Uncivil Rights

Still Here

2011-07-16T20:05:00.001-05:00

A little battered and bruised but still here.

If you get robbed, thank the Memphis news

2009-02-16T09:24:00.002-06:00

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/feb/15/inside-the-newsroom-case-for-gun-permit-listings/?partner=RSS

Thanks to commercialappeal.com, robbers, thieves, murderers, and rapists know who to attack safely.

Nice going.

If you are robbed, mugged, raped, or in anyway attacked, sue the bastards. That is YOUR RIGHT.

Neocon vs NeoCOM

2009-02-15T15:41:00.000-06:00

Since liberals like to label conservatives "neocon", we have decided to label liberal/progressive/socialist/democrats "NEOCOM". Neocom, of course, means new communists which is exactly what Obama and his leftists are. Let's hope this makes it to the web before the "tolerant" lefties try to stop web postings too.

Poles Protest Weather

2008-12-08T14:10:00.003-06:00

I just couldn't help myself:

Polish people are protesting weather! And if that wasn't polish enough, they want the UN to hurry and make the weather stop changing!

...protesters in Poznan waved a banner reading: "Stop clowning around, get serious about climate action."
Others carried pictures of seas inundating cities and villages, and the suited hand of a businessman squeezing the planet.

Everyone knows businessmen are immune from changes in the weather...

Obama Admits He IS the Cause for the Rise in Gun Sales

2008-12-08T13:54:00.004-06:00

Obama has admitted to being the cause of the rise in gun sales today in the Chicago Suntimes.

Obama states:

"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference. "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."

Now when is he going to admit to being the cause (along with his socialist policies) to the largest stock market crash following a presidential election?

Timothy Egan: Jealous Lefty

2008-12-07T14:21:00.002-06:00

Timothy Egan is a bit upset. He doesn't like the fact Joe the plumber has a book deal. As Timothy states in his NYT opinion piece:

The unlicensed pipe fitter known as Joe the Plumber is out with a book this month, just as the last seconds on his 15 minutes are slipping away. I have a question for Joe: Do you want me to fix your leaky toilet?

Joe would love for you to fix his leaky toilet, Timothy...if you can. Obviously, Joe has the skills to write a book. Do you have the skills to fix a toilet? We all know how mad you are that someone could just get a book deal simply for being in the public eye. (Have you mentioned Paris Hilton and her music career anywhere in your rants Timothy?) No? Just a little pissed that maybe someone other than a journalist can write a book? It's quite obvious anyone can write an opinion piece for the NYT, or a blog, but getting it read is quite another thing.

But Timothy goes on:

With a résumé full of failure, he now thinks he can join the profession of Mark Twain, George Orwell and Joan Didion.

Actually Timothy, he is joining the ranks of people such as yourself, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and other people thrust into the spotlight by the media.

I would like to question YOU. Why do you get to write a guest opinion piece of the NYT? Why should you get to voice your opinion on something personal to you and pretty much no one else? There are millions of other people from whom I would like to hear who never get a chance to voice an opinion. Something similar to your thought here: "...voices in Iran, North Korea or China struggle to get past a censor’s gate." Voices here in America struggle to get heard right here at the New York Times. There are no consevative voices at the Times (David Brooks is NOT a conservative).

So stop your vitriolic whining. With Obama as president, I'm sure the government will crack down on differing opinions with such things as the UnFairness Doctrine (that should pep you up some).

And just because I am fair, here are some books by Timothy Egan. Let's allow the consumer to decide.

Tom Brokaw is a Socialist

2008-12-07T13:43:00.003-06:00

We know the bias in the media trends toward the left. I have maintained they are socialists. Up until this election, they have been on the quiet side of socialism. This election cycle has seen them come out of the socialist closet. Here is a prime example of Tom Brokaw espousing his actual beliefs. This is what he really thinks of normal, middle-class Americans, and this is what he wants from us...remember, the left claims to be the party of the the people. From NEWSBUSTERS:

Let's talk for a moment about consumer responsibility when it comes to the auto industries. As soon as gas prices dropped, consumers moved back to the larger cars once again. The SUVs are the big gas consumers. Why not take this opportunity to put a tax on gasoline, bump it back up to $4 a gallon where people were prepared to pay for that, and use that revenue for alternative energy and as a signal to the consumers: "Those days are gone. We're not going to have gasoline that you could just fill up your tank for 20 bucks anymore."

So Tom Brokaw does NOT believe in consumer choice. He believes government must enact laws and taxes to alter consumer behavior. This is not only socialism at its finest, but this borders on communism. I guess Tom Brokaw wouldn't mind if consumers had to wait in lines for consumables if it "benefited everybody" and saved the planet.

Thank you comrade Brokaw. The state will reward you for this.

New Word - COMPASCISM

2008-12-01T18:45:00.004-06:00

The new word of the day is COMPASCISM. Compascism is the political and/or philosophical ideology that compassion can only be achieved through government mandates on individuals and businesses. Compascist is one who subscribes to this ideology.

Timing is Everything

2008-12-01T18:26:00.002-06:00

Timing is everything...except for maybe GOOD old-fashioned objective journalism. It seems every time someone wants to praise Obama for something, something else gets in the way...like reality. It reminds me of the global warming meetings. You know, when global warming alarmists get together to discuss the obliteration of mankind unless taxes are levied and the successful are punished. Then, during this meeting, there is a huge snow storm.

It must feel like that for USA Today writer, Adam Shell. His article, "President-elect Obama's actions perk up stock market" in today's edition, updated 8 hours ago as of this writing. In it he praises Obama on "...hasn't even moved into the White House yet. But Wall Street is already showering him with praise for injecting confidence into the battered psyche of investors and working quickly to hatch a plan meant to jolt the economy out of its worst funk in decades."

Simply amazing. Here's some more: "Stocks soared last week after Obama moved aggressively to fill the power vacuum until he's sworn in and demonstrated his commitment to dig the USA out of its economic rut. The Dow has rallied 17% during its current five-session win streak — its best five-session run since 1932. The rallies coincided with Obama-related news and public appearances where he introduced his economic dream team and sent a clear message that he'll do whatever it takes to repair the economy. Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank, says the so-called Obama Factor has been "a solid force behind the recent moves in the stock market." Reminder to self: NEVER USE HARRIS PRIVATE BANK!

More from Adam: "So what has Obama done to restore hope to investors? •He's made the economy priority No. 1, •He's chosen a first-rate economic team, and •He's moved quickly to fix things.

REALITY CHECK:

Down we go again: Fourth-worst drop ever for DowBy Sara Lepro and Tim Paradis, AP Business Writers

Wall Street breaks 5-day win streak as stocks plunge; Dow down 680 in 4th-worst decline.

Wow Adam, how could you be SOOOOOO WRONGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!???

The Dow lost 679.95 points to close at about 8,149. There have only been three days in market history with bigger point losses for the Dow -- the Monday after the Sept. 11 attacks, and Sept. 29 and Oct. 15 of this year.

Let's here it for Adam Shell of USA Today! He get's the DOH! Award by Homer Simpson. I bet you feel like a bit of an idiot right about now, don't you, Adam?

Vanessa Niekamp, Whistle-Blower Hero

2008-11-23T10:58:00.002-06:00

Vanessa Niekamp is a hero. She blew the whistle on improper (can someone say illegal) searches into Joe the Plumber's background by Ohio state employees. However, since she blew the whistle on Obama supporters, the article's title is: Employee Defends Exposing 'Joe the Plumber' Searches.

Gee, we never heard of stories titled: The New York Times Defends Exposing America's National Security Secrets and Making the US Less Safe. I wonder why.

The biggest culprit is Ohio Department of Job and Family Services agency director Helen Jones-Kelley. She received a 30-day suspension without pay. She should have been fired. Not only did she improperly use state computers to find personal information regarding Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, but she also improperly used state e-mail to engage in political activity. I wonder what Barack Obama has to say about this?

But what about Niekamp's boss, ODJFS deputy director Doug Thompson? He forced her to send an e-mail covering up the reason behind the searches into Wurzelbacher. "The e-mail, which was sent to chief privacy officer Rick Copley, explained that the queries into Wurzelbacher were made for child support purposes..." So Mr. Thompson lied. He should be fired as well. However, "Thompson has not faced disciplinary action." Nice going Ohio.

Vanessa, I think you should sue.

Jackie Calmes, You have an Uncivil Right to be a Biased Idiot

2008-11-23T08:04:00.003-06:00

Jackie Calmes of the New York Times is at it again. Her bias reporting can be seen in the previous post on the Lamestream Media, and she does not disappoint today in Obama Vows Swift Action on Vast Economic Stimulus Plan.

She writes: "Advisers to Mr. Obama say they want to use the economic crisis as an opportunity to act on many of the issues he emphasized in his campaign, including cutting taxes for lower- and middle-class workers, addressing neglected public infrastructure projects like roads and schools, and creating “green jobs” through business incentives for energy alternatives and environmentally friendly technologies."

What she DOESN'T write, or ask, or probably know: 45% of the wage earners in this country pay NO income taxes, so how can he CUT them? Are reporters supposed to get to the heart of the subject or just take someone's word?

This is one of my favorites: "His address, a video of which was made available on YouTube, was part of an effort to calm financial markets roiled by the failure of an outgoing president and a lame-duck Congress to come up with a plan to lift the economy and restore investor confidence."

What she DOESN'T write, or ask, or know: The democrats made banks make risky loans to those who didn't qualify. Republicans wanted MORE oversight, and Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and your's truly, Barack Obama, stopped it. Fannie and Freddie took on bad paper from Countrywide - thank you Chris Dodd. This caused the housing bubble to burst. Bush did NOT fail. Then Barack Obama is elected and the stock market TANKED...because Barack Obama was elected. Investment in free markets will go down when a SOCIALIST is elected as president, Jackie.

It's curious how you manage to deduce the increase in the market to the naming of Giethner: "News that Mr. Geithner, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, would get the job helped send the stock market up by nearly 500 points on Friday after days of sharp losses." But no where did you EVER mention that the election of Barack Obama may have had the slightest impact on its downturn...hmmm...stupid?...idiotic?...bias???

In your defense, I will say you have the uncivil right to be a biased idiot.

But there's more. Speaking of letting the Bush tax cuts expire: "That could have economic and political benefits. Mr. Obama would not be open to the charge from Republicans and other critics that he is raising taxes in a recession, which many believe is counterproductive." FYI Jackie, that WOULD be a tax increase and would be reported as such by those willing to be objective and truthful. I understand you wrote what you wrote because YOU would NOT refer to it as a tax increase. And WHY do people think it would be counterproductive, Jackie? Because tax increases DO NOT necessarily produce more revenue. The collection of tax revenue is at its highest in the nation's history due to Bush's tax CUTS. You, however, prove your idiocy on this subject here: "By letting the tax cuts expire, Mr. Obama would get the benefit of higher revenues in 2011 and beyond to help finance his promised health care plans without having to propose raising taxes on the affluent and without the Democratic majority in Congress having to take a vote on a tax increase."

When the rich are burdened with higher taxes, they hire accountants. Remember John Kerry's wife? She stated her tax burden was only 12%. Even Barack Obama stated, in an interview, that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would not necessarily raise revenue. It wasn't about raising revenue; it IS about FAIRNESS. Of course, if you investigated this story, you would have known this and hopefully included it in your story. Instead, you made it quite clear that you are propagandizing for Obama, or Obamagandizing as I like to call it.

I'm sure the democrats enjoy your advertisements. I hope they will pay you well.

The Lamestream Media and Why It's Failing

2008-11-23T08:01:00.000-06:00

Deborah Howell, the Ombudsman of the Washington Post, has admitted the bias of the Post's coverage of Obama here. She follows that editorial up, due to the loss of subscribers, with how the Post can remedy the "perceived" bias here.

Her "remedies"???

"More conservatives in newsrooms and rigorous editing would be two."

Tom Rosentiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said:

"There should be more intellectual diversity among journalists. More conservatives in newsrooms will bring about better journalism."

Bob Steele, 'an ethics scholar at Poynter Institute (which trains journalists)' "recommends "prosecutorial editing" as one way to "minimize the ideological bias and beliefs that all journalists have."

Hey Bob, where are these journalists your instituion is training? And, Tom and Bob, why aren' these things happening NOW!? It ocmes down to the agenda of the owners and editors of these newspapers. There is a reason why reporters are liberal. People hire likeminded people. The idea that a newspaper is fair, balanced and objective is GONE. The Hew York TImes can call David Brooks a conservative, but that doesn't mean that he is, and true conservatives see this.

I believe the REAL problem, besides the agenda-driven articles, is the lack of true objective journalism. I am not just picking on the Post, but all liberal media outlets.

For example, this article was on the front page of the online edition of the New York Times today, Fed Official Is Said to Be Choice for Treasury.

Let's take a close look at OBJECTIVITY: "...quavering financial markets are looking for reassurance about the direction of economic policy." I didn't know financial markets had human attributes... And the source(s) for this??? "...people briefed about the decision said..."

How about this deduction: "Word of Mr. Geithner’s selection helped drive stocks sharply higher on Friday afternoon as investors concluded that Mr. Obama was taking steps to fill a leadership vacuum at a time when the economy and financial markets are showing new signs of strain." It's interesting to note the mention of this man's name drives stocks up, yet the election of Obama seemed to have nothing to do with the stack market crash. Reporters have come up with "other" reasons why the stocks plummetted, but no where is Obama mentioned either here or here, to cite just a few. If you noticed the chart from the second article, the stocks started descending when Obama and Clinton were in the lead for the dem nomination, just as the media were picking thier condidate for the white house.

But this isn't the only place that concludes Geithner's name is responsible for the stock increase. From this MSNBC story: "*** UPDATE *** Msnbc.com's Al Olson reports that immediately after NBC News' report on Tim Geithner likely to be named Treasury Secretary, stocks rebounded sharply." Funny how we DIDN'T see a story that said: "Immediately after Barack Obama was elected president, the stock market dropped 400 points..."

Bias?

But the NYT story continues on its bias path talking about Mr. Geithner: "But his association with the current administration’s policies is balanced by his close connections to the centrist Democratic policies of President Bill Clinton and Mr. Clinton’s best-known Treasury secretary, Robert E. Rubin." Let's see, current financial policies must be far right, and the democrat policies are centrist? That is the way I am understanding the conclusions of Jackie Calmes, the author of this "objective" piece.

This is just one example of the majority of articles throughout the NYT, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and other liberal newspapers. Am I being fair? Am I right? Ms. Howell, do you care? Do you truly want objective, nonbiased reporting? I think it would certainly bring back readers. However, I believe the liberal agenda is a greater force than profit, and newspapers will fail due to the lack of objective reporting.

Democrats Declare: THE U.S. LOST THE WAR IN IRAQ!

2007-04-19T14:55:00.000-05:00

In yet another declaration of defeat and surrender, Harry Reid claims the US has lost in Iraq.

I would like to use a little liberal tactic now and ask the liberals, "Why do you hate the US so much?"

The DEMOCRAT PARTY SONG!

2007-04-15T09:16:00.000-05:00

Let us all sing now, the DEMOCRAT PARTY SONG! (Tot the tune of "The Inquisition")

(Sung by the Senate and House Democrats)
The Inquisition (what a show)
The Inquisition (here we go)
We know you're wishin' that we'd go away.
But the Inquisition's here and it's here to-
"Hey Nancy P, walk this way."
"I just got back from the Auto-de-fe."
"Auto-de-fe? What's an Auto-de-fe?"
"It's what you oughtn't to do but you do anyway."

(To Republicans, neo-con, zionists, and global warming deniers...)
Will you convert? "No, no, no, no."
Will you confess? "No, no, no, no."
Will you revert? "No, no, no, no."
Will you say yes? "No, no, no, no!"
Now I asked in a nice way, I said, "Pretty please."
I bent their ears, now I'll work on their knees!
"Hey Harry Reid, walk this way. We got a little game that you might wanna play, so pull that handle, try you're luck."
"Who knows, Harry, your land deals might earn you a buck!"

"How we doin', any converts today?"
"Not a one, nay, nay, nay."
"We flattened their fingers, we use media galore!
Nothing is working! Send in Al Gore!"

The Inquisition, what a show.
The Inquisition, here we go.
We know you're wishin' that we'd go away!
So all you neo-cans and global warming deniers
We got big news for all of the zionist repliers:
You'd better change your point of views TODAY!
'Cause the Inquisition's here and it's here to stay!

Obama Not Black Enough?

2007-04-09T15:24:00.000-05:00

Obama ditches Congressional Black Caucus/Fox News debate

Is Obama not black enough or is the Congressional Black Caucus losing its power and influence...even in the black communities?

Equality Exists ONLY in Mathematics: Part 1

2007-04-08T19:59:00.000-05:00

Originally published at The Wide Awakes.

Are all men created equal? It’s a nice sentiment, however, reality dictates a completely different belief. All men are created the same way, biologically, but the comparisons stop there.

All men are not created equal. This is just basic human nature and called the human factor. Every individual has his/her own strengths and weaknesses, each unique to that individual. If we consider equal opportunity, we could and should conclude that each individual will utilize that opportunity in different and unique ways dependent upon the strengths and weaknesses of the individual. In reality, if each person started life with the same opportunities (education, wealth, values, family life, etc…) each person would not have the same cumulative life, or in other words, the resulting life, benefits, trials, and tribulations of each person would be different.

Imagine, if you will, a simple equation: I + O = L, which represents an individual (I), plus all opportunities (O), will result in the life (L) of that individual. I will forgo anymore of the mathematical equations and try to explain it. We must include time in this equation, so each variable is in the same representative time. For example, at time 1year, the life of the individual at 1 year old will be the summation of the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the 1 year old individual plus the opportunities presented within that 1 year, ad infinitum(I’m trying to keep it simple so far).

If all men are equal, and each individual was presented with the same opportunities, could we conclude that the resulting lives of these individuals will be the same? The equation would conclude that the lives would be the same. However, though opportunities presented may be the same, the resulting outcomes of those opportunities will be different based on the actions or inactions taken by the individual. Therefore, even if each individual was given the same opportunities throughout life, the outcomes of those opportunities will be different and have a different impact on each individual’s resulting life. It is logical to conclude that the life of each individual will be different even if all opportunities presented are the same. In fact, given the human factor, the outcome of any and all opportunities can not be predicted, and the resulting life can not be assessed until that life has ended.

Liberals will then be lead to believe that the resulting life can be altered if some individuals were given more opportunities than others. However, there can never be any assurances, and there will never be any proof that an increase in opportunities will result in a better resulting life. Legislating the resulting life can never work since the variables that make up a life are never equal and cannot be known or quantified.

The Math:
I was thinking in terms of calculus with the summation of each variable from time (t) to the nth (year). O is only constant at death, and O at time (t) is a function of the summations of I at time (t) plus O at time (t). I didn't want to get into subscripts and math; it’s been almost 25 years since my calculus class.

News to Abuse for the Week of 4/1 - 4/7 2007

2007-04-07T07:27:00.000-05:00

Judicial Activism at it's finest (from WSJ):

The current Supreme Court is a talented group of jurists, but until yesterday we didn't think their expertise ran to climatology. The Justices would have done better in their big global warming decision if they'd stuck more closely to the law.

Typical LIBERAL DEMOCRATS at work spending YOUR hard EARNED MONEY (from Detnews.com):

An iPod for Every Kid? We have come to the conclusion that the crisis Michigan faces is not a shortage of revenue, but an excess of idiocy. Facing a budget deficit that has passed the $1 billion mark, House Democrats Thursday offered a spending plan that would buy a MP3 player or iPod for every school child in Michigan.

Greenie Weenies Pick on Children...how nice...(from SFGATE.com):

It was supposed to be a birthday night out for the kids in San Francisco, but instead turned into a Critical Mass horror show -- complete with a pummeled car, a smashed rear window and little children screaming in terror.

Less than 100 days of Democrat OCCUPATION in the Congress and they're already backing out of their campaign promises...anyone SUPRISED...(from the Washington Times):

Congressional Democrats say their constituents are clamoring for something even the most liberal lawmakers promise they won't pursue: President Bush's impeachment.

Pelosi goes to talk to the TERRORISTS in SYRIA and COMPLETELY SCREWS UP (from the CNSNEWS.COM and the Examiner.com):

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered the wrong message to Syrian President Bashar Assad from Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said on Wednesday evening.

In her latest mishap, Pelosi went to the Middle East this week with the aim of brokering a peace between Israel, the United States' closest ally in the region, and Syria, a widely recognized state sponsor of terrorism.
Pelosi said she was "very pleased with the reassurances we received from Syrian president [Bashar al-Assad] that he was ready to...engage in negotiations for peace with Israel." The meeting with Assad, she told reporters, "enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister [Ehmud] Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well."
Trouble was, Olmert denied that he had authorized Pelosi to pass along this conciliatory message. In fact, his office issued a statement saying quite the contrary.

Meanwhile, Nancy thinks it was helpful...(from Breitbart.com):

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, deflecting White House criticism of her trip to Syria, said Friday she thinks the mission helped President Bush because it showed the United States is unified against terrorism despite being divided over the Iraq war.

AND if you only needed ONE bit of evidence to determine if this was good or bad...here it is...(from CNN.com):

Former President Jimmy Carter expressed his support for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria, rejecting White House criticism of the visit.

I guess the question should be, "Well, has she learned anything?" (from CNN.com):

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she raised the issue of Saudi Arabia's lack of female politicians with Saudi government officials on the last stop of her Mideast tour.

