced to give up their wealth through taxation.
There should not be wealthy, or non-wealthy people. There should be American Taxpayers only.
"Ah, the world of counter intuitiveness - think smart, think new, 180 degrees with the few."
Friday, March 25, 2011
Lawmakers May Force Schools to Spend Scarce Funds on Gay-Friendly Instruction
news@pacificjustice.wtvms.com
Operative quote:
"SB 48 is being touted by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who is himself gay. Specifically, the bill requires that U.S. history, California history, and social science be taught with a deliberate emphasis on the roles and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons."
Yes, we are so excited to learn about the "contributions of (LGBT) persons." So how long should such a history lesson be? I mean a group of individuals making up maybe 4% of the population should receive their equal opportunity time of 4% of the instruction time. Formula: 180 days X .04 = 7.2 days of instruction... oh wait are there "contributions of (LGBT) persons" adding up to 7.2 days of instructions?
Maybe a better equation would be an incompetent Honorable Sen. Mark Leno spending California taxpayers money and time worrying about his own pet peeve project to highlight accomplishments of maybe 4% of the population at the detriment of 100% of California!
This is why I have a negative image of "(LGBT) persons." When overwhelming number of citizens are concerned about the bigger problems in education - graduation rates, lack of academic ability by students graduating, violence in schools, the overrun costs of education - "(LGBT) persons" are perseverating on themselves and their image.
Operative quote:
"SB 48 is being touted by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who is himself gay. Specifically, the bill requires that U.S. history, California history, and social science be taught with a deliberate emphasis on the roles and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons."
Yes, we are so excited to learn about the "contributions of (LGBT) persons." So how long should such a history lesson be? I mean a group of individuals making up maybe 4% of the population should receive their equal opportunity time of 4% of the instruction time. Formula: 180 days X .04 = 7.2 days of instruction... oh wait are there "contributions of (LGBT) persons" adding up to 7.2 days of instructions?
Maybe a better equation would be an incompetent Honorable Sen. Mark Leno spending California taxpayers money and time worrying about his own pet peeve project to highlight accomplishments of maybe 4% of the population at the detriment of 100% of California!
This is why I have a negative image of "(LGBT) persons." When overwhelming number of citizens are concerned about the bigger problems in education - graduation rates, lack of academic ability by students graduating, violence in schools, the overrun costs of education - "(LGBT) persons" are perseverating on themselves and their image.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)