OBVIOUSLY NOT...

Cause of MANMADE Global Warming Identified

2007-04-03T18:31:00.000-05:00

That's right...Al "The Goracle" Gore IS the "MAN" responsible for MANMADE Global Warming. In the picture above (thanks to Dylan Pool), Mr. Gore makes CO2 spontaneously combust in a burst of flames by breaking into song about CARBON OFFSETS...

Total Kaos Radio Presents

2007-04-03T18:14:00.000-05:00

Thursday, April 5th at 6:00 pm CST, Total Kaos with Dave and Glen will interview Eric Beckjord (see info below). This is a MUST LISTEN!

Jon-Erik Beckjord, BA (honors -Tulane),MBA (UC Berk.) , is a managment consultant and also an investigator of anomalous phenomena world-wide, spirit photographer, an adventurer, traveller, lecturer and author. There is a tremendous amount of info, photos, evidence in these sites linked below, and how can Beckjord have done this? He used his MBA skills, Mensa traits, & photographic skills, to go out and go after these mysteries full time, working only to get the next airline ticket, while others decided to raise kids, become middle-managers, watch TV, join Little League, and get early heart attacks. Your webmaster avoided that, is often broke, but he has had a glimpse of the mysterious, and it has been worth it.

Adventure!

Now he shares it with you, and several books will be made form these sites. Letterman,Leno, and Good Morning America all seem to approve and he's been on them all, and more. Now take a look.

This site is dedicated to educating the average public as to the Multiverse, parallel universes to infinity, the new paradigm of advanced theoretical physics, wormholes, blackholes, Dr. Micho Kaku, Dr. Fred Allen Wolf, Dr. Colm Kelleher and 20 others, and how this relates to scientific anomalies. NEW ANSWERS!

UPDATE: Thanks to Erik for a good show. He does have a sense of humor. If you missed it, you can listen to the archives at BlogTalkRadio.

Democrats Propagate Terrorist Agenda

2007-04-02T18:39:00.000-05:00

This is the party for which YOU voted, to root out corruption:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has abruptly walked away from her responsibilities with the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after a report linked her votes to the financial well-being of her husband's companies, which received billions of dollars worth of military construction contracts she approved.

and protect America and its ciizens from terrorists. However, NO DEMOCRAT GOT THE MEMO.
Can Democrats do ANYMORE TO HURT THEIR OWN COUNTRY? I don't think so. (From the New York Post) This is in response to Rep. Peter King (R-L.I.) proposing an amendment directed at a dangerous new threat to national security. His motion was a response to the "John Doe" lawsuit filed by six "Flying Imams.":

Meanwhile, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, took the floor to oppose King's motion - and to defend the lawsuit against John Does. "We should be tolerant," he argued; people shouldn't be singled out because they "look different."

In fact, the flying imams triggered concerns by a variety of unusual actions, as well as words that roused the concern of another Arabic-speaking passenger. Witnesses say that House members started booing Thompson.

Finally, a member of the leadership realized how this would look to Americans watching on C-SPAN: Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) was seen staring at Thompson and repeatedly drawing his hand across his throat - an urgent signal to get off the floor.

With Democrats realizing they couldn't argue against King's measure, it went to a vote, and passed, 304 to 121

Every one of those 121 votes aimed at defeating protection for "John Does" was a Democrat - indeed, more than half of all Democrats present voted "nay."

Britain Turning to Appeasement

2007-04-01T10:07:00.000-05:00

Rather than standing up to evil, Britain is turning to appeasement...since it's obviously worked so well in other countries like Spain...

Last night, there were reports ministers are planning a compromise solution to the crisis, which would see a Royal Navy captain, commondore or special government envoy sent to Tehran to publicly assure the Iranians the Royal Navy will never knowingly enter Iranian waters without gaining permission.

Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, has called on Tehran to negotiate an end to the detention of the 15 British soldiers and Marines Iran claims strayed into its waters nine days ago. She told reporters: "The message I want to send is that I think everyone regrets this position has arisen. What we want is a way out of it."

And how about the UN and it's perpetual appeasement:

Iranian media have been trumpeting Britain's failure to secure a strong condemnation of Iran at the UN Security Council or a freeze on EU diplomacy. State television has run footage of the seizure of the boats and the "confessions" of Faye Turney and Nathan Thomas Summers, two of the seized UK personnel, repeatedly on the news channel.

Ahh yes, bad behavior will be deterred...NOT!

HAHAHAHAHAHA! - IT SUCKS TO BE A TERRORIST!

2007-03-31T15:23:00.000-05:00

The 7-year-old son of a Hamas operative was killed yesterday in the Gaza Strip when a hand grenade went off inside the family home.

I never thought I would laugh at a child being killed, but now there's one less piece of shit future ISLAMONAZI terorist in the world. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

BOSTON GLOBE ADVOCATES SOCIALISM

2007-03-31T08:17:00.000-05:00

My favorite writer from the Boston Globe is at it again. Derrick Jackson, liberal writer for the Boston Globe FINALLY admits what LIBERALS and DEMOCRATS have been, up to now, too afraid to admit; LIBERALS and DEMOCRATS ARE SOCIALISTS, and now the BOSTON GLOBE IS ADVOCATING SOCIALISM.

YOU WOULD think the National Football League and the wage gap have nothing in common. But if the nation shared its resources like the NFL, we would be in a much better place.

Excuse me, Derrick, but UNIONS are a representation and product of SOCIALIST IDEOLOGY, so to make a statement as above is, for lack of a better word, STUPID. In case you missed the class in HISTORY OF MAN, SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK, NEVER HAS, NEVER WILL. SORRY to burst your MARXIST bubble.

Then he goes on with this slice of intellect:"...even though their world has momentarily crumbled around them, Republicans keep saying that any attempt to close the American wealth gap is "class warfare."

Let's clarify (and I'll use small words) for Derrick. Anytime the GOVERNMENT attempts to close the wage gap, IT IS CLASS WARFARE. It is also COMMUNIST IDEOLOGY to make sure everyone is paid the same. You see Derrick, in a capitalist, free-market society (one in which Americans have created this great wealth so you and your socialist/communist party called the Democrats can take and REDISTRIBUTE), wage gaps can be closed by WORKING HARDER AND EARNING MORE MONEY, by attaining MORE and BETTER MARKETABLE SKILLS WHICH DEMAND HIGHER WAGES.

Normally at this point, I would just call you a socialist IDIOT, but I'll let you do that for me:

It would be a better day if a little bit of that socialism rubbed off on lower-ranked Americans who are figuring out how to survive.

Democrats Don't Want Children to get a GOOD EDUCATION

2007-03-31T08:03:00.000-05:00

It's been quite obvious for quite a while that Democrats DO NOT WANT CHILDREN TO GET A GOOD EDUCATION, but here's the proof from the Wall Street Journal.

South Carolina House Democrats on Thursday, "...voted against giving $4,500 vouchers to low-income kids in failing public schools, 56-63, and a companion bill to create more educational options for the middle class failed, 49-70."

Obviously, Democrats want children to remain in FAILING PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

In the end, however, school choice was defeated by Democrats who came out to defend the public education status quo and Republicans (representing districts stocked with parents who have already exercised their choice by moving to neighborhoods with good public schools) who joined with them.

It is also obvious WHY Democrats would not want a good education for the children; an uneducated public must rely more on government to take care of and make choices for them - the LIBERAL MANTRA.

How DARE the Brits!?

2007-03-28T05:49:00.000-05:00

How dare the Brits claim those British sailors were in Iraqi waters and NOT in IRANIAN waters. Truly the Brits are lying to cover the Bush+Cheney plan of attack on Iran.

According to Newsbusters and Justin McCarthy's blog: Rosie Implies Captured Brits Are A Contrived 'Gulf of Tonkin' For War With Iran

"But interesting with the British sailors, there were 15 British sailors and Marines who apparently went into Iranian waters and they were seized by the Iranians. And I have one thing to say: Gulf of Tonkin, Google it. Okay."

Now I can only say, if you look at the track records of those involved, who are you going to believe, Rosie or the British military?

I rest my case...

VICTORY THROUGH SURRENDER

2007-03-27T17:23:00.000-05:00

The Senate Democrats voted to SURRENDER today. VICTORY IS NOT AN OPTION! Terrorists are JUMPING FOR JOY!

In related story, a potential GOP contender for the presidential nomination, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel announced, "I will not support sustaining a flawed and failing policy in Iraq."
He then went on to say, "By screwing the conservative base with this vote, I have almost assuredly achieved as much hope for the GOP nomination for the presidency as Al "Is It Getting Warm In Here" Gore. I soon plan to announce my pro-abortion stance, along with my agenda of higher taxes and the elimination of gun and private property ownership! To my consevative base, I say, Thanks mom, please vote for me, and I thank you for your support." Arlen Spector has already endorsed Senator Hagel whole-heartedly, unfortunately, Mr. Hagel's mom has not and was heard to say, "F^&# OFF DEFEATIST! I Didn't raise a QUITTER!"...stay tuned.

Total Kaos Guilt Offsets Now On Sale!!

2007-03-24T21:42:00.000-05:00

On the heels of one of the zaniest scams Dave and I have ever heard of, I. E. Al Gore’s Carbon credits, we here at Total Kaos are now prepared to offer Total Kaos Guilt Offsets.

Yes, for a limited time only, it will be possible for you or a loved one to purchase from the Total Kaos crew any number of credits good towards alleviating whatever guilt type you may be experiencing.

Finally, a simple, full proof method that will wash away forever all those uncomfortable stressful feelings.

Do you have ‘white guilt’? Are you embarrassed due to your oppressive role in keeping the black man down? We've got the answer. Simply call now to 718-664-9588 and one of our operators will be glad to get you on that first step towards Narcissistic pale skinned freedom. At only $250 an hour , reparations never felt so good!

Feeling remorse due to your worldly success? Feeling bad that you’re financially successful while the rest of humanity trudges through lives filled with poverty, strife, and hopelessness? Well, you should! And we’re here to help. Again, that number is 718-664-9588. Just tell the operator that you’re tired of stealing from the little guy and instantly feel your social responsibilities gently drifting away. And at the bargain-basement price of only $1000 an hour you’d be an average Joe sucker to pass this one up. Bet you’re feeling better already!

Feel like you’re not doing your part for the environment? You should be ashamed of yourself! And if you are, you’ve come to the right place. Dial now...718-664-9588 and let Dave and Glen take the blame for the inevitable doom of every single baby polar bear on Earth. Surely, you’ve got better things to do with your time than worry about the weather. Let us help. For a mere $500 per hour, we’ll gladly bear the unsettling responsibility for your role in the upcoming carbon fueled apocalypse.

Committed an actual crime or sin? Have we got a deal for you! Why feel bad when Dave and Glen are a simple phone call away. Dial 718-664-9588...operators are standing by. Just $50 an hour and it’ll be like all those extramarital affairs never even happened! So you stuck your parents in a flea-bitten rag-tag nursing home. Who cares! Let Dave and Glen handle all your remorse...hell, they hate old people! And that body in your crawl space? No problem! With Total Kaos Guilt Offsets, your anxiety is a thing of the past.

And if you order now, Dave and Glen will throw in an ‘On Air’ tongue lashing on their show Total Kaos with Dave and Glen over at Blog Talk Radio. Absolutely free! That’s an $80 value!

So don’t wait...order now. Operators are standing by.

Should Anyone Have ANY Respect for the Boston Globe?

2007-03-24T20:59:00.000-05:00

The Boston Globe employees one of my favorite writers, Derrick Jackson. He is one of my favorites, not because his editorials are intelligent, well-written pieces that makes one think, he is one of my favorites because he gives me a LOT to write about.

In this editorial, "What American Sacrifice", Derrick discusses the lack of "sacrifice" by the American people during this Iraq war; a sacrifice of culture, lifestyles, and amenities, for without personal sacrifice from the American people, America isn't really at war, and if America isn't really at war, why are American boys and girls losing their lives in Iraq?

The carnage of Iraqis and the coffins of US soldiers have not yet merited a single national call to sacrifice by Bush.

But there is no hint that awareness is changing our culture.

If anything, the post-9/11 period has resulted in even more hoarding. In 2000, the size of the average American home was 2,266 square feet. Now it is 2,434 square feet, according to Census data, with the highest regional average right here in the Northeast at 2,556 square feet. Our homes are on average double the size of those in other Top 10 richest nations such as Japan or Switzerland according to the New York Times and the United Nations.

This does not even get into SUVs, which need no introduction. It all adds up to a nation that was sucking a quarter of the world's energy and spewing out a quarter of its global warming gases with only 5 percent of the planet's population. We consume more oil than all of the European Union or as much as China, Japan, Germany, Russia, and India combined. But the hot news is not a federal plan to curb our addictions. It is 50-inch high-definition televisions and shootings, muggings and stampedes last November for the new Sony PlayStation 3.

I guess Derrick must really HATE AMERICA to spew this type of assessment. We all remember the sacrifices made during WWII, the saving of gas, the collection of metal, but that was because we didn't have enough of the raw materials on hand to make the necessary weapons and ammunition. Of course WWII also saw a death total of over 400,000 American lives. The number of Americans killed in Iraq is around 3,200 or less than 1% of the losses in WWII. So maybe Derrick would be happy if we at least sacrificed just less than 1% of the amount sacrificed by the American populace during WWII.

But it was not his inept assessment of "sacrifice". It was the timing of this particular editorial tripe. Where is Derrick getting his ideas these days? Hmmm...I wonder...

Courtesy of Tim Graham's Blog at NewsBusters
'The View' on the Pledge: Being Totally Patriotic Means Not Being Patriotic

A brief exchange from the collective intellect of the women on The View...BEFORE Derrick's editorial:

BEHAR: America is not at war. These guys are at war. These girls and boys are at war. The country is not. We have not done anything to indicate that we are at war.

HASSELBECK: What do you mean by that?

WALTERS: We are not sacrificing.

BEHAR: Gas consumption, coupons, you know, stuff like that, volunteering, all that stuff. No one has asked us to do anything. So how can we even say that we are at war? These kids are at war.

HASSELBECK: Well, I think you ask anyone who knows someone there and you definitely feel as though you were at war--

WALTERS: It is, it is since we don't have a draft if you do have someone there, when you see these young people coming back, your hearts go out to them. But, again, most of us are not touched in a personal way. And that’s what Joy has said. You know, we can feel for them and we ache for them.

I'm not saying Derrick is getting ideas for his editorials from the ladies on the view...I'm just saying...

Voice of the Pacific

2007-03-23T19:20:00.000-05:00

I just spoke to Brendan of Voice of the Pacific. He lives in Australia, or as Jamal would say - Austria-la. he is on his way to vote. Australia has a 98% voter turn out. What do you think of THAT?...

SPARKS ARE FLYING!! LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!

2007-03-23T05:58:00.000-05:00

I don't think I need to say another word. From Reuters:

Woman re-interprets Koran with feminist view

Thought of the Day

2007-03-22T05:50:00.001-05:00

Hillary CLinton is running for President. I don't mean to appear sexist, but...Come on guys, WOULD YOU EVER TURN ALL YOUR GUNS AND AMMUNITION OVER TO YOUR WIFE OR MOTHER...I'm just asking...

It's only a Matter of Time...Thanks to Liberals

2007-03-22T05:49:00.001-05:00

Remember how SOME U.S. Supreme Court Justices, it OK to look at foreign law when judging a case. Well here's one the ladies should keep an eye out for:

A German Judge Cites Koran in Divorce Case from Spiegel Online International:

In January, though, a letter arrived from the judge adjudicating the case. The judge rejected the application for a speedy divorce by referring to a passage in the Koran that some have controversially interpreted to mean that a husband can beat his wife.

I would never support wife beating, EVER...BUT...it seems to me, that one may wish to keep a copy of the Koran handy...just in case...

The WIT of Liberals

2007-03-20T19:19:00.000-05:00

The witty, intelligent repartee of the liberal left never ceases to amaze me.

The Huffington Post is full of it today. Let's see, a liberal blog, a story on Dick Cheney called, "Cheney Taken to Hospital Over Blood Clot Fear"...LET THE WISDOM FLOW!!!!

Freudology is alive and kicking. These words of wisdom from PHALUSMAXIMUS (I finally stopped laughing so I could type that PSEUDONYM (I wonder if he's over 40 and drives a red sports car...or under 40 and lives with his mom...in her basement...))

OH DEAR JESUS HEAR MY PRAYERS
FOR BIG FAT CHENEY I DONT CARE
HE'S GOT A BLOOD CLOT THAT I HEAR
CAN YOU ADD A FEW AND THEN WE'RE CLEAR

OH DEAR LORD IF YOUR NOT A WHIMP
CAN YOU ALSO STRIKE THAT FUCKING CHIMP
I THINK IT'S TIME FOR HIM TO PAY
I PROMISE LORD THAT WE WILL PRAY.

AMEN

or how about this gem...

OH SHIT !

I JUST REMEMBERED THAT HUFFPOST WILL DELETE THESE MESSAGES IF THEY ARE NASTY AND DETRIMENTAL TO POOR CHENEY...OH WELL

HERE GOES...

POOR MISTER CHENEY IS SICK,SICK,SICK
WHILE EVERYONES CHANTING DICK DICK DICK
POOR DICK'S HEART HAS SKIPPED A BEAT
BUT IT WONT STOP US TO IMPEACH

BUSH IS PRAYING REAL REAL HARD
THAT GOD RECLAIMS THAT BIG 'OL FART
WITH CHENEY GONE IT BECOMES ALL CLEAR
THAT HE WAS THE ONE THAT DID THE SMEAR

THE CHIMP NOW SADENED WILL DECLARE
" CHENEY WAS HONEST,CLEAN AND CARED "
BUT WE ALL KNOW WHAT IS THE TRUTH
THE CHIMP IS CRAZY AND ON THE LOOSE

HALLIBURTON'S PROFITS

I can almost hear the chicks BREAKING down his door (or his mom's basement door)...almost...

"Insurgents" - According to Liberals, They're Just Like Our Founding Fathers

2007-03-20T18:59:00.000-05:00

This is courtesy of Breitbart.com: Iraq insurgents used children in car bombing: general

Yes the friends of Liberals, the "patriotic insurgents" are quite manly in "fighting" for their "freedom" from the oppressors of America..

"Children in the back seat lowered suspicion. We let it move through. They parked the vehicle, and the adults ran out and detonated it with the children in the back," Barbero said.

They say, "If your friends are assholes, you must be one too."

Liberals, the best friend a terrorist can have...

Liberal Hypocrisy of the Day - The Construct of an Argument

2007-03-20T10:15:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of Tim Graham's Blog at NewsBusters

'The View' on the Pledge: Being Totally Patriotic Means Not Being Patriotic

Joy Behar presents the LIBERAL WAY TO PRESENT AN ARGUMENT:

Behar oddly claimed that "to be totally patriotic is almost not being patriotic in a way."

Absolutely correct Joy. By presenting the contrary to support the original hypothesis, a liberal can, in essence, prove that right is wrong, and yes is no. The liberal species is especially adept at this since they have TWO sides to their mouths.

The Liberal’s Definition of Stifling Free Speech

2007-03-20T09:42:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of the Washington Times, “Climate Scientist Sees Cover-up”

“A NASA scientist who said the Bush administration muzzled him because of his belief in global warming yesterday acknowledged to Congress that he'd done more than 1,400 on-the-job interviews in recent years.”

Stifling?

"We have over 1,400 opportunities that you've availed yourself to, and yet you call it, you know, being stifled," said Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican.
Mr. Hansen responded: "For the sake of the taxpayers, they should be availed of my expertise. I shouldn't be required to parrot some company line."

Sounds to me as if he’s parroting HIS OWN line.

Mr. Hansen yesterday said the Bush administration threatened him and his office over his stance on global warming.
"It was an oral threat made to a public affairs person in New York and relayed to me," said Mr. Hansen, who is listed as a senior adviser to Mr. Gore and consulted on Mr. Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth."

I don’t see any political bias…

Citing what he called a "growth of political interference," Mr. Hansen said he was forced by NASA officials to deny an interview request from NPR because press officials believed the network to have a liberal bias.
But Mr. Issa noted that Mr. Hansen conducted 15 interviews in the month after accusing the Bush administration of censorship.

15 interviews in a month…4 weeks, 20+ days of work…15 interviews out of 22-23 days…hmmm…what does he do and why isn’t he doing it as long as I, THE TAXPAYER IS PAYING HIM TO DO IT…

Mr. Deutsch, who was 23 at the time, said Mr. Hansen was prohibited from doing the interview because of his prior refusal to notify NASA officials when he was granting interviews, not for political reasons.
Citing what he called his "constitutional right" to give interviews, Mr. Hansen admitted violating NASA's press policy but defended his actions.

Of course…

Mr. Hansen refused to denounce earlier comments he made referring to the White House as a "propaganda office," and saying, "It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States."
"I was referring to the constraints of speaking to the media," Mr. Hansen said, when asked about his comments.

Yes, I guess 1400 interviews IS Gulagish and Third Reichish…I wonder how many interviews he could do in a FREE SOCIETY…

Republicans questioned him about his ties to prominent Democrats.
Mr. Hansen received a $250,000 grant from the Heinz foundation, which is controlled by Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat. Mr. Hansen was a vocal supporter of Mr. Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.
"As far as I know, there's no political connection to this award," said Mr. Hansen, who has donated several thousand dollars to past presidential campaigns for Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gore. "It's an environmental award."

Can anyone say LIBERAL HYPOCRISY REGARDING FREE SPEECH – OBVIOUSLY SPEECH COSTS $250,000…

And I'm sure John Edwards just built his 28,000 square foot home so BOTH Americas can live in it..

UPDATE: I'm glad to see the Wall street Journal picking up on my ideas about this.

Bad Employees or Bad Management?

2007-03-18T10:12:00.000-05:00

Have you ever been dragged into your boss's office because he/she doesn't know what you've been doing? This is clearly a problem with the manager and your productivity metrics. It is even worse if your manager doesn't know what you do, or how you do it, or the scope of your job, or your duties to be performed.

Some managers are hung up on "numbers", and they have some need to see "numbers" increase, even if that's bad news. For instance, increase in crime numbers does not necessarily mean we need more officers, nor does it necessarily mean the current officers are not doing their job. Ultimately, we would love to see ZERO crime, but would that then mean we don't need any police officers? Of course not.

Some managers get stuck in the numbers game because they are not good managers, don't know the job or consequences of particular actions, and aren't smart enough to measure quality productivity levels. But when an employee is faced with this type of manager, a manager that believes he/she is dealing with a bad employee, what should that employee do?

I'll leave that up to you...

For the Liberals and Pacifists

2006-01-21T07:51:00.000-06:00

"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death"

A speech delivered by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Liberals and pacifists do not understand that at some point in time there is a time to fight. At this time in history, we must fight the Islamofascists, and defeat them. There is no appeasement or truce that will suffice either side. You, liberals and pacifists, stand in the way of victory. What kind of country would you prefer; America as it is now, or Islam 700 A.D. Those are the choices; there are no others. We must fight and win to regain our own liberty. May God be with us.

Conservatives and Liberals Don't Mix

2006-01-19T21:40:00.000-06:00

Heeer’s Osama by the Bastard on Bring It On (http://www.teambio.org/)

The new operations of al-Qaida has not happened not because we could not penetrate the security measures. It is being prepared and you’ll see it in your homeland very soon,” he is also offering a long term truce.
Posted in Current Affairs

I saw a comment by the Cranky Liberal for one of the posts on Wide Awakes. In his comment, he suggested that we (conservatives) come over to a liberal blog to have some serious debate. I went over to his blog, read some posts and decided a debate would be pretty much useless. My decision was based on the logic and reasoning of some of the writings, or should I say lack thereof.

I decided a few days later to try it again. I read the post above (http://www.teambio.org/2006/01/heeeeeres-osama/#comments). Then I made the mistake of reading the comment section. As of this writing, all comments written are below.
My comments follow…

Leave a response »
1. Jamison Says :
January 19th, 2006 at 11:04 am
I don’t think there is any better advertisement for what can only be described as complete failure of leadership by the Republican party. The Uber terrorist of our age has alluded the incompetent Republicans for 5 years now and is offering them a peace deal because he knows they can’t get him. It’s time for some people who care about the future of this country to be put in charge. This is an outrage. Are we taking bets on how long it will take the Republicans to link him to Iran?

OK, the “Uber” terrorist of the ages alludes those nasty conservatives for 5 years and then what? Tires out? Doesn’t want to play anymore? Feels sorry for GW? Maybe he’ll throw GW a bone and give up? Jamison, I don’t know how you would fight a war…probably not even an option, but if Osama were winning, he wouldn’t basically give up. My God, get a brain. One asks for a truce when one is LOSING! He’s offering peace because he’s tired of getting his ass kicked and his terrorists killed. If he loses any more men, equipment or money, he won’t be able to launch a counterstrike.

2. icoman Says :
January 19th, 2006 at 11:08 am
I’m sure Osama is confident that he is in a bargaining position since Bush’s foolish tactics have served to inflame Islam and to increase terrorism worldwide. However, unlike some of the anti-war critics in the U.S., I simply can not trust these Muslim radicals. Their religion dictates world dominance and I have found little to suggest that they will not continue to force their dogma on everyone. Islam must be confronted but we now know that bombs and bullets are not the solution.

Do you two live together or something? Or perhaps share the same brain? Osama is in a bargaining position? Yes, if I were he, I’d be begging for my life and mercy too. Remember Saddam’s minister of misinformation? Claiming American bodies were all over the airport because Iraq was kicking our ass? I’m surprised he didn’t “offer” a truce since he had the upper hand. Oh that’s right, he was too busy running like a little girl away from our military to offer a truce. At least you state you can’t “trust” the Muslim radicals and show an understanding of the religion. Kudos for that.

3. The Bastard Says :
January 19th, 2006 at 11:16 am
Icoman,
Of course it’s not bombs and guns. It’s the Christian doctrine this and many other western countries have upheld for god knows how long that pushed the radicals to become radicals. And again it’s fucking religions of peace that seem to kill thousands on a daily basis. Religion sucks!

Yes Bastard, that’s right. However, you may need a history lesson. Christianity is roughly 700 years older than the religion of Islam. That fact kind of puts a damper on your argument. But cheer up! You’re a liberal and facts don’t matter.

4. icoman Says :
January 19th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Well, we know now why faith-based religions suck. They are divisive and will continue to create separatism and hostility. It’s their nature. But I’ve yet to hear any good solutions on how to confront these myth dealers. Yes, secularism is increasing but it still only represents less than a quarter of the people in the world. Any ideas?

Faith based religion compared to???????.......reality based religion? If you know any philosophy, perhaps you’ll come to the conclusion that NOTHING is real, and everyone is just a figment of my imagination…AAAAAAAAHHHHH! MORE PROZAC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

5. The Bastard Says :
January 19th, 2006 at 11:42 am
A crusade

You’ll never win. Conservatives believe in gun ownership, liberals don’t. I honestly don’t think you’d last.

6. icoman Says :
January 19th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Bush used the “crusade” word right after 9-11 and was quickly told to can it. Somewhere I heard that there are thousands of Mormons who have been trained to speak Arabic and who are ready to go to the mid-east and start their conversions. Maybe we should just send ‘em all in. I still think that spraying the whole area with crop dusters to steralize all the men would work better, lol.

“Hello Miss Alahumbarajada, have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? I would like to give you a copy of the Watchtower. May we come in to your lovely mud hut?”
Bang, bang, bang. Chop, chop, saw, saw.

7. LiberPaul Says :
January 19th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Icoman,
Egad! While I agree that there is no way to reason with the most ardent beleivers, I don’t know that I want to engage in a Genocide (see the UN definition before you think I mean that we kill tham all). There are no easy answers….

I’ll say it again…we breed them with the French, and they become too lazy to work OR fight.

PM
8. The Bastard Says :
January 19th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Well, I would think some hardcore diplomacy and getting to the root of the problem would be a start. One of the reasons I read it took so long to get the Palestinians to come around was because Hezbolah fed them, clothed them, provided health care to them all with a heaping mound of radicalism on top.
That should have been us doing that, you know “hearts and minds”. It’s a long conversion process because we spent so long ignoring the problem. And it doesn’t produce immediate results, atleast not within four years so no one wants to tackle it that way. Nope, it’s just better to lock ourselves into a 10-15 year conflict and kill things, it’s the smart way to go. Plus it wins you elections.

That’s the ticket, hardcore psychoanalysis of the terrorists. Perhaps their dad didn’t love them, they weren’t allowed a pet camel when they were little, they were de-panted at the local mud hole and the girls made fun of them… Lie on the couch Akmed and tell me your problems. Here, I’ll hang on to the suicide vest for you…
It’s called behavior modification, better known as a Daisy cutter…

9. ken grandlund Says :
January 19th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
While the “experts” are determining whether or not this is actually a missive from bin Laden, let us be clear about something…
Peace can not come from the mouths of killers, whether they wear Muslim or Christian clothing. Peace comes from the people who live and work side by side.
Neither bin Laden or Bush have a vested interest in ending the conflict now or any time in the near future, and though their immediate goals may differ, their long term methods are the same- forcing a particular religious mindset on the world.
To me, this is a confusing missive. Conservatives will likely interpret this supposed talk of a truce as evidence that we are winning and forcing the enemy to the table through force. Liberals will interpret this as evidence that we can negotiate peace through appeasement. Both positions contain elements of truth as well as falsehood.
If the message is real, then both leaders need to pubically and loudly proclaim a cease-fire and establish talks through intermediaries. Both leaders will have to accept responsiibility for the decisions they’ve made that have led us to the point where we are today. Both leaders, who insist that peace can be found, must be willing to relinquish their own ambitions, and indeed themselves to a higher rule of law to show they are serious. But we know that won’t be done.
Bin Laden says that attacks are in the works and will occur. Bush says he’s been keeping us safe. In this, I think bin Laden is probably the more correct, simply because the efforts of Bush have been mere show, like putting make-up over a black eye. See, problem fixed!
But the problem won’t ever be fixed until both sides lay down their arms, set aside religious mythology, and decide that living and working together is better than dying by each others hands.

That’s correct, Bush doesn’t want the war to end. It’s been such a fantastic time for him. He can’t take much more praise from the press, and talk about the cash rolling in from all the oil and Halliburton contracts. And we all know, sooner or later those Muslim scamps will break from Islam and turn to Christianity; they just need a bigger hug.
You know, if we take away the wiretapping, Osama will have an even BETTER chance at success. So let’s all climb on the ACLU bandwagon and give Osama the best chance at a successful attack. We’ll stop wiretapping, racial profiling, torture, and publish every covert and classified secret we can on Al-Jazeera. Woo-hoo! (Remember: Terrorists only have to be correct once, and we have to be correct ALL THE TIME.)
I think someone needs a nap and then study the Koran; you’ll see just how peaceful that religion is.

10. icoman Says :
January 19th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
The free world politicians will not touch this subject. Perhaps, these blogs are the only way to discuss this important issue. Somehow the world must come to realize that religions are based on ancient tribal superstitions and conform to authoritarian absolutes which stifle progress. It’s time for them to take a back seat to the skeptical inquiry of science. Education and civilization have certainly worked. Communist dictatorships have certainly worked. One takes too long to employ and the other is not humane. Next solution please.

Let me see if I am understanding this correctly: Are you talking about Islam being the religion with authoritarian absolutes stifling progress or Christianity too? My minister has a laptop and is quite adept at using it. Sermons are online. I am going to side with Christians being modern while Muslims terrorists live in mud huts with no luxuries, or cable (it’s forbidden).
Now are we talking about American education? I’ll have to disagree unless you’re saying it’s a great way to indoctrinate the young. About the communist dictatorship working…you’re obviously insane and can’t think rationally, or you’re a relative of Stalin (about 20 million dead); yeah that works great! I think I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt though and agree that education takes too long and communist dictatorships are not humane.

11. The Bastard Says :
January 19th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
God damn it Ken, that was exactly what I was gonna say!!!
Religion is just old world politics. A way to control a mans mind. Bush knows it all to well and so does Osama. I truly believe that don’t don’t even believe in this religious crap but they know it controls the masses. No different than a two bit TV Evangelist knows the power that belief systems carry. They are all schmucks and should be taken out back a shot!**
**Note to NSA: That is not a threat it is just a statement and I in no way meant any harm to Osama.

It took me a few comments but The Bastard is a communist moron that’s either too stupid to understand what he is saying or too dangerous to be without some serious medication (God, if we only had socialized medicine, the Bastard could get the high quality medical care he obviously needs.)
Religion controls the mind…well it does lay the groundwork for morals and values, unlike the Bastard’s religion of Government.

12. icoman Says :
January 19th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Halt, this isn’t just the U.S. against al qaida. The Sunni resistance and who knows who else are also in this mess. A truce is not going to stop all the factions. We need to confront the religious aspect sooner or later. This has to be on the table.

MY LORD, I THINK HE’S GOT IT!!!

13. jerseymcjones Says :
January 19th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
OBL plays Bush and America like am ass flute. He flatulates our way and jump up and down like marionettes guided by a nodding smack addict. OBL and Bush got the war they were looking for. Americans deserve what they got.
JMJ

Uhhhh…….well…….yeah. Osama has us right where he wants us…in between doing what’s right and his allies, the liberal Democrats. Unfortunately JMJ, you’re an idiot (I’m pointing my finger at you). Innocent people never deserve to die.

14. The Bastard Says :
January 19th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
That’s not fair Jersey, not all Americans wanted this.
Icoman, that is why I am for a withdrawl of Iraq. Move all the troops to Afghanistan and fix that country and then figure out a way to help Iraq without pointing a gun at it. Right now it is hopeless. They can tell us we are fighting foreign insurgencies but we all know it is mostly Iraqis. There needs to be a cooling down period. Then we need to have Halliburton go back in……….
Dick, give me back my keyboard!!!
Then we need to have the UN or someone other than ourselves go in and make nice because lord knows we fucked shit up over there. By “we” I mean “them”, you know, the administration.

Hopeless I tell you, HOPELESS! They’ve only had a few elections and a duly elected government, but DAMMIT JIM, WE CAN’T KEEP UP THIS CHARADE OF A DEMOCRACY!!!!! Insurgents…yes, foreign insurgents are so much harder to kill than Iraqi insurgents are. I’m sure they can tell them apart by their accents and looks. Perhaps if we all just took a step back….we could get a better shot.
And DAMMIT we need someone or some institution well known for recognizing and solving the world’s problems with a successful track record; a record of peaceful negotiations and resolutions. An institution far above reproach and ethically and morally superior to us all….and since the Clinton’s are busy, let’s call the UN – they solve everything!

15. liberal vet Says :
January 19th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Great comments. The question is can we trust Osama or Bush. Both are god-bots hell bent on a religious war. Until man divorces himself from believing in a supreme being, paradise heaven or hell we are doomed. Many want the middle east to become a major battleground, and are well on there way to fulfilling that wish. Xian fundies would love to see Armageddon, ya baby we’re going to heaven now all worries are over. As I have said religion is a form of mental illness, unfortunately it’s untreatable. Mankind believes it is superior to all other living sentient beings. We are an arrogant and filthy animal. Despite that we have potential. Science must come to the forefront and convince people we are nothing more than biologically evolved beings. Just my thoughts. Fondly, LV

There is so much wrong with this comment…starting with the first TWO WORDS! Anyone who would take the word of a terrorist over the President of the United States of America is a fucking traitor and does not deserve the freedom and liberties this great country provides (and if you think Bush has taken those freedoms and liberties from you already…GOOD! Godless Asshole!)
Religion is not a mental disease; liberalism is…proven by this comment section. I will agree that YOU, LV, are an arrogant filthy animal devoid of logic and reason, and on the evolutionary scale, equivalent to a species known as the Teddicus Kennedyactus.
I understand these are your thoughts…please don’t have anymore.

16. icoman Says :
January 19th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Right LV. Religion is the problem and we are letting religious fanatatics discuss the solutions. Ridiculous. First off, they let Iraq put god and islam into their Constitution. That has to go. They must accept a secular state or no deal. Somebody take Bush out back and slap him around a few times until he starts getting some sense in his head.

Sometimes I have to believe abortions are the correct thing to do…More liberals have abortions than conservatives…we need to increase the number of liberal abortions ASAP. Hopefully, icoman and the Bastard won’t procreate, and save us all from anymore secular stupidity.

A Merry Liberal Christmas

2005-12-24T09:47:00.000-06:00

Some things are worth repeating:

Courtroom, San Francisco:

JUDGE: Well Mr. Clause, you’ve heard the evidence against you. You’ve been accused of the following:
* Giving unsafe toys to unsuspecting girls and boys.
* Cruelty to animals by continually making reindeer “play games” and “fly” you around in a sleigh on extremely cold winter nights. You even had one reindeer, which shall remain nameless, surgically altered to have a red, glowing nose for your own sadistic purpose.
* Your sleigh has been deemed unsafe due to lack of safety restraint system, lack of an anti-lock braking system, no front or rear crash tested safety bumpers, no parking, head, or brake lights, no safety rollover bars or roof, and no aerial safety flashing lights as required by the FAA.
* You have willfully and wantonly kept slave labor, in the form of elves, at your “workshop” at the North Pole. They have been forced to design, create, and manufacture these unsafe toys under your direction. OSHA has also found these elves using lead paint and other chemicals that can cause irreparable harm to these creatures, not to mention their working conditions.

ELF: Yeah fat boy! Now I can’t have kids!

JUDGE: ORDER! ORDER! SIT DOWN SIR! Or I’ll have you removed from this courtroom! Now to continue:
* You have also violated the Wagner Act by not allowing these elves to organize and join a union.
* You have had trees killed, every year, to promote this “day” of yours.
* Also, these trees have been deemed to be a religious symbol promoting a particular religion.
* Mr. Clause, you have, for as long as I can remember, offended Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and all other non-Christian religions throughout the entire world. You have tried to promote your “selfless giving” and have finally been caught. What say you?

SANTA: Uhhh…Merry Christmas?

JUDGE: HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT IN MY COURT! Guards! Put this man in a cell. I am charging him with contempt. Mr. Clause, you can sit there and think about what you have done to kids all over the world!

Guards take Mr. Clause and lead him down to the holding cells.

GUARD 1: Let’s put him in number three with that other guy.

GUARD 2: Yeah, then they can console each other.

Cell door opens and the guards push Mr. Clause in.

OCCUPANT: What are you in for?

SANTA: Bringing joy to the world and promoting religion. How about you?

OCCUPANT: Same thing. What’s your name?

SANTA: Santa Clause, and yours?

OCCUPANT: Jesus Christ.

Air America Blog dialogue

2005-12-22T16:48:00.000-06:00

Taunting liberals is like shooting fish in a barrel; there’s not much to it. Air America blog had a posting on how happy they were to block the patriot act extension and drilling in ANWR. I couldn’t resist…

http://www.airamericaplace.com/comment.php?id=600

cracker 12/22/05 - 07:21 am
________________________________________
Yes, I'm sure all you liberals are very proud to continue to make America LESS safe and MORE dependent on foreign oil. Good job. The Arabs are congratulating you as we speak, just watch Al-Jazeera. Liberals make those pages almost every day. How patriotic you are.

The best part is they take the bait.

TriSec 12/22/05 - 08:07 am
________________________________________
Al-Jazeera is often more accurate and truthful than Fox News. I'm glad to hear you're watching that, cracker. Maybe something will penetrate that Neanderthal skull of yours.

But you do realize, that by admitting that you watch that, you've just given the President free reign to wiretap your phone without a warrant, right? But what do you care? The constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper, isn't it?

Isn’t it nice how they come out and say what they actually believe? “Al-Jazeera is often more accurate and truthful than Fox News.” Now that is giving your country the benefit of the doubt. It’s heartwarming to know liberals will believe the propaganda of the terrorists over a conservative news channel. How much do they hate their country?

I don’t care if everyone listens to my phone conversation…hell, I don’t even listen to my phone conversations, just ask my wife. What I don’t understand is that liberals are always spouting off about the “common good” over the “individual”. Isn’t this a perfect example of how the rights of the people supersede the rights of the individual?

But enough philosophical arguments they would never understand anyway. How about some good old fashioned liberal hate speech/name calling?

MNRN 12/22/05 - 07:55 am
________________________________________
Quote By: cracker
Yes, I'm sure all you liberals are very proud to continue to make America LESS safe and MORE dependent on foreign oil. Good job. The Arabs are congratulating you as we speak, just watch Al-Jazeera. Liberals make those pages almost every day. How patriotic you are.

cracker....yes you are.....are those racist, xenophobic talking points still warm off the fax in your hot little hands???
Your patriotism, like your intellect, is lacking.

Interesting. I am for the safety of the nation over the privacy of terrorists and this idiot says MY patriotism is lacking. Then again, I have a doctorate, and he claims my intellect is lacking. Well Dr. Mengele, perhaps I should bow to your wisdom and knowledge on how to fight these terrorists, but I can’t see myself running like a little girl from them, pleading for mercy.

Once again, on the Air America Blog, I ask, “Is there no one with a brain?”

KBarrick 12/22/05 - 08:59 am
________________________________________
Quote By: cracker
Yes, I'm sure all you liberals are very proud to continue to make America LESS safe and MORE dependent on foreign oil. Good job. The Arabs are congratulating you as we speak, just watch Al-Jazeera. Liberals make those pages almost every day. How patriotic you are.

Cracker, (and as a Swedish white girl I RARELY get to use that phrase) which makes us more dependent on foreign oil: THOUSANDS of HUMMERs driving on the mountainous streets of LA, NY, and Chicago or NOT drilling in ANWR?

Really, this is a serious question. I'm willing to actually participate in a discussion and not just sling slanderous talking points at a blog whose members are politely drinking their morning coffee (or tea).

Ah, that got my blood pumping this morning.

Anyone think that Mark Riley is starting to sound like David Cross in Mr. Show with "Air America this" and "Air America that." It's the episode about "The Bob."

Terra-di-LOO the Air America!

An honest question, finally. The answer? Not drilling in ANWR.

BobR 12/22/05 - 09:10 am
________________________________________
Quote By: cracker
Yes, I'm sure all you liberals are very proud to continue to make America LESS safe and MORE dependent on foreign oil. Good job. The Arabs are congratulating you as we speak, just watch Al-Jazeera. Liberals make those pages almost every day. How patriotic you are.

WE'RE making the US more dependent on foreign oil? Are you kidding? We are the ones pushing for better fuel economy and alternative energy sources.

Also - there is a more oil pumped out of Venezuela in a month than we'll EVER get out of ANWR. So why are you guys trying to overthrow their government?

Next.

BobR states a mindset of the liberal very well. It is a liberal belief that energy is a zero sum game. Here is a little lesson for you BobR. The economy grows. It grows with the use of oil, to power cars, machines, furnaces, and every other facet of production and the economy. Our use, therefore, grows also. Perhaps you also don’t know the biggest profiteer in the oil business is the government. The government makes more money on oil than the oil companies. Teddy Kennedy owns an oil company. Tell me he is trying really hard to make us less dependent on oil.

Also BobR, I think you were trying to ask why we AREN’T trying to overthrow the Venezuelan government for the oil. Hugo Chavez has armed his people with picks, shovels and other gardening equipment to thwart such an attack by Bush and his oil buddies. Hugo is no fool. However, due to Cheney and Rove, our troop armor has not been reinforced to deter and foil such weaponry, and Murtha would never allow it. We need to spend our money on hotel rooms for Katrina victims. As you are well aware, the white victims were given rooms in Hyatt Regency Hotels and Embassy Suites, not the Motel 6’s the other victims got. And let me tell you, room service can be quite expensive. Now if you’ll excuse me, Javier is at my hotel door with my lobster and steak dinner. Maybe I’ll look for a job tomorrow…yes, yes…I will look tomorrow.

Derrick Jackson is at it again

2005-12-21T18:51:00.000-06:00

I’ve never met Derrick Jackson from the Boston Globe, but I am a fan. If you look at some of my previous posts, you’ll see why I am fascinated by this individual. It is clearly not his intellect or wisdom, rather his tenacity to continuously print his retarded dribble.

I honestly don’t know what path to logical thought and reason he takes, but it is obviously the path less traveled. Sometimes I don’t think he has a final destination in mind.

Let’s take his latest foray into the great unknown called correlation. In his article, “For plasma TVs and luxury vacations, lives are lost”, (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/21/for_plasma_tvs_and_luxury_vacations_lives_are_lost/), in the Boston Globe, December 21, 2005, Derrick tries to correlate the war in Iraq and expenditures on leisure by the public. For example, “The truth, magnified by the materialistic marketing of the holiday season, is embarrassing for a nation that loves to talk about military sacrifice. While the sons and daughters of the middle and lower classes die in Iraq, the wealthy count their toys, literally.” Ahh, the class warfare argument is always handy for the communists. Obviously, only poor and middle class people join the army because they have no other alternative in a “Bush” society. Let’s not bring in the possibility that these people are serving because they feel it their duty, or have a sense of duty to their country, or feel like giving something back to their country for the rights and freedoms they have, and they wish to spread those rights and freedoms to the oppressed elsewhere in the world.

Then he gets right into the class warfare with: “The top 20 percent of households in terms of income -- the households Bush and the Republicans want to give so much of their tax cuts to -- spend an average of $4,516 a year on entertainment according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That is more than:
The $2,121 spent on education.
The $3,255 spent on clothing.
The $3,606 spent on healthcare.
The $254 spent on reading.
The wealthy spend virtually the same on entertainment as on food at home ($4,503). The biggest increases in entertainment spending were for televisions, radios, and sound equipment.” It’s called discretionary spending Derrick. People spend money on essentials first (or at least they should and would if the government didn’t subsidize their lifestyles), and then they spend discretionary funds on other “luxury” items. I can’t afford a Jaguar Derrick, but I will never condemn one who can, and spends his own money to buy one.

Derrick then comes up with this bit of insight, “Entertainment spending drops dramatically as you move down the quintiles, the quintiles more likely to produce our soldiers.” Again, let’s hammer home how only poor people join the armed forces. Obviously, it’s because they can’t afford a TV, and they have nothing else to do, so why not join the army and “see the world”? If they had a TV and saw the horrendous situation and quagmire that Iraq is, they would never join the army. OH MY GOD! I think I understand. Derrick is saying entertainment leads to knowledge, and IF poor people could spend more on entertainment, they would be more knowledgeable and would therefore NEVER join the armed forces! So intelligence is directly related to the amount of entertainment expenditures! I am sure Derrick is working on the theorem as we speak to be submitted to some professional journal for publication.

One item caught my attention. It is this little piece, “…the bottom 20 percent spend $703 a year on entertainment.” The bottom 20% pay NO TAXES AT ALL! Obviously they have enough money to contribute to the tax base. Let’s RAISE THEIR TAXES (by about $700 a year)!

Derrick finishes this strong piece of writing with: “No one has a problem with enjoying special treats with the family. But the invasion and occupation of Iraq is headed toward its third anniversary. To this day, Bush has not called for a national sacrifice to match the courage of the soldiers dying in Iraq. Not even giving up our plasma TV screens and our video games. He says our soldiers are protecting our way of life. We have yet to question whether it is a way of life worth living.” I enjoy my lifestyle, and I can’t even afford a plasma TV.

I guess I can’t fault Derrick for his completely retarded arguments and thoughts, after all, some editor must give his articles the thumbs up…I want to meet that editor.

A Conversation with the New York Times

2005-12-20T18:12:00.000-06:00

R: General! General! A quick question please.

G: Hey, you’re the reporter who said our last conversation was off the record.

R: That’s right General, and it was. It was my "story" that was in the paper.

G: Oh, that’s right. OK, what do you want to know?

R: You’re having problems locating the terrorists and Osama. Why do you think that is?

G: I don’t rightly know. It’s as if they can read my mind. I thought our last operation, you know, the one I mentioned last time we talked, was going to catch them. Somehow, they found out what we were up to. They are amazing creatures!

R: Any leads or operations in the works?

G: Actually, we just got word of a meeting with Osama and some of his boys that will take place next Thursday…

R: Where?

G: In Kabul.

R: Exactly?

G: 124 Maple Lane.

R: House or apartment?

G: Apartment.

R: Apartment number?

G: 3B.

R: So when you enter the main doors you turn to the…?

G: Right. It’s the third door on the left. It has a Christmas wreath hanging on the door.

R: And this raid will take place…?

G: Around 2:00.
R: AM or PM?

G: PM.

R: 2ish…a little before or a little after?

G: We’re hoping for exactly 2:00 PM.

R: I see. And are you going to need a lot of troops or just a couple?

G: We’ll have 24 troops, surround the whole darn place. Hell, we even have a tank coming in.

R: Well, good luck with that operation General. I hope you succeed.

G: This conversation is off the record, right?

R: Yes General, of course. This "conversation" is off the record.

Derrick Jackson

2005-12-17T08:40:00.000-06:00

Derrick Jackson is a writer for the Boston Globe (ediorialist), and he is one of my favorites. It is not becaue he is such a good writer; it is because he continuously writes stupid things. He never stops, no matter how bad he sounds. He reminds me of the guys on "JackASS".

Here is just another example from the Boston Globe:

DERRICK Z. JACKSON
Scrooge in the House
By Derrick Z. Jackson December 10, 2005
'Twas two weeks before Christmas, and all through the House, $50 billion was cut for those considered a mouse. Tax breaks instead hung by the chimney with care, for investors and CEOs, hands already there. America's rich nestled all snug in their beds as $95 billion danced in their heads.
IT WAS expected, of course, that the House of Representatives would do the deed they promised to do before Thanksgiving. They cut $50 billion last month from programs serving low-income Americans. This week they passed the final part of what amounts to $95 billion in tax cuts. It represents a height of taking from the poor to give to the rich.
(Take a class on economics Derrick. Tax cuts mean the wage earner keeps more of HIS money. I is not GIVING to the rich; they EARNED IT, and they get to keep what they earned – reap the benefits of their hard work.)
Out went billions for student loans, Medicaid, and food stamps. In came billions for stock dividends and capital gains.
Regardless of political leanings, economists know where the money is going.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that $70 billion of the $95 billion in tax cuts will go (How about “will stay with”) to households making over $100,000. That category accounts for 14 percent of households. According to the center, that 14 percent will get 74 percent of the money.
(Those households pay 2/3 of the total federal income tax collected Derrick – why wouldn’t they receive more?)
The Brookings Institution's and the Urban Institute's Tax Policy Center calculate that the top 20 percent of American households would get 88.9 percent of the House's tax-cut benefits while the bottom 20 percent would get only 11.1 percent.
(The top 20% income earners pay over 80% of the income taxes, are you seeing a pattern here Derrick? The bottom 20% of wage earners pay NOTHING – in fact, they RECEIVE MONEY! That 11.1% DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM – THEY DID NOT EARN IT. THAT IS INCOME REDISTRIBUTION COMMRAD!?)
Twenty-four percent of the benefits would go to Americans who make more than $1 million a year. Such people make up only 0.2 percent of the population.
(But they pay 35% of the taxes.)
This is not only Scroogian, it is, ''unmoral, uncaring and without compassion," said Georgia Representative John Lewis.
(Here is where liberals get in trouble. Is it moral to steal from someone and give to another? That is what is going on here. The government is stealing from the wage earners and giving to those that do not earn. Is that moral?)

I could only cover half of the article since the incompetence was overwhelming.

Blind Ethics

2005-12-17T08:21:00.000-06:00

Blind Ethics

Blind Ethics are ethical standards best characterized by the belief that the ends justify the means.

In a business setting, people who have “blind ethics” believe that organizational goals must be achieved no matter by what means, even to the detriment of the organization, and they do so with complete and utter disregard for individual rights and freedoms. Ethically, they are blind to all other aspects of the situation. They have blinders on, and the only object in sight is the ultimate achievement of those organizational goals. They cannot see the “big picture”, nor are they willing to see and understand the unintended consequences of their behavior and actions.

These “blind” think and behave this way because they believe there is nothing ethically or morally better than the organization and its goals. They are subservient to the organization and its goals, and they believe that individual thoughts, rights, and freedoms should succumb to the goals and objectives of the organization.

The ethically blind are a detriment; ethically, morally, and legally, to his or her organization. The repercussions from the actions of the ethically blind and the impact on the organization can be far more egregious and costly to the organization than if those organizational goals were not met or achieved.

These are not ethically or morally corrupt individuals, but rather they are misguided on the importance of organizational goals and the methods used to achieve them.

This misguidance can either be fostered by top management and its corporate culture, or it can be deterred, like any other bad behavior, through behavior modification.

So why do these individuals continue to be employed by their organizations? It is simply because they are useful to top management. The ethically blind can be easily manipulated to accomplish organizational goals by means others would consider unethical or illegal. Used in this vein, the ethically blind also provide management with a scapegoat if and when the unethical or illegal methods utilized to achieve organizational goals are discovered and brought to light making management disavow his or her methodology, and discipline the perpetrator.

I'm Baaaaack...for now

2005-12-16T18:50:00.000-06:00

How about a little uncivil old school post...

B: Grandpa, tell me about the great Uncivil War.

G: Ok little Billy; pull up a chair. It all started a long time ago, right after President Hillary was elected. You know Billy; she was the first woman President, even before President Brittany and President Paris. Any who, within her first 100 days of office, she raised taxes on the rich to over 75% and eliminated private health care.

B: Wow Grandpa! Didn’t she think the rich would revolt?

G: Of course not Billy, she was what was once called a progressive-liberal. They never looked at or expected the unintended consequences of their actions.

B: Well why would she do something like that?

G: Well Billy, like all progressive-liberals, she was a socialist. She reasoned that socialism didn’t work in the past because there was no wealth to distribute, but now that capitalism created a lot of wealth, she figured she could forcibly take and distribute that wealth.

B: Couldn’t she see that she was destroying something that created the wealth in the first place? Where did she think new wealth was going to come from?

G: As I said Billy, she was a progressive-liberal, and they didn’t think…of the unintended consequences. They just did what felt good at the time, never looking into the future.

B: Then what happened Grandpa?

G: That’s when the war broke out. Well, it wasn’t really a war. The progressive-liberals also didn’t believe in guns, or war for that matter. The conservatives and the NRA had a field day picking off the PL’s at the abortion clinics and ACLU meetings. Gosh, those were fun times. Winging a PL just to hear him yell, “I’m hit, socialized medicine, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!” (Grandpa chuckles.)

B: Why would progressive-liberals want to start a war when they knew nothing about war or how to fight one? It sounds ridiculous to me. I think you’re making this up just to tease me.

G: If only I were little Billy, but as I keep saying, the progressive-liberals didn’t think. That was their biggest mistake.

B: Now can you tell me the story of progressive-liberal General Custer, and how he wanted to negotiate a peace with the Indians at Little Big Horn, and how the bush conservative Sitting Bull killed him anyway? Can you tell me that one grandpa?

G: Sure Little Billy, once upon a time…

A Brief Math Lesson for the Intelligent Impaired Liberal Left

2005-09-20T16:42:00.000-05:00

Not too much iritates me these days. I have too much to do to pay much attention to the idiots on the left. However, every now and then something catches my eye or my ear and makes me speak up. Usually it's Jerry Springer or Al Franken on Air America spouting off their stupidity, but this time it was Derrick Jackson of the Boston Globe with this great piece of liberal garbage. You can read it here: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/09/20/bush146s_uncaring_tax_cut_math/.

A few words of wisdom from the logically challenged Mr. Jackson:

"WE HAVE two wars abroad. Moreover, we must rebuild a Gulf Coast region so thoroughly devastated that had the destruction come from human hostilities, we would have declared a third war. Yet President Bush pretends in a critical way as if nothing happened at all."

They were poor people Derrick, but Bush isn't ignoring the problem; he caused it, didn't he?

'The questioner said, ‘‘And there’s no way to ask the richest people in America to sacrifice.’’'

Of course this is the class warfare game often played by the liberals. Don't the rich get taken...I mean give enough in taxes Derrick?

"In the Bush world, the math adds up very quickly. One More Warlike Cost + Permanent Tax Cuts + Spending Cuts = Working people who will have to pay more money out of their pocket for all the domestic services that will be cut."

What domestic service Derrick? What service does the federal government provide that we DON'T PAY FOR ALREADY? Oh, you mean for those that don't work and make an income, those on welfare, are going to have to pay for something? I am appalled. You mean, since they already take MY money and give to these people, that they don't want to take MORE of MY money and provide those deadbeats with another program? Is that what you're talking about Derrick?

"According to Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank that studies the impact of budgetary policy on Americans, Bush and his fellow Republicans have already given away $906 billion in tax cuts since 2001. If Bush were to get all the tax cut extensions that he wants, the cost to the federal treasury, if they were to be in effect through 2015, would be $3.7 trillion without interest, $5.1 trillion with interest."

There are so many wrong things in this babble on so many levels I don't know where to start. Yes I do. At least you admit your references are LIBERAL. A liberal think tank is like an oxymoron isn't it? "Liberal" and "think" don't seem to go together.
The idea that the federal government has GIVEN AWAY any money is absurd and shows how incompetent you are in your understanding of what the founding fathers had intended our federal government to be.
The belief that the government has money is a socialistic ideal. The govenrment has NO money. It collects taxes from wage earners, and then disburses those monies for programs. To GIVE money back to the taxpayer is to let the taxpayer KEEP HIS OWN MONEY!
There is NO COST to the federal treasury for taxes not collected. It is the money of the people that EARN it. Do you understand that Derrick? I don't work for the government, but they take my money. Taxes are OUR money, and a tax cut eludes to the money NOT COLLECTED.

"Most people know by now who gets the biggest chunk of the tax cuts. In a report last year, the center found that the average tax cut of the top 1 percent of American households was 54 times the average tax cut of for households in the middle 20 percent — $35,000 compared with $647. In 2004 alone, the 257,000 households that pull down over $1 million a year raked in $30 billion in tax cuts. "

More class warfare here. Let's put some numbers to it. For the year 2000, the top 1% of those that paid income tax, paid 33.6% of ALL individual income taxes collected. That relates to $297 billion. The middle 20% (nice selection), what the hell, let's say the lower 60% of the taxpayers (because that's what you're talking about, paid 7.5% or $67 billion of ALL individual taxes collected. It only seems very logical (so this is where the problem may lie) that the people that PAY THE MOST WOULD RECEIVE THE MOST BACK FROM A TAX CUT.
A few more numbers for you Derrick, the top 10% of the wage earners pay 66.4 % of the total income taxes collected or $587 billion. That 10% represents 14 million people. While the rest, 126 million people pay only 35.6% of the income taxes or $297 billion.
A few more numbers Derrick, the top 1% pay, on average $212,000 in taxes while the lower 60% pay $2,300 in taxes. WOW that's quite a discrepancy there isn't there Derrick? The top 1% pay 100 TIMES MORE TAXES than the lower 60% (that's 1.4 million people versus 126 million people) and you're complaining they received a cut worth 54 times the cut to the lower 60%...YOU'RE RIGHT DERRICK! THAT'S NOT FAIR! THE TOP 1% SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A BIGGER TAX CUT!!! MY GOD YOU'RE A GENIUS! NICE CATCH! Here I thought you were writing this in the favor of the 60%...my bad.
Nevermind.

My apologies

2005-09-13T20:09:00.000-05:00

I would like to admit, here and now, that the fiasco in New Orleans is MY fault. All of it. Not just the delayed reaction of the federal government but the whole hurricane. I must get this off my chest...I...still...use...deodorant...spray! Oh GOD, I'm SOOOO SORRY! It was me! I did it! I caused GLOBAL WARMING! Sometimes I sit in my truck and let it idle too! AHHHHHH!!!

Well I feel better. Boy this confession stuff is great! So while I'm at it...

I accepted Bush's tax cut. I caused POVERTY! Sorry.

I drive an Excursion. I NEED OIL TO FILL UP MY GAS GUZZLER! I caused the WAR FOR OIL! Please forgive me.

I...sometimes...listen...to...Air America Radio...HOLY FATHER PLEASE FORGIVE ME! I'M THEIR ONLY LISTENER AND I'VE KEPT THEM ON THE AIR BY LISTENING!

As long as I'm at it, I'd like to apologize for causing the following in some way or another:
labor pains
capitalism
war
obesity
racism
the glass ceiling
slavery
Scooby Snacks
White Castle
wealth
bird flu
anorexia
aids
heterosexuality
hurricanes
tornados
volcanoes
tsunamis
Fords
sporks
commercials
Dr. Phil
leprosy
halitosis
athelete's foot
math
munchkins
Beanie Babies
cell phones
iced coffee
breast implants
reality TV
Christianity
Halliburton

But I will never, NEVER apologize for Jerry Springer...he's just good people...

Please accept all apologies.

My time blogging at Air America's Blog

2005-08-28T19:28:00.000-05:00

I love liberals, especially with a nice Chianti. My last post seemed to hit a few liberal nerves. Ordinarily, liberals stay away from my site and this was no exception. I posted my entire essay as a comment on Air America’s blog. It was the first comment, so it was hard to ignore, even with the attention span of a liberal, and I did receive some very nice comments, as one would expect from liberals…

Scoopster | 08/23/05 - 07:13 am
________________________________________
Good morning all!

If a troll posts first in the blog, does his post really count as first?

BTW Cracker, I bet you think your buddy Pat Robertson is SO FUCKING CHRISTIAN by advocating the murder of a foreign head of state.

WOW Scoopster, GOOD MORNING TO YOU TO! But come on buddy is that all you got? Apparently not…

Scoopster | 08/23/05 - 07:20 am
________________________________________
OH and by the way, you fucking retard.
No military on earth can defeat the United States military in a conventional war, none. No terrorist, terrorist cells or group of armed combatants can defeat the U.S. military. The terrorists know this.

1) China.
2) North Korea
3) Have you been paying attention? We are getting our ASSES HANDED TO US BY PISSED OFF IRAQI CITIZENS! WHo needs terrorists or a organized military when you have an entire occupied country willing to KILL US!

Hmmm…pissed off Iraqi citizens are kicking our ass…hmmm…a bit over the top I think, perhaps he hasn’t had his coffee yet. My last count was 1900 Americans KIA and tens of thousands of what Scoopster would probably refer to as “freedom fighters” KIA. Hardly an ass whooping, although something tells me Scoopster gets his information from somewhere other than a reliable source. I wonder what goes on in his head when he’s not thinking of bashing America…?

Scoopster | 08/23/05 - 07:23 am
________________________________________
ugh.. I'm waaaay too riled up now. I'm gonna go play some Final Fantasy and calm down. (today's an in-game full moon so maybe I can finally get my Summoner's Ruby!)

OK, I didn’t really need or want to hear that, but when you’re 35 years old, living in your mom’s basement, never had a girlfriend, drinking the liberal cool-aid, Led Zeppelin IV blasting on the record changer, playing video games until Radio Shack opens, trying not to let reality smack you in the face, and your underoos are all in a bunch because George Bush is more of a man than you’ll ever be, I guess Air America blogging makes you feel smart and relevant.

But enough about Scoopster, how about some other intelligent beings blogging at Air America…

MondoBubba | 08/23/05 - 08:05 am
________________________________________
Quote By: cracker
To all the Pacifists, anti-war Liberals, and the Liberal Media;

No military on earth can defeat the United States military in a conventional war, none. No terrorist, terrorist cells or group of armed combatants can defeat the U.S. military. The terrorists know this.

Ummm Cracker, you might not be old enough to remeber this, or choose not to admit it, but the USA has been defeated by an irregular army. I am of course refering to the NLF and the NVA. You might remember a lil conflicted called Viet Nam?

Alright, I’m trying NOT to visualize what his name may represent, so let’s just keep that out of our heads…there. Despite your gibberish writings MondoBubba, I am able to somewhat comprehend what you are trying to communicate (you see, as a scientist, I spent many years studying the great apes and their gruntings and such). As a matter of fact I do remember (add an extra “m”…that is if you can actually read and understand this taunt) Viet Nam. Here are some totals for you:
North Viet Nam – 2,000,000 battle deaths
American battle deaths - 47,410
Iraq battle deaths – 1900

Looks like we kicked some major ass, that is until bleeding heart liberal pussies such as yourself wanted the troops back home before they could finish the war. As you may recall, our retreat cost a couple of million lives to the South Vietnamese.

Is there ANY intelligent life at the Air America Blog…?

swing state grrl | 08/23/05 - 08:51 am
________________________________________
Says cracker: We can only be destroyed from Within

How true that is! We are being destroyed from within by the men and women of this administration who put the corporate interests of the extremely rich above the welfare of the people of this nation.

Ahhh…NOW THAT’S WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT! It was just a matter of time before it became class warfare. The only things missing are “Halliburton” and “this is Bush’s war for OIL!”, but maybe that would be TOO obvious...

Let’s look at another one…

TriSec | 08/23/05 - 08:55 am
________________________________________
Quote By: cracker
To all the Pacifists, anti-war Liberals, and the Liberal Media;

No military on earth can defeat the United States military in a conventional war, none. No terrorist, terrorist cells or group of armed combatants can defeat the U.S. military. The terrorists know this.

The Empire of Japan was two hours away from defeating us on the morning of & December 1941.

(the over-cautious Adm. Nagumo cancelled the third wave, that would have delivered the knockout blow to Pearl Harbor.) As it was, it took 6 months to stop the Japanese advance (Midway) and nearly 2 years to reverse it. (The Solomons Campaign). After that, there was no stopping the USA.

The difference there was clarity of purpose and the unity of all Americans. Oh yes, and something else called "allies". Remember them?

Re-recording history is so liberal; they were two hours away from defeating PEARL HARBOR. There’s a difference TriSec, let’s try and get it right. Even IF the Japanese had destroyed Pearl Harbor, they would NOT have won the WAR (only the battle – if you read something on history and wars, you’ll understand what I’m talking about). Of course if people like YOU would have been President at the time, I’m sure you would have cried like a little girl and given Japan anything it wanted just so it wouldn’t hurt us again…pussy. As the saying goes, it’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog…you little Chihuahua.

Could someone with a BRAIN please provide a little healthy debate?

swing state grrl | 08/23/05 - 09:01 am
________________________________________
Cracker's point, obviously, is that we are superior in conventional warfare....

But this is completely irrelevant! If we are fighting an unconventional enemy (which is what Rumsfeld created when he decided upon his strategy of invasion), it doesn't matter how totally awesome our military is under conventional circumstances. It does no good to whine and say "but they aren't fighting fair!"

MY GOD I THINK SHE GET’S IT!!!! That is exactly right swing state girl. This war is being fought in the hearts and minds of the public, and the liberals are the casualties (see my last post). I think we should nuke it all (but that’s just me).

I wonder if other bloggers at Air America are buying into the nonsensical ramblings of these people…?

Yoshosedai | 08/23/05 - 09:10 am
________________________________________
morning all glad i missed the troll, looks like there was some good hunting though, good job!!

YEP! Oh I am so glad he missed me, he would have torn me a new one; I’m sure of that.

I wonder if anyone else out there in liberland has anything NICE to say…?

livingonli | 08/23/05 - 09:14 am
________________________________________
Quote By: mgmonklewis
Did anybody hear the right-wing pod person on Majority Report last night, who sent Janeane over the edge? His answer for everything: "9/11 happened." End of story.

I missed that since I was still on the road too far from an AAR station, but I think a lot of right-wing trolls repeat that. I guess Cracker (his handle fits his brain size) probably follows that playbook.

Guess not…By the way, what is the relationship of brain size to the “handle of Cracker”?

Is there NO ONE here at Air America Blog that cares? Is there none here with intelligent, logical thought? Come on people! Prove me wrong!

NJ Sharon | 08/23/05 - 09:21 am
________________________________________
Good morning bloggerfrenz.
re: Pat Robertson. I'd comment, but I can't say it better than Rachel. Listen to today's show if you can.
As for cracker, I wish I had the time, you poor lost soul. How many terrorists were in Iraq before we shocked and awed them with dead Iraqi innocents and blown up homes?
They don't win because pacifists want the troops home. They win when the troops show up to fight them. If they wanted the troops out of Iraq, they'd stop shooting at them. The terrorists are happy to have us in Iraq, so they don't have to cross the US border from Mexico or Canada, all they have to do is waltz into Iraq, there's 140,000 American targets right there.

I am totally speechless…

To all the Pacifists, anti-war Liberals, and the Liberal Media;

2005-08-20T19:24:00.000-05:00

No military on earth can defeat the United States military in a conventional war, none. No terrorist, terrorist cells or group of armed combatants can defeat the U.S. military. The terrorists know this.

It is not the intent of the terrorists to defeat the U.S. on the battlefield or in the streets of some city or town. The terrorists would be killed, and they know this. Terrorists do NOT wage this war with the U.S. and its western ideology on the battlefield or in the streets. They are waging this war in the hearts and minds of the American people.

One of the reasons for the war in Iraq was to fight the terrorists in their own country and minimize any civilian casualties here on U.S. soil. Unfortunately the terrorists are waging this war here, and they didn’t even cross the borders of Mexico or Canada. They are in the hearts and minds of the pacifists, anti-war liberals, and the liberal media. They have already defeated these people. They have taken and broken their will to fight (if they had any to begin with). The terrorists have won, and the pacifists, anti-war liberals, and the liberal media are the casualties.

But this war on terror continues. The terrorists have not only defeated these anti-war people and the media, they have successfully recruited them to fight this war for them here on American soil. These anti-war individuals and the media are spreading the propaganda of the terrorists and attempting to turn the thoughts and opinions of others against the U.S. and its military.

Their goal is to break the will of the American people to the point of pulling our troops out of the middle-east and stop fighting. This will show the weakness of the American people. This will bring victory to the terrorists. This is the goal of the pacifists, anti-war liberals, the liberal media, and the Democratic Party.

There are no doubts the pacifists, anti-war liberals, the liberal media, and the Democratic Party are fighting for the terrorists. They can claim they support our troops. They can say they love our country. The Democrats can continue to state they are the party of defense and homeland security. Actions speak much louder than words, and their actions contradict their rhetoric. These are home-grown terrorists, and they are fighting this war on terror against America, on American soil.

We can only be destroyed from Within

Abraham Lincoln
January 27, 1838
"The Perpetuatuion of our Political Institutions"

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bounaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

It Could Only Happen To Me, Part II

2005-07-15T20:38:00.000-05:00

My Time in Hell

Summer 2002

One bit of information you need to know before I begin; my father-in-law is a gagger; you know, one of those people that start to gag as if they’re going to vomit at the slightest mention of something gross or disgusting. To make matters worse for him, he has two sons who just love to make him gag. One of their favorite things to do would be to make a sound like a fart then say, “Oh man, who did that? That stinks so bad!” At the mere mention of this, he would cover his nose with his hand and start to gag. Another favorite was when they had some sort of sausage to eat. My father-in- law had a habit of eating sausage and then complaining it was really greasy; this would get him over to the kitchen sink gagging, so his sons would pretend their sausage was greasy and start to gag which would get him going. I must admit, it was really funny. You could get him to gag practically on command. I think it’s psychosomatic, myself. But, with that said…

My wife’s family had a reunion last summer in Minnesota. It was July. I won’t soon forget. I had no idea Minnesota could get so hot. It’s so close to Canada yah hey. Isn’t it considered the great white north? Oh well.

We drove up from Iowa where most of her relatives live. So we went to Iowa first then on up to Minnesota. Her cousin is a park ranger (I’m not making this up) in a state park, and that’s where we had the party. He even set up a boat tour of the lake. Pretty cool. Everyone brought a dish to pass. All of her relatives are excellent cooks, so the food was good. Did I mention how HOT it was that day? I think the temperature was around 100 degrees.

I’ll just say that we had high temps, potato salad, and coleslaw. Do you see where I’m going with this? Only now do I see the folly of my ways. Unfortunately, I didn’t see them at the time. I love potato salad and coleslaw, at least I used to. I had more than my share I’ll admit, but since I drove, I figured I had it coming (boy did I have it coming!)

We ate then sat around for about a half an hour when we were told the boat was ready. We all waddled over to the dock. It was a big double-decker tour boat. I sat on the top deck. Why? Because I’m an idiot, but that’s beside the point, all the old people sat on the lower deck, so those of us without a walker had to go upstairs. No problem. Did I mention how hot it was that day?

The upper deck had no shade. Thank God I had a hat. Unfortunately it was a leather, Chicago Bulls cap, black. The tour around the lake was going to take two hours. Hmm, two hours on the upper deck under the sun. Did I mention how hot it was that day?

After 45 minutes I started feeling a bit queasy. I attributed this to boredom and the sway of the boat, and I was tired and full. I tried to relax. 48 minutes after we left the dock, I started to wonder where that dock was now. We were just going around the lake. By this time, we were on the other side. 54 minutes after leaving the dock, I saw the place where we had departed. 55 minutes into the trip, I was estimating the distance back to the dock. I thought I could swim it…maybe…no…not the way I was feeling…we needed to get a little closer. The 62 minute mark, I was sweating up a storm. It must be 1000 degrees out here. Do you remember the commercial: this is your brain; this is your brain on drugs, the one with the fried egg? 65 minute mark, the egg WAS my brain. I swear I could hear it sizzle. I took my hat off. Who in their right mind would where a leather hat in this weather? I knew I wasn’t in my right mind. I was thinking that if I were Jesus, I could just walk back to boat dock, to the shade of the trees. Did I mention how hot it was that day?

My wife was talking to me now. I think. I wasn’t paying any attention to her. I was thinking; if I puked over the side, would I hit anyone on the lower deck? Could I hit someone on the lower deck? That would be pretty funny. My wife’s face comes into focus. She seems mad. She’s talking again. All I hear is the sizzling. I wonder what a stroke feels like? I hate this boat. I hate everyone on it. My God, is this ever going to end? Did I mention how hot it was that day?

The trip ended at the dock where we started. Thank God! Shade! I hope the old lady I pushed down on my way off the boat was all right. I think she was a distant relation that lives in Minnesota; we’ll never see her again, so it was okay. I ran to my van, started it and turned up the air conditioning. I prayed to God and thanked him for air conditioning. I must remember to tithe more. Ahhh, I had the air conditioning at full blast. I was beginning to feel well enough to drive extremely fast back to the hotel. Where the hell, were my in-laws? I made my daughter round them up. I was going to leave them there, but I probably would have felt worse if I did, compliments of my wife, so I waited. Did I mention how hot it was outside?

Finally, everyone was in the van. I raced back to the hotel and turned the A/C to full blast in the room. I passed out on the bed. My wife offered to bring me something to eat, damn her! “No thanks,” I said, “I don’t feel too well. I think I’ll just sleep a little more.” I slept about 14 hours. I didn’t feel that well the next day either. Unfortunately, on the way back to Iowa, my wife wanted to stop at various sights along the way. I said it would be okay as long as I could stay in the truck with the A/C on. She agreed. God I love her.

We finally made it back to Iowa. We were staying at her aunt’s house. Her aunt raises grey hounds for racing. They have a big dog house that can house a couple dozen dogs. They also have training runs which are large fenced in areas the dogs can run in. These structures sit about 100 feet behind the house. For the most part, the dogs are quiet.

We were staying in the finished basement, and upon arrival, I immediately went to bed. Around 2 a.m. I awoke with abdominal pains the likes of which I have never experienced. I would liken them to labor pains if I was assured no woman would take offense. However, looking back, I will say that if my ass were a vagina, I know what it’s like for a virgin to give birth to a 15 pound baby. I ran for the bathroom.

It was down the hall and looked out on the backyard. I had just sat down when all hell was loosed upon the toilet. There was an explosion, a sound unworldly, almost demonic. It was loud and the bathroom walls reverberated. I had my face in my hands and my body in a fetal-like position precariously perched on the edge of the seat. I wanted to run from the pain, but I knew it was futile. Another explosion, a bombastic symphony of sounds I have never heard. I think I just blew my sphincter. Is that what a colon looks like? Another and another booming blast of searing pain erupted from down below. Now that’s funny, I don’t remember eating any Mexican food…

And then I heard it, a sound unlike the satanic thunderstorm emanating from my ass. I held my breath to listen, which wasn’t too difficult since I was holding it already. I think I singed some of my nose hairs. There it was again. I prayed for the storm in my bowels to calm. It was…it was…no…it can’t be…it was a dog barking, and not just one. It was now a cacophony of dogs barking. Oh no, please be quiet, please be quiet…I started to pray, “Dear GOD! STRIKE THOSE BASTARDS DEAD BEFORE THEY WAKE SOMEONE UP!” A rolling thunder and a shrill of high pitched blasts followed…from me, not the dogs.

Then I heard the floor squeak over my head. Oh no, I woke someone up. I have never been so embarrassed in my life. I looked at my watch. I always wear my watch, right there on my left wrist. Where is it? My God did I shit that out too? Are those my shoes in there?

The violence finally subsided. I was debating whether I should take a shower, at now 3 in the morning or save fouling a clean shower stall and hose my self off in the back yard. I decided to do neither. I could barely stand. My legs were wobbly. I staggered back to bed. I was walking like those rodeo cowboys who just got a bull’s horn rammed up their ass. I was in pain. I now know what it’s like to be a pretty boy in prison. I passed out.

I awoke at 7 and started to get ready to leave. I avoided the bathroom like the plague, especially since it smelled like it had the plague. It was only a 5 hour drive to get home. I can make 5 hours. We need to hurry. I rushed everyone out. I packed the van and got in. I turned the A/C on full blast, my head resting on the steering wheel. I was waiting. If I had known how the next 20 minutes of my life were about to be played out, I would have left everyone there and gone home by myself.

The scene, the players…

Everyone climbed into the van. I was in the driver’s seat; my father-in-law was in the passenger seat. My wife sat directly behind me, and my mother-in-law was directly behind my father-in-law. The two kids were in the third seat…fighting…of course. My father-in-law looked at me and asked, “What’s the matter? Don’t you feel well?” I weakly shook my head. My wife put her hands on my shoulders and said, “He’s not feeling too well right now.” (I should have known after my father-in-law spoke these next words I was in for trouble.) Leaning back in the seat and putting his hands on his stomach he said, “You know, I don’t feel that well either.” Something clicked in my brain when he said this, but I was too weak to understand what it meant at the time. I started the van and put it into drive. We started moving.

We had not even reached the end of the driveway when my father-in-law turned to my wife and asked, “Do you have any Tums or Rolaids?” My wife said she didn’t but we could get some at the gas station 5 minutes away. There was another click in my brain, a little louder. I turned onto the road. My father-in-law moaned…a little. I looked at him out of the corner of my eye. He was squirming in his seat. The subtle clues hadn’t hit me yet. My brain was still foggy. I was still in pain…and I was NOT in a good mood. I turned again, and again another soft moan from the passenger seat.

“Velda? (my mother-in-law), do you have any Tums or Rolaids in your purse?” my father-in-law asked his wife. She stated she didn’t. Something was becoming clearer, but I’m not sure what. I was on the highway, now 2 minutes from the gas station.

I made it to the gas station. I started to fill up. My wife went to get drinks and Tums. I told my father-in-law to get some air. He got out and walked into the store. Now full, everyone climbed back in, drinks and Rolaids in hand. I had no idea I had 15 minutes of hell waiting for me.

We got back on the highway, same seating arrangement, kids still fighting. My father-in-law took 2 Rolaids. We had wasted time and now I was going to make up for it. I was doing 70 in a 55, making good time. I heard a moan, a big, loud moan from the passenger seat. A little voice in my said I should ignore it, but it was like a bad traffic accident, I couldn’t look away. I turned my head. My father-in-law was now rubbing his stomach vigorously. His head was rolling from side to side. He was moaning louder and said, “Oh, I don’t feel well…I think…I think…I think I’m going to be sick!” I FLOORED IT!

He started gagging. Uhhmmm…uhhmmphh….uhhmmmph. “GOD DAMMIT, YOU WILL NOT PUKE IN MY CAR!” I screamed. Then I started to gag. As sick as I was, this was the LAST thing I needed. “GET HIM A BUCKET!” I screamed. “I don’t see anything.” My wife said, a bit anxious. “LOOK DAMMIT LOOK!” I yelled. Uhhmmph…uuhhmmph… I kept hearing his retching which, in turn, made me dry heave. I rolled down my window and stuck my head out. My wife, and now the kids, were desperately searching everywhere for some sort of bucket. “GET A PLASTIC BAG!” I shrieked. I was close, very close to losing it. I was now doing 95 miles an hour looking for any type of gas station or restaurant. Uhhnmmph…uuhhmmph… “DID YOU FIND ONE YET!?” “No, all I have is this,” my wife said holding up a ripped Jewel bag. “WELL GIVE IT TO HIM DAMMIT!”

She handed him the bag. He put it up to his mouth. I looked over at my mother-in-law. I looked directly in her eyes and saw…a smirk. My in-laws have been married about 45 years. She, of all people, knows his psychosomatic gagging. She got as much pleasure out of watching her sons tease him about his gagging as they did. I hated her at that particular moment. She calmly watched as I was screaming, trying not to puke, and holding my head out the window while driving like a maniac. She calmly watched as her daughter and grandchildren feverishly searched for a bucket. She was smirking. More gagging was coming from the passenger seat.

He was calming down now. I was breaking out in a major cold sweat. “Uh, I thought I was going to vomit,” he said. I looked at him with pure hatred. If my hands weren’t now permanently embedded in the steering wheel, I would have reached over and strangled him. I was still doing 95. He slowly leaned back. “Oh…oh…my stomach,” he said. “OH SHIT!” I thought.

“DOOOOOOOOOH!” he screamed. His body went rigid, his feet against the floor of the van and only his head touching the seat. He was straight as a board. For a man in his 70’s, he clenched his butt cheeks so tight he could have cracked walnuts with them. I was now doing close to 100 miles an hour. His body went slack, then rigid again. I saw a gas station up ahead. I cut over two lanes of traffic and squealed my tires into the turn of the off ramp. I screeched to a halt in the parking lot right in front of the station. “GET OUT OF THE FUCKING CAR!” I yelled at him. He said, “Velda, come in with me.” Why should I come in with you?” she flippantly asked him. I turned to my precious mother-in-law and calmly said, “GET OUT OF THE FUCKING CAR AND GO WITH HIM GODDAMMIT!”

I put my head on the steering wheel and thanked God I was still alive, and then cursed him for the same. My father-in-law came out of the store 10 minutes later. He climbed in. “Oh, I feel so much better now,” he claimed. “Here, I bought everyone candy bars. Which one do you want?” He sweetly smiled at me, and I thought to myself, “I want the biggest one, SO I CAN SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS!” I said, “None for me thanks.” He said, “No? Still not feeling well?” I was still too weak to kill him.

We left the gas station. For some unknown reason, I kept looking for a good spot along the side of the road to dump a body.

Social Security and the Moronically-Hypocritical-Liberal Minded-Galactically Stupid

2005-07-09T18:16:00.000-05:00

There are a few things in this life that really piss me off, like the French and the incompetent, but when I saw this picture in the Chicago Tribune today, I exploded.

Let me describe it to you. It is a group of 20-somethings, protesting Bush’s Social Security proposals. There is nothing wrong with that. However, one young man is apparently chanting and holding a sign that reads, “Hands Off My Social Security!” That’s fair enough. But then right behind him is a young lady chanting and holding a sign that reads, “Stop Privatization”. Does anyone reading this see anything wrong here?

First of all, for all you liberal pinheads out there, social security has NO GUARANTEE! There is nothing in any legislative act, law, or constitution that says you are guaranteed social security benefits. Congress has the right to reduce or even eliminate any social security benefits to which you may think you’re entitled. Does everyone understand this concept, this REALITY? There is nothing with your name on it in the social security system other than the payroll tax YOU MUST PAY. There is no individual account that says, “Mr. Smith paid in this much in his life, and therefore he is entitled to these benefits.” NOTHING! Do all you incompetent liberals understand this?

The ONLY way you can be assured Congress will keep their hands off of your money is to have YOUR OWN PRIVATE ACCOUNT! WITH YOUR NAME ON IT! IDIOT!
And yet here we see these bright, intelligent individuals out there protesting against the very thing that will accomplish what they want! My God, it makes me sick to think these people are the future of this country.

The dichotomy of these two signs and the fact that they are utilized to protest the same issue clearly shows how disconnected from logic and reason the liberal mind is. I don’t want to believe these people are really that stupid and moronic, just caught up in the political and hypocritical rhetoric of the left. However, this in and of itself will reveal that these individuals do hold some responsibility and accountability to research and investigate the facts of the issue, and for that, or the lack thereof, they are really that stupid.

The War on Terror

2005-07-09T18:14:00.000-05:00

We are currently fighting the war on terror. That means that our enemies utilize terror as their weapon, killing the innocent to instill terror in the hearts and minds of the masses. Terrorists realize they cannot and will not physically kill all of us infidels. That is strategically and realistically impossible.

They can, however, change the hearts and minds of the timid and weak, and this is where and how the terrorists wage their war. When the will to fight this war on terror diminishes, when people start to question our resolve in this fight, when people start to call for our troops to come home, the terrorists win.

This is a war that is fought not on the battlefield as much as in the heart and mind of the people. The only way to win this war is to continue to fight on the battlefield, to believe in your strength of will and resolve, to be willing to fight for the control of your heart and mind and never succumb to fear.

To the liberals that call for the withdrawal of our troops, who blame America and the west for bringing this war on themselves, who believe the lifestyles and capitalism of Americans are to blame, you are victims of terrorism, and if you were fighting this war you would have already lost. By your cries to blame and your cries for withdrawal, you are utilizing the terrorist’s tactics to spread fear. You are fighting this war for the terrorists in the hearts and minds of those you wish to persuade. You are using terrorism without killing, and you do not see it. This same mindset and fear was demonstrated during the Viet Nam war. America did not lose that war on the battlefield; it lost it in the hearts and minds of the public, that same battlefield where you wage your war now.

Spain was attacked by terrorists, and the Spanish succumbed to their fear. They lost. Do you wish to follow Spain down that path? It was their weakness and fear that has now caused the latest attack in London. Let us hope the British will show the same resolve and determination they once showed during World War II. Let it be known that American Conservatives will stand behind their British brethren all the way.

Changing the Constitution

2005-07-06T17:12:00.000-05:00

When I became union president, I swore to uphold the tenets of our contract under its original intent as agreed between labor and management. Negotiations were open and fair, and both sides negotiated in good faith. I did not agree with everything in our contract, but I upheld it as I expected management to follow it.

As I have explained to GBlagg on many occasions, even employees that deserved to be punished had a right to be represented, and management was held accountable to follow the disciplinary procedure as set forth in that contract. Many times, employees that deserved punishment were absolved from that punishment due to management’s incompetence or refusal to follow the contract. The goal was to always make sure the contract was followed.

If the union or management wanted changes made to the contract, those changes were achieved through negotiations; never interpretation. Management would never agree to new interpretation of the contract, just as a union would never allow management to change the interpretation. If changes were wanted or needed, one party sent a notice of intended changes to the other party. Only if both parties agreed to open the contract would negotiations begin. Agreement of changes would be in the form of a Letter of Agreement, a Memorandum of Understanding or an Amendment.

So what is so different when discussing the Constitution of the United States?

The Constitution was written with rules and procedures to change its meaning and expand its scope; those changes are called “amendments”. It is a “living document” in that; changes can be made to allow for a changing society and environment. “Original intent” applies, not only to the original document, but also to all the amendments as intended at the time of the adoption of those amendments. Interpretation was never intended as a means to change the constitution, if it were, those rules and procedures to amend the document would not have been included; there would be no need to include them.

However, the liberal-progressive-socialist agenda would never make it through the constitutional change process as set forth in the document. The majority of the people and the majority of the state legislatures would never agree to change the constitution and adapt the liberal agenda. I think this has been very evident in the last few elections. Therefore, the only way the liberal-progressive agenda has been instituted has been through the Supreme Court and its interpretational changes to the constitution.

One of the major areas of concern is the Roe v. Wade decision. I’m pretty sure the framers of our constitution never thought of abortion rights, but now, through interpretation, it is a constitutional right. The correct decision would have been to say the constitution is silent on abortion. Therefore, either an amendment is needed to the constitution, and the process to create and implement that change is started, or it becomes a state issue.

It bothers me to here politicians claim that an originalist on the Supreme Court will bring back segregation and take away the rights of women and minorities. This is nothing more than a scare tactic used by the liberals. As Justice Scalia once said, there is no moderate interpretation of the constitution. It is simply fear of loss, the loss of power and control, by the liberal-progressive-socialists who realized the court was their last bastion of power to implement their agenda, and they know they are losing the fight.

It also bothers me to hear people label current and potential justices. The terms liberal and conservative are misused in this instance. I believe more appropriate terms for Supreme Court justices would be originalist and legislativist. An originalist interprets the constitution and its amendments in the context of original intent. A legislativist, on the hand, would change the constitution through interpretation, thereby becoming a type of super-legislator, and a non-elected one at that.

Hopefully, President Bush will select an originalist to the Supreme Court. At least it will be a start to re-distribute congressional powers as they were originally intended. The Congress can create laws, and the Supreme Court can go back to interpreting laws.

Hold Them 'Account'able

2005-05-15T08:20:00.000-05:00

I was ranting to Cracker the other day about my inability to understand the mind set inherent to many of the left. The subject of discussion was the debacle that is now Social Security. I was opining as to how many liberals just simply refuse to acknowledge the dire straits of this program. How they refuse to admit that it is heading for disaster. That they, themselves will not be the ones to pay for their naivete...it will be their children and their grandchildren. That their inaction will likely cause their offspring to be hit with upwards of a 17% payroll tax... for Social Security alone. Forget what they will be paying by then towards S.S.’s sister disaster, Medicare. And add to that the extra amount in income taxes those unfortunate enough to have had purposely blind parents will then be forced to pay in order to reimburse the money that is being borrowed (read stolen) from the trust fund today. And the worst thing about it all, the very thing that catches in my craw the most, is that this is from the party of ‘for the children’! How in the hell could the ‘for the children’ crowd act in such a patently ignorant way?
Well, right then Cracker looked me directly in the eye and once again blessed me with his infinite wisdom.
“They are the party of ‘for the children, now.” He stated.
Ah. It all fell into place. Over and over I have seen how the left has no concept of the meaning of unintended consequences. Of how they act today on emotion with little regard for how their actions will logically cause future results. And this was the exact same thing. ‘The party of for the children, now’. Perfect.
And this brings me to the point of this post. They need to be held accountable. Those who would chose to ignore the coming problem through ignorance or simply partisan politics must be held to personal responsibility.
So here is how I aim to make just that happen. I am beginning a virtual storehouse for statements made, not just by those in the public eye, but by anyone in regards to the ‘threat’ of saving Social Security. Please post any verifiable quotes in the comment section of this post. I hope to amass a sizable collection that will then be saved not only through the power of the blogosphere, but to my own personal hard drive. Either way, they will be saved for future generations to peruse. And I will make it the very meaning of my waning years to assure they do just that. In five year increments, I will post my collection of gems, where ever I am able. On personal blogs...through blog bursts...in Letters to the Editor...in mailers...forwarded to those in power...really anywhere my evil little mind can think of.
For once, those responsible will be held accountable. Not merely given clemency by the memory dulling fog of the past.
Since this is my self appointed burden, it is only fair I get the party started...

-From thereisnocrisis.com:

When Will The Money Run Out?
It won't. Based on long-term economic projections, the Social Security trust should be fine for 50 years or so. At that point, some experts project that the number of people retiring will demand more money than payroll taxes can provide. Depending on birthrates, immigration and wages, that may or may not be the case. A lot can change in 50 years.

-Paul Krugman:

The annual report of the Social Security system's trustees reveals a system in pretty good financial shape.

-From Bob @ arriannaonline.com:

Social security is taking in 150 billion more per year today than they are paying out, and will be taking in more than they pay out for the next 15 or 20 years. this surplus is to be used to pay out benefits to the baby boomers when they retire.

Even if nothing is done to " fix social security" the trust fund will have enough to pay full benefits for the next 40 or 50 years then can pay out 80% of benefits from ss receipts. Thes(sic) facts are from the CBO, and the social security trustees.

Republican claim there is a crisis that need to be fixed now, to them I ask where is the crisis? to me it would appear that social security is in pretty good shape.

-Dean Baker, economist and co-director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in D.C.:

Why would anyone want to change a system that works so well?

-Robert Kuttner, opinion writer for The Boston Globe/co-editor of The American Prospect:

'PRESIDENT Bush's entire plan for Social Security privatization rests on the premise that the system is in severe crisis. But a careful look at the numbers suggests that the financial crisis is largely a myth.’
-Senator Harry Reid: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june05/reid_2-17.html
‘Well, I think it's going to help what we're saying. What we're saying is there is no crisis. This is a manufactured crisis.’
And,
‘We Democrats believe, all of us, that there is no crisis.’

-Rob Simmons, Connecticut Republican Rep.:

Why stir up a political hornet's nest ... when there is no urgency? When does the program go belly up? 2042. I will be dead by then.

-Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post:

In short, Social Security is not facing a financial crisis at all.

Now it is your turn. C'mon, join up and simply post the quotes and authors in the comment section here.
It is about time stupid selfish people are held accountable...Heck, just ask Democratic Senator Robert Byrd (from 2001):

What do we mean in terms of the calendar when we speak of the baby boom generation? I started out in politics in 1946. The baby boom generation began then and there, for the most part, in 1946. That was a good starting point. Ten years from now, when 53 million Americans are expecting Social Security --hear me--10 years from now, when 53 million Americans will be expecting Social Security to be there for them in their retirement, they will remember--they will remember--whether we voted for a budget resolution that failed to address the long-term financing crisis that faces the Social Security program. They will remember, and so will we.

Author: GBlagg
Crossposted @ Sticks and Stones
and The Wide Awakes

The Importance of Private Accounts

2005-04-20T18:49:00.000-05:00

The following paragraphs may be somewhat boring to many of you, but if you are at all interested on the Social Security debate, private/public pension issues, and/or political skullduggery it may be well worth the read.

In the state of Illinois, at this moment, there is an attempted cash grab by the vulture Blagojevich and his minions. They have their hungry, greedy eyes on a pension fund know as IMRF (the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund).
IMRF is a pension fund in which all Illinois municipal employees are forced to enroll in. Much like in Social Security, these employees have no choice…the pension is taken directly from their checks. And much like Social Security employees have no actual account with their name on it…but we will return to that later.
Back to the cash grab.

From AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) Council 31, Legislative Update:

‘The Governor’s pension proposals would cut the benefits of all current university employees and teachers (employed by school districts), as well as those of all newly hired teachers, state and university employees. The resulting two-tier pension system would inevitably have the impact of holding down any further pension improvements from current AFSCME members. These cuts are being used to justify massive borrowing from the pension funds in the coming year-but in actuality, the cuts would generate almost no immediate savings.’

Let me explain. The governor wants to cut pensions on State employees, and also dip into the state pension trust fund. Basically, he wants state access to the amount of monies left over after benefits are paid to those currently drawing a pension.
But it gets worse, and here is where IMRF comes back in. You will remember IMRF is the municipal employee pension. Mr. Blagojevich has proposed combining the IMRF fund with the State pension fund. Currently IMRF invests $18 billion after paying beneficiaries and the State fund around $10 billion. The Illinois governor sees dollar signs. He feels if he can combine the funds, not only will IMRF save the state pension, but he will also have that much more in his lusted after ‘trust fund’ to use on whatever pet projects he deems worthy.

This is patently wrong.

And it points directly to the problem with not only these pension funds, but also Social Security. And the problem is they are not personal accounts. John Doe does not own his pension account. When he retires, his benefits are paid out of the trust fund. Because Mr. Doe has no personal account but is paid from a trust fund, the trust fund can be used by the state(or in the case of Social Security-the Feds)for whatever whim they see fit.

If John Doe had a private account, the government could not touch his money. They could not drain the trust fund. They could not combine pensions merely to grab cash. They could not steal from John Doe’s account.

Even beyond the pension issue, this is a Democratic governor walking a fine line of union busting. Mr. Blagojevich relied heavily on unions in his bid for election. And now his greed is pitting members of the same AFSCME union (municipal vs. state) against one another. He teases the state employees with a boon to their pensions, while at the same time striking fear in the municipal employees with a loss of theirs. Where is your Democratic love of unions here, Mr. Governor?

All totaled, few issues hit so many conservative bias’ as this fiasco.
First, the employee is forced to pay into these accounts…where is the choice?
Second, he does not actually own his account…echoes of socialism.
Third, because he is not a private owner of his account, the government can basically pirate his money. And then use it to prop up whatever failing government program or liberal boondoggle they need to get reelected.
Fourth, it shows the political process at its worst and most evil. The governor is playing state and municipal employees and their unions against each other in a money grabbing Machiavellian scheme.

This is Illinois politics at its worst, and that says a lot. But the key issues are truly country wide in scale. When pensions (and this includes Social Security) are not personally owned, they become easy prey to government pilfering and abuse. It is private ownership that keeps the vultures at bay. But even now they circle, smelling the death of your retirement dreams.

Crossposted @ The Blogger News Network
and Sticks and Stones

News you should Know

2005-04-16T06:59:00.000-05:00

Is there anyone out there that thinks the UN is good. Kofi should be replaced, immediately. If this article isn't a great example of why John Bolton should be the next ambassador to the UN, I don't know what would be.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who earlier angered the United States and Britain by calling the Iraq war 'illegal,' has upset both nations again -- this time accusing them of allowing Saddam Hussein to enrich himself selling oil outside the U.N.-run oil-for-food program.

Since GW won't stand up for the will of the people, the people must take control.

The media is clearly displaying their bias once again...suprised?

It's one thing to completely misunderstand the concept of social security. It's another to write it down and prove to the world you're an idiot.

What is the REAL problem with liberals and their HATE of the wealthy? DO they really want to punish people who have shown fiscal responsibility and just want to pass something on to their kids?

The Senate must stand firm for an estate tax that provides an ample exemption of up to $2 million per person, but with a top rate, 45 percent, that ensures that a reasonable amount is actually paid to the government. Anything less would impair fairness and could be fiscally crippling for decades to come.

Impair fairness? It's your money, you earned it, and you want your kids to have it when you die. Impair fairness?

Jimmy Carter...need I say more? We do care about the poor, we don't like the government putting a gun to our head, stealing our money and giving it away, completely relieving us of choice. Get a clue Jimmy.

The Dems claim it's to express an opposing opinion; the problem is they don't even express an opinion when they have the floor with a filibuster. It's time to take control.

Frist says he is basing his decision on constitutional principles, not politics. "I just want a reasonable up-or-down vote on the judicial nominees that come to the floor," he said this week, so that senators can "give advice and consent, which is our constitutional responsibility. It is something that we absolutely must have."

That's enough for now. Enjoy.

Karl Rove is a Genius

2005-04-08T18:30:00.000-05:00

How smart is Karl Rove? Let us count the ways...

He created the forged documents that said Bush was given special treatment in the reserves. He then sought media outlets to "buy-in" to the story. Only Dan Rather and CBS News were gullible enough to fall for it.

He talked Osama Bin Laden into making a tape, threatening the U.S. right before the presidential election. Then he had news outlets air it. This infuriated the public enough to vote for Bush.

He somehow found a woman on a feeding tube, talked her husband into pulling out the tube to create a right-to-life issue. He then somehow fooled the Democrats into taking the side of DEATH in the issue.

He is destroying any chance of PSAs to solve the Social Security problems, rather, he is going to cut Medicare, thereby killing off old people, thereby saving SS for future generations.

He stuffed all the ballot boxes during the Democratic primaries ensuring the win by John Kerry.

He actually GOOSED Howard Dean, making him scream...the infamous scream.

He caused a tsunami in the South Pacific - just to send a little message to our Muslim friends in the far east...

Just over 2000 years ago, he talked a small-time carpenter into claiming he was the son of GOD.

In 750000 BC he talked the cavemen into using "fire".

WEISNER WINS!

2005-04-06T18:47:00.000-05:00

Weisner wins, 60-40, as I predicted. Charles DeGraw is nowhere to be found. He didn't want to play with me.

Irvin ran a negative campaign. With all of his endorsements from various Illinois Republicans, including a 45 second phone message from Denny Hastert, he couldn't pull off the win. His stronghold, the far east side, had a referendum which increased the voter turnout, and he STILL couldn't win.

He was a bad candidate running a bad campaign.

Tom Cross and his little buddies can now pack up their smear manuals and smear coloring books and go back home.

It's over. Weisner won. Enough said.

Excuse me while I Boast

2005-04-02T16:59:00.000-06:00

At what lengths will the Illinois Republican Party go to intimidate and harass while recognizing one's right to free speech. It is priceless.

It is amazing to have such POWER over others with mere words, ideas and logic to get a threatening response such as the one I received today. To realize an institution like the Illinois Republican Party is so afraid of one voice; perhaps because I speak the truth, and they know there are millions like me out there. They feel they have to threaten, intimidate and silence that voice. BOY DID THEY PICK THE WRONG GUY!

This is from Charles Degraw at govt_timeclocker@yahoo.com

Dear XXXXXXXX aka Auroracracker,

First of all, allow me to applaud your active participation in the political process and employment of your right to free speech.

However, it is only right that I inform you that every post you have made to every blog and message board has been archived. The archive will be delivered to the Mayor, Mr. Anderson, City of Aurora Personnel Department, and countless others. Further, your time sheets have been requested through the Freedom of Information Act and will be compared against the times of all your political postings.

Have a nice day and keep up the good work.

govt_timeclocker@yahoo.com

If anyone wishes to contact Charles DeGraw at govt_timeclocker@yahoo.com, you can email him at govt_timeclocker@yahoo.com. I'm sure he's surfing the net as we speak.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have about a hundred more people to whom I will send this.

Cross Posted at Blogger News Network

Richard Irvin is to Blame for the LIES

2005-04-01T05:41:00.000-06:00

Yes Richard Irvin is to blame for all the lies spewing forth from his campaign. He can try and pawn off the flyer fiasco on the printer, but his latest flyer is just more lies. When is he going to stop? Is he getting advice from the tards over at Cross's office? If he is, he's listening to the wrong people. They have done nothing but run a negative campaign, basically because they have no faith in his platform (WHEN YOU CAN'T RUN ON YOUR OWN MERITS, I GUESS YOU SMEAR YOUR OPPONENT).

His latest flyer:

Aurora Water Gets Contaminated with E. Coli
As community services director, Tom Weisner was responsible for informing our citizens of water contamination - however, he failed and allowed our citizens to go uninformed about high of ammonia and the dangerous e.coli.

WRONG! That's a LIE RICHARD! It was EMA and Larry Langston's job to inform the public, and he failed. Weisner's department was the only department working properly during the crisis.

Weisner Quit during Aurora Boil Order
When the going got tough, Tom Weisner quit. Instead of staying on the job and helping state and federal officials clean the bacteria out of our water system - Tom Weisner could not be found for days. When we needed him the most, Tom Weisner quit.

This statement is just RETARDED! It was not the job of anyone other than those in the water department to clean the system, idiot. Tom Weisner's department was running smoothly. Even the mayor wasn't helping clean the system. And if was such a crisis, why did the HR director decide to go to the Dells the day it was announced? Why didn't the Chief of Staff come back from his vacation since it was so urgent? The fact is, Tom was one of the few that did his job, effectively.

Weisner docked pay for being AWOL
Weisner's pay was docked for missing in action during the water crisis for almost 2 days.
Source: Official City of Aurora records obtained via FOIA requests

This shows Irvin's complete lack of understanding of internal operations in the City. Weisner quit 2 days BEFORE the end of the pay period. He received a check for his full amount and then he was cut an amended check - minus the two days he didn't work. He wasn't "missing", and it was a week AFTER the water was deemed contaminated.

It would at least show a bit of intelligence if Irvin got SOMETHING right about Weisner. I fear Irvin is being led astray by Tom Cross's people (and Richard has a couple of psychos working for him too.) The Republican Party has been reprehensible in this campaign and I am disgusted with them. They act just like liberals and that won't do. The Illinois Republican Party has had to endure the sleaze and lies of George Ryan who single-handedly destroyed the party, but instead of rising above the sleaze, the IRP seems to be wallowing in it, not a good way to work your way back into the good graces of the voters.

Illinois Republicans Like National Democrats

2005-03-28T07:11:00.000-06:00

What is the problem with the Illinois Republican Party? They're comparable to the Democratic Party at the national level. They whine, call names, and have no logical thoughts or arguments.

We've talked about the Richard Irvin flyer fiasco. His constituents are claiming that he apologized already, what more do we want? Well, you can start by firing the guy that made the flyer - someone DID make it that way - not the printer. Someone sent it to the printer that way - the printer didn't change it. It was DELIBERATE. The damage has been done and Irvin thinks all he needs to do is apologize.

Now, over at Illinois Leader Discussion Forum, he has his little pitbull puppies, not necessarily defending him as much as ripping Tom Weisner. A little taste from various discussions:

Raybeam:
If Tom Weisner is only concerned about the area where he lives, then why the #%@! is he running for Mayor of Aurora? Why doesn't he run for Prince of Prairie Street?

Vicki, you support Tom's lies and misleading and now we see you support his being a coward. Let me guess, you probably are going to come up with an excuse about Weisner being a draft dodger, too.

Weisner said he CHOSE to leave the city to focus on his campaign. He did so at the time of the water crisis. He has run around claiming the timing is just a coincidence. We know for a FACT that he disappeared and went AWOL during the water crisis, THEN quit. The truth is his departure was related to his disappearance. If he wanted to focus on the campaign, he could have CHOSE to wait until after the water crisis.

Weisner operates with threats and intimidation. He's a dirty, vindictive and disturbed individual.

If Weisner's cronies are successful in winning this election, we have chaos, scandals and investigations to look forward to surrounding the draft-dodging liar.

Garth Algars:
Mule, Half truths will not get you anywhere. Meg Gorecki had many issues that we are all aware of. Richard was never demoted or Fired like you contend the facts are out there and anyone can verify them.

As for crackheads! Only crackheads would back a draft dodger, a quiter, an individual who has no fiscal responsibility (ala the roundhouse debacle, the rubber stamping of the cable contract and garbage contract just to name a few) A guy who campaigns on 'experience' but fails to mention how much that experience has cost the people of Aurora. (millions over 18 years)

Don't forget the fact Tom is a draft dodger!
Tom lies and misleads.
Tom lies.
When things get tough Tom runs and hides (Viet Nam, Water Crisis, just to name a few)
Tom is a stale old fish.

Some classic stuff. Intelligent, well-thought out, logical, emotionless (NOT).

How many time have we heard the liberals scream that Bush "lied" about WMDs? Here, we have the same rhetoric. It makes me ashamed that Irvin claims he's a Republican. I'm not buying it though. If you whine like a liberal, cry like a liberal, and scream lies like a liberal little girl...YOU'RE A LIBERAL!

Illinois Politics

2005-03-27T09:17:00.000-06:00

I do not know Richard Irvin personally.

He is running for the seat of Mayor of the city of Aurora, Illinois. It is the second largest city in the state.

I do not know Richard Irvin personally. But he is what is wrong with the Republican party in Illinois.

He has, in the recent past, argued for the use of Eminent Domain merely to increase tax revenues.
So you would take a man’s home through threat of fine or jail if you must, in order to build a Wal-Mart, Mr. Irvin? You would force people out of their homes so McDonalds could sell more Big Mac’s? A life time of mortgage payments declared meaningless for the sake of pushing a Happy Meal.
Worse yet, the area he had in mind does not even fall under the jurisdiction of the Mayor of Aurora. It is outside the boundaries of the city. Mr. Irvin, NASA called, they said that rocket scientist job has been filled.

I do not know Richard Irvin personally. But he must know me, because he thinks I’m pretty stupid.

In his latest insult to all that is Conservative, his office was responsible for mailing a flyer, days before the election, which basically stated that his opponent, Tom Weisner, was responsible for poisoning Aurora’s water supply. Mr. Weisner is a Democrat and thus no great friend of mine, but this is past below board. It is an outright lie.
He later apologized. But he followed up this debacle by claiming that it was the printer where he had sent the document that was in error. I personally saw this flyer and that is just a ridiculous claim. I was born at night, Mr. Irvin, but not last night.

Living in Illinois, I am victim to much inanity from the Left. Dick Durbin is my Senator after all. But unfortunately, in this Blue state it comes from the Right as well.

Crossposted @ Sticks and Stones

What the Hell is Wrong with the Illinois Republican Party?

2005-03-25T15:48:00.000-06:00

Judy Barr-Topinka for Governor? Is that the best we can do? Maybe she would eliminate the sales tax on cigarettes?

I warned Tom Cross about backing people before knowing what they stand for and what kind of people they are. In this post I stated:

Note to Tom Cross: before you back a candidate and make him one of the new premier Republican candidates for the future of Illinois, I suggest you make sure his stance on issues are roughly the same as yours. I would hate to see you guys taken advantage of, but that would be funny.

I love it when people prove me correct. In Irvin's latest fiasco, he blames his opponent, Tom Weisner, for contaminating the drinking water! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What AN IDIOT!
We all received the flyer yesterday. It was so horrendously false it made me laugh. I couldn't believe Irvin was this stupid. Here is the news story from the Beacon News.

AURORA — Mayoral candidate Richard Irvin apologized Thursday for a mailer sent out by his campaign that claims his opponent Tom Weisner was responsible for the contamination of the city's water supply last year that led to a 10-day boil order.

Irvin admitted the information contained in the flier is wrong and blamed the mistake on his printing company. He called Weisner to apologize Thursday morning after the piece started arriving in the mail.

OF COURSE THE PRINTER DID IT! Silly me, I alwways thought the candidate and his campaign made the flyer then had the printer print it. I guess in this case, the printer created all the lies.

The mailer wrongly states that Weisner, as Aurora's community service director, made the city's water too dangerous to drink in February 2004 when he "allowed our water supply to be contaminated with high levels of ammonia and E. coli — forcing a 10-day boil order."

While Weisner oversaw the city's customer service center that fielded calls about the crisis, he was in no way responsible for water quality.

My God, have liberals infiltrated the Republican Party of Illinois?

Weisner said he doesn't accept Irvin's explanation and compared his apology to "saying sorry for sticking that knife in your jugular."

"How can something that's 90 percent false be a simple oversight of a few changes?" he said.

Irvin said the flier was supposed to state that Weisner quit in the middle of the crisis when he was responsible for communicating with the public about the boil order. But the marketing company did not make the corrections to the flier before sending it out, as requested, Irvin said.

So someone in his campaign DID create this flyer as is.

"If there wasn't a clear one-year trend of negatives, you might say this was just an aberration," Weisner said. "This is just another negative action in a long string."

Is this the way the Illinois Republican Party is going to gain a foothold? By supporting an idiot, an immature, dishonest idiot? Tom Cross actually declared this guy a top ten Republican newcomer.

I think this little "slip up" shows his lack of judgment, lack of integrity, lack of honesty, and lack of dignity. It is quite obvious Richard Irvin is too immature to lead the great city of Aurora into the future. His platform of "1 Aurora" is quite different the platform he preaches. It looks like he is more interested in dividing Aurora than bringing it together.

Time to hang it up Richard. And it's time to rethink the Illinois Republican ideology, maybe get some morals and values it can stand for rather than putting this crap in the spotlight. TO TOM CROSS - I TOLD YOU SO!

What the Hell is Wrong with Democrats?

2005-03-23T18:30:00.000-06:00

Do Democrats have a mental disease? Are they somehow retarded? Is hypocrisy part of this dementia?

I think you've all heard snippets from the MoveOn.org convention of the mentally challenged party.

Do they understand the term "deomcracy"? It is the rule of the majority. If one party has the majority in Congress, the agenda of that majority is pushed. Does anyone remember the Democrat controlled congresses from the 40's through the 80's? They didn't seem to mind having the majority then. Now, they are screaming about the majority-because it's not their party-hypocrisy.

Such stunning quotes as:

"They want the rubber stamp of dictatorship," said Senator Chuck Schumer.

"They want one-party rule," said Senator Patrick Leahy.

"An ill wind blows through this country. Your freedom of speech is in jeopardy," said Senator Robert Byrd. "The opponents of the filibuster, the opponents of free speech say we don't need 217 years of American history."

Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Hillary Clinton also took turns at the microphone to denounce a Republican "power grab." They were speaking on Wednesday at a rally organized by MoveOn.org.

Power grab? They have the majority, idiot. They have the power. There is no need for a "grab" because the voters "gave" them the power. They have the majority in the House, the Senate, and they have the white house because the voters wanted it that way. They are NOT opposed to filibusters, only the abuse of it. The Democrats have successfully halted not only debate, but a vote, on judicial nominations, nominations that have the constitutionally required 51 votes for confirmation. That is abuse.

They are requiring those nominations to have 60 votes for confirmation, and that is unconstitutional.

Senate Republicans, upset that a mere 95 percent of Bush's judicial nominations have been approved, have proposed eliminating the filibuster, and with it the minority party's ability to oppose a nomination and to insist on 60 votes rather than 51 for approval.

All the bulls#(^ over changing the senate rules is disgusting also. TRobert Byrd changed those exact senate rules in 1989 and lowered the votes required to end a filibuster from 67 to 60, so STOP THE HYPOCRISY.

The voters have voted and Republicans are the majority. It's time to allow work to be done.

A Few Truths that must be Told

2005-03-20T07:51:00.000-06:00

Social Security is NOT guaranteed. There is NO guarantee to any amount of benefits from Social Security.

Homo-Normative is an oxymoron, and for someone to think heterosexuality is NOT the norm is just a moron.

Robert Byrd has dementia. He abhors the "nuclear option" and demonizes the Republicans for instituting it, yet he did it himself in the '80's; that hypocritical. Then again, with his dementia, he probably doesn't remember it. I'm sure he had a cross burning that night.

Raising the ceiling on taxable income to save Social Security without increasing benefits to those in the higher tax bracket is INCOME REDISTRIBUTION, a fine socialistic ideal.

Barbara Boxer has not had an original thought to benefit America in 4 years.

Ted Kennedy has not had an original thought to benefit America in 90 years.

John Kerry has yet to realize he lost the Presidential election.

Hillary Clinton has become the "Silly Putty" presidential candidate, able to be molded and used anyway you want.

There is no more "constitutional law" in America, thank you Justice Kennedy.

Free speech is OK as long as it's used to bash America.

A Future Stroll Down Liberal Lane

2005-03-17T20:15:00.000-06:00

Ahhh, smell the air, it’s fresh. It’s smelled cleaner since we abolished all internal combustion engines. Smog is almost non-existent now.

It’s a long walk to the communal garden, filled with organic vegetables. We must hurry and gather our share before night falls. It’s cloudy, and without electricity until tomorrow, we need to get back before dark.

When we totally switched to solar power two years ago, we thought we could supply the whole nation. I guess you take the good and the bad. We eliminated all oil consumption and dependency, and nuclear power, so the planet safer. I’m just sorry to see the solar panels cover 14 Midwest states, completely. At least the windmills in the northern, western, and southwestern states take up little usable space; it’s the damn noise that drives people crazy. Unfortunately, states alternate days for usage, and our day is tomorrow.

Friday marks a very special day. It’s Grandma’s 65th birthday. We’ll all miss her of course, but since the aged are a burden to feed and not much help with the manual chores, the communal leaders all agreed that at 65 you’ve outlived your usefulness to the community. I think the number 65 came from history. I once heard that in the old days, when people reached 65 they got to quit working and have the government pay them NOT to work. It sounds amazing. How could anyone allow themselves to be a burden to their community? Well, I heard that society back then was full of selfish people, not thinking about the common good. Oh well, I hope I get a leg. It’s been a long time since I ate any meat. That was on Uncle John’s 65th birthday. Sometimes I wish we could eat other meats, but since the PETA Party has had control of the government, you shouldn’t even bring it up. Sometimes it’s hard to understand how they can beat a man to death while saving an opossum.

I heard it’s going to be a scorcher tomorrow. Between the sun getting hotter and the volcanic activity in the south pacific causing an increase in green house gases, the average temperature is 94 degrees. I heard that North Dakota used to be cold, a long time ago. You would never know it now.

Well, that’s all for now. Paper is scarce since the closing of all paper processing plants, but at least the planet’s cleaner.

The Left wants us to be like the Europeans, Should the rest of us?

2005-03-14T14:02:00.000-06:00

This is from Neal Boort at www.boortz.com and is one of my favorites:

This is one of my favorites. From Alexander Tyler. No, he wasn't writing about the United States. This quote is well over one hundred years old. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

With talk of democracy here and in the middle-east, this quote takes on more significance. We are seeing examples of these stages around the world. For instance, here in America, the Dems agenda focuses on entitlements and markets those entitlements to its voting base. America is moving from apathy to dependency. I believe that is why we had a record voter turnout in November.

We have the conservatives touting the ownership society, responsibility, and accountability, and we have the liberals touting welfare, socialized medicine, and free healthcare. The right promotes individualism while the left promotes collectivism.
The right wants less government intervention in business while the left wants to increase government intervention including mandatory paid time-off, mandatory paid sick-leave, and mandated minimum wage. Basically, the left wants to become what Europe has become, a socialist society.

Should Americans want to live in a European society here in America? How are those socialistic ideals working for the Europeans? We can get a little insight from an Expatica.com article titled, “Massive Demos Turn up Heat on French Government.”

PARIS, March 11 (AFP) - The French government was under mounting pressure on Friday to deliver concessions after more than half a million protestors took to the streets to defend the 35-hour work week and demand better pay.

In Europe, the government takes an active role in labor, labor relations, and labor negotiations. It is an example of government intervention into private business. This is what the liberals and Democrats want here in America.

Admitting Thursday's nationwide protests had been a "success", government spokesman Jean-Francois Cope said they showed that "there are in fact many concerns, a lot of questions and worries bothering many of our countrymen."

Seeking to respond to the increasing social discontent, the centre-right government indicated that it would move to kick-start pay negotiations in the private and public sector.

Police said at least 570,000 people joined Thursday's protests across France, which were accompanied by transport strikes that paralysed the Paris metro system and area airports. Organisers said more than a million took part.

The unions have much more power in Europe than here in America. The basic philosophy of a democracy is mob rules. In this case, the unions paralyzed the metro system doing untold damages to the economy and life in general to the commuters. And for what were the unions utilizing their power?

The protests were part of a campaign by labour unions and the Socialist opposition to force President Jacques Chirac to increase wages, reverse reforms of the 35-hour work week and cease efforts to curb the welfare state.

"Higher salaries, shorter working hours, against deregulation and unemployment," read the giant banner at the head of the Paris protest, which police said drew some 35,000 participants - 150,000, according to organisers.

So the unions recognized their power and are utilizing their power for more money and compensation. Who pays for this? The consumers and the government pay for this. The unions understand they can vote themselves money from the public treasury, and they have been doing this for quite some time. Have the unions and this socialistic philosophy benefited France?

France's jobless rate jumped above the symbolic 10 percent mark in January - its highest level in five years - and workers have become even more disillusioned following news of record profits in the country's top publicly-quoted companies.

The history to fixing France’s unemployment rate has been to reduce working hours and hiring more people. The problem of wages and compensation then arises. Workers do not want to accept lower pay for fewer hours worked, so the government antes up. This is typical of government intervention in business defined by socialism.

Socialist leader Francois Hollande on Friday called on Raffarin to take "a quick, clear decision on the central issue of purchasing power".

Unions charge that public sector workers have lost five percent of their buying power since January 2000, taking into account current inflation rates.
Above all, the government does not want the growing dissatisfaction of workers to snowball into a protest "no" vote against a referendum to approve the European Union constitution, scheduled for May 29.

Unfortunately, there are many in this country that hate capitalism and hate big corporations, so much so, they want to restrict the power a corporation has over its employees and regulate compensation. Many of these people want to give more power to unions. These people want to increase the quality of life of the average American worker, a noble goal, however, they never seem to understand and recognize the unintended consequences of their actions. In this case, wanting to be like the Europeans will turn America into a socialistic society, a society we don’t want.

The Simple Life: Congressional Style

2005-03-13T17:12:00.000-06:00

Who can't see Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie portraying Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy and doing a better job? In fact, they may bring some sanity and intelligence to the Senate and House. You see, I don't believe Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi exist. I think they are part of a reality show that started decades ago. Who on earth would believe these two are real Congressmen? Come on. No one is that stupid, let alone two of them.

This is from The Washington Times: "Pelosi, Kennedy and Social Security"

The title alone tells me this is made up.

While there is bipartisan agreement that Social Security has a long-term solvency problem, only Republicans seem willing to offer ideas about how to solve it. So, it is fair to ask: What reform plans are Democrats advancing?

Indeed, Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" asked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi no fewer than four times for her "plan to solve [Social Security's] long-term solvency" problem, which Mrs. Pelosi freely acknowledged. "The plan for solvency," Mrs. Pelosi finally replied, "is to stop robbing Social Security of its money for other purposes. The plan is to return the money back to the trust fund."

HAHAHAHA, I knew it! Pelosi wants to stop robbing Social Security and return money back to the trust fund! That is funny. This is good stuff. However, it's too absurd to be real. These people have had years to stop spending the trust fund money, long before GW Bush, but now they want to stop that.

Ted Kennedy insisted that the "first" requirement was for the president "to pay back into the Social Security [Trust Fund] all the money he's diverted for his tax program." Solidifying the Democratic position, Mrs. Pelosi said, "We must stop robbing Social Security's trust fund of its money to pay for other things."

This is where the "Senator" gets stupid. You see "Ted", the government doesn't "pay" for tax cuts. That is simple economics that Paris Hilton could quite possibly grasp, at least as much as a "real" Senator should. And Teddy, how much of the trust fund money has gone for your pet pork projects? But now, after...what...90 years in the Senate, you want to stop the spending? This isn't real.
Ted, Nancy, let's be frank. If you're real, then you know you can write legislation to stop the spending; you've always had that power, write, sponsor, and introduce legislation to save the trust fund. Why haven't you done that up till now?

April 15 is the deadline for Congress to approve a budget resolution for fiscal 2006. That means Mr. Kennedy and Mrs. Pelosi have about five weeks to demonstrate the courage of their convictions. Nothing prevents them from crafting their own budget resolution that meets their fundamental test. In other words, they should offer a budget resolution that "stop robbing Social Security's trust fund of its money to pay for other things."

You see, I told you so.

Now, to meet the Kennedy-Pelosi demand -- to "stop robbing Social Security's trust fund of its money to pay for other things"...to protect the Social Security surplus, they would have to propose a total of $610 billion in tax increases and spending cuts for 2006 alone.
Bridging the $610 billion gap with individual-income-tax increases alone would require raising those taxes by 63 percent. Spending too much money on national defense and in Iraq and Afghanistan? Unilaterally withdrawing from Iraq and reducing the rest of the defense budget by 25 percent would require additional budget cuts and tax increases of more than $425 billion.
If the self-righteous demand of Mr. Kennedy and Mrs. Pelosi to protect Social Security's "off-budget" surplus is genuine, then they will produce their own budget to accomplish that. We look forward to perusing the $610 billion combination of annual spending cuts and tax increases Mr. Kennedy and Mrs. Pelosi will need to achieve their goal.

Maybe it's one of those imposter shows where somone pretends to be someone else or they fake their job skills to fool someone. I think the fools for this show are the American people and especially those that vote these two into office.

I'm still waiting for that apology Massachusetts.

A Chip Off the Old Blockhead

2005-03-11T17:37:00.000-06:00

My Lord I am getting tired of Democrats becoming aware of the tenets of the constitution and then being amazed and confused about them. It’s as if the constitution is in the way of the America they want. In this article, “Securing the Right to Vote as a Citizenship Right”, by Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., JJ Jr. is flabbergasted that voting is a state’s right. Voting is controlled and legislated by each individual state.

The fundamental reason is this: the U.S. Constitution does not contain a right to vote and therefore Congress fails to establish enforceable uniform standards or a unitary voting system. While it is true that the Constitution does protect against voter discrimination based on race, sex or age and prohibits the use poll taxes or literacy tests, it does not explicitly guarantee that U.S. citizens have a right to vote.
You say "But Congressman, I have been able to register to vote and cast ballots my entire life, what do you mean I do not have a right to vote?" But the fact is that as an American you don't have a citizenship right to vote. Voting in the United States is a "state right", not a "citizenship right."

Is this an eye-opener for a Congressman? Hey JJ Jr., did you know the framers of the constitution specifically wrote the constitution that way? Did you know the framers of the constitution did not want a large powerful federal government? Were you aware the states originally had much more power and control, as was intended? Were you aware the original language also had state Senators being appointed by the state’s legislature, and were not intended to be elected by popular vote? This gave the people and the states voices in the federal government. Hey JJ Jr., I hate to break this news to you but someone obviously has to so here goes; the President isn’t selected by the popular vote. You see we have this thing called the electoral college…well nevermind.
How about some more words of wisdom from the Congressman:

Comparatively, a "state right" is not an American citizenship right, but a right defined and protected by each state - and limited to that state. Therefore, when it comes to voting, each state, each county and elected jurisdiction is different.

There has to be a reason for this new-found enlightenment. I wonder what it could be. Come on JJ Jr. hammer it home:

In other words, our voting system, our house is built on the foundation of "states" rights - 50 states, 3067 counties and more than 12,000 different election jurisdictions, all separate and all unequal. These election jurisdictions can each individually set voting policies and procedures such as ballot design, voter eligibility, which voting equipment is used, polling hours, how to count provisional ballots and what ID requirements are needed.
As a result, more than a million votes in the 2004 election were discarded. In one instance, 4,500 votes were lost forever when a touch-screen voting machine malfunctioned in North Carolina and had no back-up. In Florida and Pennsylvania, two of the most important battleground states in the presidential contest, more than half of the provisional ballots cast were not counted.
Election officials claim most of those were from unregistered voters. The question remains why weren't they registered? Did the local officials make mistakes when preparing voter rolls, a partisan organization simply not mail in their registration forms, or were these voters simply not registered?
Moreover, more than nine million U.S. citizens are permanently or temporarily denied the right to vote they would otherwise enjoy if they lived in a different state. Several states deny voting rights for life to anyone once convicted of a felony. Children of American families living abroad often cannot vote when they come of voting age. American citizens living in Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands can be drafted into the military but are unable to vote for their commander-in-chief. Congress governs the District of Columbia more directly than any other state, yet more than a half-million citizens living in the District have no voting representation in Congress.
The United States stands virtually alone on denying constitutional protection of the right to vote. 108 of the 119 democratic nations in the world have a right to vote in their Constitution - including the Afghan Constitution and the interim Iraqi Constitution. The United States is one of only 11 that do not. At the same time we assist other nations implement democracy, we must also turn the mirror on ourselves and examine what we are doing, what rights we are protecting.

Here we go. Voters were disenfranchised because of the variety of voting systems throughout the various states, and people are too stupid to read directions and punch or poke or select whom they want. So what should we do about this horrendous injustice?

States should have control of many decisions and should be able to set certain laws and standards that are applicable to the responsibility each state has for its citizens. But voting, like freedom of speech, like freedom of religion and due process of law, operates outside of state authority.
Instead of a house on sand, we need to build our democracy and our voting system on a rock, the rock of adding a Voting Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that applies to all states and all citizens. That's why I and 56 colleagues in the House of Representatives have joined to support House Joint Resolution 28 - which in the cause of electoral justice should be the 28th amendment to the Constitution.

So the framers of the constitution built our democracy on sand. Did it ever occur to you, genius, that America is NOT a democracy; it’s a REPUBLIC! The framers must have had people like you in mind when the conceived the constitution. They wrote it, so people like you wouldn’t have to. They wrote it knowing idiots like you could just follow it because you obviously haven’t a clue as to its origins, content, or intent.
The fact is we should have fewer people vote, say only those that pay income taxes, or those that are productive members of society, or those that add to our economy. When you let the uninformed vote, democracy will fail. The fact is you want everyone to vote because the majority of the people do not pay attention and would be more apt to vote for those politicians that promise the voters entitlements from the public coffers. That would be you.
Here’s some advice; walk away JJ Jr., just walk away.

Global Warming

2005-03-11T06:15:00.000-06:00

Why isn't more being said in the liberal media about the fallacy of global warming? By this I mean, why isn't the real cause of global warming being discussed? Is it because it is not proper to discuss something that is NOT man made? Is it improper to place blame on nature?

The earth is warming, temps are increasing, it is true. So what is the cause? How about looking at the simplest, most logical and obvious answer. No, it is not man and America's selfish treatment of the earth with all of our smog producing cars, or coal burning factories, or hair spray. THE SUN IS GETTING HOTTER! It is a natural phenomena. It happens. Imagine that, nature at work.

From the Stanford Solar Center, we have this graph which shows solar activity versus climate:

From Live Science.com, we have an article that states:

A dramatic thinning of Earth's protective ozone layer above the Arctic last year was the result of intense upper-level winds and an extra dose of space weather, scientists said Tuesday.
...
In a new study, scientists conclude that an intense round of solar storms around Halloween in 2003 was at the root of the problem. Charged particles from the storms triggered chemical reactions that increased the formation of extra nitrogen in the upper stratosphere, some 20 miles up. Nitrogen levels climbed to their highest in at least two decades.

Hmmm...interesting. What about the thinning of the ozone layer over Antarctica?

The upper-level ozone layer has thinned dramatically in the Southern Hemisphere in recent decades, creating a dangerous hole through which UV rays stream. The decline is due largely to man-made chlorofluorocarbons released into the atmosphere.

The new study suggests a better understanding is needed of how the Sun itself alters the ozone layer.

"No one predicted the dramatic loss of ozone in the upper stratosphere of the Northern Hemisphere in the spring of 2004," Randall said. "That we can still be surprised illustrates the difficulties in separating atmospheric effects due to natural and human-induced causes."

The thinning of the Arctic ozone layer continues, owing in part to cold temperatures in the stratosphere, according to a separate recent study that suggests a northern hole could develop as a twin to the southern one.

Could the sun then be causing global warming? Have scientists focused too narrowly on potential man-made causes without even considering the potential natural causes? Is this indicative of environmentalists in general, to blame man first, find data to support that thesis, then do a media blitz on said thesis. Our media are only too happy to run stories that show us, the capitalistic America with our over consumtion of resources, in a bad light.

The flare spawned this coronal mass ejection, which hurled charged particles into space. The storm was one of 10 major solar eruption to occur in an unprecedented two-week span of solar storminess.

The most extreme solar flare ever recorded erupted on Nov. 4, 2003.

Cross Posted at The Wide Awakes and Blogger News Network.

Why Does the Left HATE America?

2005-03-10T19:12:00.000-06:00

Why does the left hate America? OK not all on the left, but the liberals, progressives and the Deaniacs. America hasn't changed into some horrid place, some 1950's ttype of Russia. In fact, it is these haters-of-America that are trying to change things. They want gay marriage, more entitlements, rights and privileges to the terrorists and illegal aliens, and now they want to give felons and illegal aliens the right to vote.

These haters want America to appease the rest of the world rather than lead the rest of the world. These haters are more concerned with having the rest of world like us (this includes the terrorists) than they are for our safety here at home. They want to give up our freedom of choice except for abortion.

Air America is backed by the left, by liberals. Their blog seems to cover certain types of stories: what's good for America is bad for Democrats, and what's good for Democrats is bad for America. This was first declared a mantra of the Dems by conservatives in the media such as Rush, and the very sad thing is, the left continues to foster this sentiment. They cannot only seem to help themselves, they don't see anything wrong with it.

A typical AA blog:

Thursday, and the newbie is in the house! by TriSec at 03/10/05 08:00 am
________________________________________
Good Morning, Comrades! :coffee2:
Your loyal Tri-Sec has laboured long and hard to make sure we have a tasty and nutritious blog today...

How's a little Impeachment for breakfast? Anthony Gregory is a writer and musician who lives in Berkeley, California, and is a research assistant at The Independent Institute.

"Calling for President Bush’s impeachment surely sounds seditious to many conservative partisans of the administration and its "war on terrorism."

As they apparently see it, during the relative peacetime of the late 1990s, calling for the impeachment of a Democrat for lying about the whereabouts of his private parts was a public service. But during wartime, to call for the impeachment of a Republican for one of the greatest of all political crimes – that is, the war – is branded treason, or, at best, ridiculed as hysterical anti-American defeatism or simply juvenile white noise."

You probably have heard that the Supreme Court is eventually going to review the legality of posting the Ten Commandments in public places. If there was any justice and truth, every state agency would be required to post a large neon sign with the following message – “We are the state, we murder, we steal, we lie.”
...
Today's "Celebrity" birthdays include Osama bin Laden, who is 47, and James Earl Ray, who would have been 76. From the Light Side of The Force, Bix Beiderbecke would have been 101. Go listen to some jazz later today!

Only 1,335 days until November 4, 2008! :usa:

Comrades? Osama Bin Laden's birthday?

How about this article on the Supreme Court's decision on the death penalty for minors.

The most important aspect of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of executing juveniles was its consideration of evolving international views of “cruel and unusual punishment.” The court wisely noted the rising global tide of revulsion against governments killing their younger citizens, no matter what their crime, and ruled that juvenile death sentences in the United States are unconstitutional. Similarly, in the future, the court should heed burgeoning world condemnation of the U.S. death penalty for persons of any age.

I guess our days of constitutional law are numbered.

Yet why stop at ending the death penalty only for juveniles? The United States is also one of a small group of countries, many of which are severe abusers of human rights, that allow the death penalty to be used at all. The United States needs to exit this nefarious club, too.

As discussed at a recent Independent Institute policy forum, “The Death Penalty on Trial,” rising world opposition to the death penalty is not the only reason for ending it within U.S. borders; opposition to this ultimate sanction is also increasing domestically. The principal reason is the incompetence of the government in carrying out the penalty. DNA tests of inmates on death row have exonerated a sizeable number of individuals. Add to this the disproportionate and unfair sentencing of African-Americans to death. Finally, rigorous studies have shown that the death penalty does not deter future capital crimes.

The left wants America to become Europe. The sad part is, the left obviously has not noticed what is happening in Europe; high cost of living, high unemployment, and socialism. Or the sadder thought is they do understand what is happening in Europe, and they still want America to be like them.

What is the motive here? Why would the left want America to be like the rest of the world rather than leading the world? What is so horrible in America that the left wants to change it. It's been the best country in the world, up til now. What's changed?

(What if…) Employers STRIKE!!!

2005-03-10T16:48:00.000-06:00

Someday in the future:

Employers across the country have shut their doors to customers and employees in what has become the first known employer strike in American history.

Owners and operators of businesses of all sizes went on strike today citing numerous reasons. One owner stated, “We’re tired of being labeled the ‘bad guys”. We’re only trying to make a decent living for our families and give decent jobs to our employees, and the government and our own employees are out their telling everyone we’re greedy and treat them like dirt. We’re tired of it. If they don’t like the wages or the way they’re treated, they can leave. As far as the government is concerned, they can’t run their own organization yet they want to tell us how to run ours through regulations and legislation.” Another owner said, “We give up. If the employees and the government think they can run a business better than we can, go for it. Be our guest.”

The group, called Business Owners Liberation Party has called for a complete shut-down for one (1) fiscal year. For that year, the owners will live off of their enormous bank accounts. The only employer will be federal, state, and local governments.

The problems:

Income taxes collected will be roughly 90% less than the previous year. FICA and other payroll taxes will also fall far short (roughly 90%) of predictions. Sales tax will also decline since few people will have any money to spend. Goods and services, other than governmental, will be virtually non-existent. Governmental agencies (including federal, state, and municipal governments) will cut down to basic health and safety services only.
Food, gas, oil, and other life necessities will be rationed by the government.

There are currently several emergency bills being introduced in Congress. One bill would propose to borrow money to cover the vast monetary gap in the budget, somewhere between 2 and 3 trillion dollars for the year. This loan would probably come from China since they have one of the largest and fastest growing economies that would be able to handle such a loan. Another bill would implement martial law to keep looting and lawlessness to a minimum. A bill by Ted Kennedy proposes to have the federal government mandate those striking companies to remain open and to appoint a federal overseer at each company. Kennedy, on the floor of the Senate, stated, “It’s time America frees itself from the bondage of these corporations. The American people are tired of being held hostage, hostage at their job, at their low wages, at their inadequate health care. It is time for the federal government to step up to the plate, to assume the responsibility the American people have entrusted to us, the Congress of the United States, and take over the ownership of these corporations. With Congressional ownership, we can employ all people, at a living wage with free health care and free child care. There will no more discrimination; all people of all faiths, age, gender, sexual orientation, and color, will have equal opportunity in a Congressionally owned business.”

One lone voice dissented to Senator Kennedy’s remarks stating, “That’s communism Senator Kennedy.”

Is there a lesson to be learned from this What If…? Businesses and owners have taken a beating in this country, from the liberals, from the government, and from the Democrats. The belief on the left is that owners are rich and treat their employees poorly, pay them low wages, and generally do not care for them. The consensus on the left is that these rich owners gain their wealth on the labors of the poor. The fact is anyone can own a business. Anyone can become wealthy in this country. Businesses not only benefit the owners, but the workers as well. Workers enjoy employment as long as they are a benefit to the company and the business is successful. A successful business is one that controls costs and has a market for its goods and services at competitive prices. Controlling costs is imperative and has a direct relationship with employee compensation packages.

The fact is a worker needs a place to work, a job to do, and fair market compensation. A business needs competent workers, marketable products, and fairly compensated employees. Without businesses, there would be no need for workers. Do we really want the government to run those businesses?

Another Response

2005-03-09T05:42:00.000-06:00

William (I feel we can be on a first-name basis, now that we’ve had numerous correspondence), I must rebut your comments.

Capitalism is based on freedom, freedom to choose and buy the products you want, freedom to work where you want, freedom to make as much money as you wish; it all depends on you. You are not beholden to any company; you have the freedom of movement. Capitalism does not prohibit any rights. I believe you are a bit confused about capitalism because you live in and are used to Canada’s socialism philosophy.

You believe someone should be paid a “minimum” or “living” wage. This is not capitalism; government intervention and control of private employee wages is socialism. You also probably believe everyone has a “right” to free health care. If you truly understand this concept then you realize health care is not free; someone pays for it. This is income redistribution; again, this is socialism.

They are not my studies, but studies from various universities, think tanks, and the government, over long periods of time. Facts are facts and supply and demand, along with pricing economics can predict, with some accuracy, what will happen to the job market if wages are increased on a mandate from the government in a free market economy. Unemployment will increase and the cost of goods and services will also increase. This will, in turn, increase the selling price of those goods and services; this is simple economics. It has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives; it is the market.

You have conservative views on a few social issues; otherwise, your views on business, wages, and economics are very liberal. You are a liberal as this post is concerned.

Rich people do not have a right to exploit anyone. That is why if people feel they are being taken advantage of, they have a right to leave and find another job. A business owner has an obligation to his shareholders to minimize costs, increase productivity, and profits. If that means paying people a low wage, so be it. Businesses will realize wages are too low when they cannot hire anyone at their prevailing wage rate. This means that companies will then raise those wages to the market’s prevailing rate (the rate at which an employee will accept and perform that particular job in that particular situation) until they can hire enough employees. For example, a couple of years ago here, the minimum wage was $5.50/hr. There were more jobs available than workers, therefore, businesses were competing against other businesses for workers. McDonalds had to raise its starting wage to $10.00/hr just to be able to hire the number of employees they needed. This was a classic example of supply and demand at work. Should McDonalds have then complained that they are paying too much for those employees?

I brought up spelling and grammar because it really irritates me when one isn’t clear and concise. It makes one look uneducated.

I label those people liberals who have a socialistic agenda and pursue socialistic ideals here in America. Socialism doesn’t work; never has, never will. The next term will be progressives who are pushing a communistic agenda, i.e. government intervention in employee wages, sick time, paid time off, etc.

You obviously have no knowledge of the poor here in America; talk about labeling people. Relatively speaking, the middle-class in France would be considered “poor” here in America. Did you know that? It’s all relative. Those in poverty have been shown to move up the socioeconomic ladder as they get older. In fact, if you look at the statistics, most of those in poverty are under 25, and another interesting little fact, the most affluent class is those over 55.

I’m going to go on a limb here and say your Master’s degree is in some liberal arts area. Am I correct? I have an MBA. I am also a former president of a union, and I am starting my own company. I know of which I speak. My parents were in the lower middle-class. I’ve worked for my education and have a huge student loan which I hope to pay off ASAP. Anyone can apply and get a student loan to further their education and increase their knowledge, skills, and abilities to make themselves more marketable. Anyone can do it.

Canada has higher prices because it is a socialistic country. Your taxes are high because it has to pay for socialized medicine and a whole host of other social programs. If Canada had a free market, capitalistic economy (not socialist), the prices of goods and services would be lower in general.

YOU ARE CORRECT! Not everyone can do it, but everyone has the opportunity to try. For those that cannot take care of themselves, we use to have philanthropy in this country that helped the unfortunate; wealthy people, churches and the like would give large sums of money to help the less fortunate. Now, since government decided to take people’s money to do those things, less people are philanthropic. Does the government do a better job than society? I don’t think so. All wage earners go through stages. No one starts at the top. I have been laid-off twice and have always found something better at higher wages. It took a while, and we were strapped for cash, but that’s what happens; we deal with it and move on.

I am a conservative with LIBERTARIAN views. Bush didn’t make liberal a dirty word, liberals did. As I mentioned before, liberals have socialistic ideals and that doesn’t sit well with most Americans. The word liberal became dirty when their ideals and philosophies were discovered.

No one is forced to do anything in this country except to pay taxes. Anyone can quit a job they hate, or they feel is taking advantage of them. There are plenty of social programs in this country to cover one’s needs until they get back on their feet. I have been on unemployment, it works. The problem is I didn’t make it a way of life like some do in this country. We have created a welfare state; a situation that make it too easy for people NOT to work. I have met people that have utilized welfare for generations. That was not its intent. A basic standard of living is relative to the geographic area. It is not one simple amount.

America is NOT A DEMOCRACY! IT IS A REPUBLIC! Please get this straight.

If no one wanted to live like an American, why are we still receiving immigrants from all over the world, not just Mexico? We have the highest standard of living in the world! We have the most freedom in the world!

My clicker is constantly on the move because of debate like this. People love to read this stuff, and for that, I thank you.

This is from Neal Boortz at www.boortz.com:
This is one of my favorites. From Alexander Tyler. No, he wasn't writing about the United States. This quote is well over one hundred years old. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

The voters here in America have discovered they can vote themselves money from the public treasury in the form of the minimum wage, welfare, and up next: paid time-off, mandatory sick-time, “living wage”, free health care, etc…it goes on and on. Read Tyler’s words very carefully because this is where the liberals, the Democrats, the progressives, and the rest of the world want us to go.

A Response to an Idiot

2005-03-07T16:48:00.000-06:00

God, I love it when liberals prove me right.

This is in support of the “Trickle-Up Theory of Economics” espoused by liberals everywhere. The Trickle-Up Theory of Economics states the more money one can redistribute from the wealthy to the poor, the better for the economy. The economy benefits because poor people, inherently, do not save money, rather spend as much money as they receive, thereby putting that money into the economy which would otherwise be saved by the wealthy.

This is in response to a comment by William Volterman on my Minimum Wage post. (I have not edited this in any way; he really spells this badly.)

His comment was this:

Your wrong and your a moron... rich people save not spend.. giving poor people (ie minimum wage earners) more money is better for the economy because they spend all their money... keeping wages low only gives it to rich people who do not put the money back in the economy... rich bastard

William Volterman

If one were to go over to his blog, Jambalya, and read his post, “Congratulations President Bush…”, he claims to be a “conservative Christian”. I seriously doubt it, but then again, if you read his various posts and comments, I don’t believe he has much of a clue about anything. For all we know, “conservative Christian” to him may mean parishioners bring their own bottle of Thunderbird to communion. Anyhow…

Let’s look at what he says in his post:

1 Friggin moron was suggesting we abolish minimum wage. Thats a great idea. As if poor people can live off their shitty job at McCrappys at the current minimum wage. This moron needs to realize that abolishing minimum wage would create a servant class that is permanently enslaved to the upperclass. No more american dream, unless you have the cash to back it up. I would imagine this person also thinks people are poor because they are lazy and dumb...
By the way... for those of you brainwashed by bushes liberal bashing... liberals can do things like same sex marriage which arent popular... but liberals are about rights... remember social security... its a liberal thing... i dont feel like listing them all but just like when liberals go to far left... conservatives can go to far right... and yes i am a conservative christian... but i dont believe in trampling the rights of others in the name of moral supremacy. If they arent hurting people... let god sort them out.

Spoken like a true Christian conservative.
He claims he doesn’t believe in “trampling the rights of others in the name of moral supremacy”, yet he stated in his comments on my post “rich people save not spend.. giving poor people (ie minimum wage earners) more money is better for the economy because they spend all their money... keeping wages low only gives it to rich people who do not put the money back in the economy... rich bastard”. So he believes it’s OK to trample the rights of rich people in the name of moral supremacy because…their rich. Good argument Mr. Volterman, and a nice flip-flop on your stated belief.

Let’s analyze him a little further. Conservative Christian, he is not. He is a liberal, plain and simple. That explains his income redistribution stance, a socialistic stance by the way. His liberal bias is quickly confirmed by his lack of intelligent, logical thought in his “argument.” His retort is rife with pure emotion (name calling), another indication of his liberalism.

He also doesn’t understand people, rich or poor. He has obviously never read a book on nor has a basic understanding of economics, finance, business, psychology, or sociology. It is clear he has never owned his own business. It is also quite clear he failed to read the post on which he is commenting. If he had, he would have read the various studies and their findings which prove the negative impact of the minimum wage (a negative impact occurs every time the minimum wage is raised.) He can’t argue the facts, so he utilizes emotion.

He clearly doesn’t comprehend a free market, capitalistic society, or the freedom of movement along the socioeconomic ladder by the wage earners. He obviously believes the “American Dream” is working at “McCrappys” ABOVE minimum wage. He obviously believes Social Security is a “good thing”, good enough to brag about it (it makes me wonder, when he is old enough to collect his SS, and it isn’t there, what will he think about it then?). He also obviously believes that government wage control is NOT infringing on anyone’s rights.

Now Mr. Volterman, since studies have shown that increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment while artificially raising the price of goods and services, what do you wish to tell those who lose their job and those who pay a higher price for goods and services? Are you going to tell them it’s for their own good? Are you going to tell them to find another job or go elsewhere to shop? When you impose your bad policies that negatively impact the poor and the middle-class, what reason would you give them for wanting to implement these bad policies?

The best thing about liberals is when you post about their incompetence, there will ALWAYS be at least one liberal who will post a comment and prove me right! And for that, I thank you Mr. Volterman. A bit of advice for you sir, read, study, learn, and get spell-check.

More Democratic Hypocrisy (Does it ever end?)

2005-03-07T16:41:00.000-06:00

The Nuclear Option

Let me get this straight.

The constitution presupposes 51 ayes to confirm a judicial nomination.

It takes 51 votes to enact a Senate rule.

If one party wants to delay or eliminate a vote or discussion on a particular topic or nomination, that party utilizes a filibuster.

Robert Byrd changed a Senate rule in 1979 with 51 ayes. That rule changed the needed votes to end a filibuster from 67 ayes to 60 ayes.

A filibuster is a Senate rule, and it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster.

Therefore, Democrats are, in essence, making Bush’s judicial nominations receive 60 ayes for confirmation.

Democrats are, therefore, violating the constitution.

Minimum Wage Debate (Support of Ogre)

2005-03-06T12:44:00.000-06:00

Thanks to Ogre, Ogre's Politics and Views for his post,Minimum Wage Rules, on The Wide Awakes.

Minimum wage is compassion on the part of the liberals. It's easy for them to support a bad policy such as this because they fail to look at the unintended consequences involved, artificially high prices on goods and services. Sure it raises the buying power of those affected; it has to because it also raises the cost of living. That is simple supply and demand economics.

Liberals must be aware of the consequences of their actions (Iknow, it would be a first). But, I guess when you're buying votes, facts don't matter.

So who will benefit from raising the minimum wage? In this article,"WHO WILL REALLY BENEFIT FROM SENATOR KENNEDY’S $7.25 MINIMUM WAGE?" from Employment Policies Institute, clearly dispells any myth that increasing the minimum wage helps the poor.

3/3/05, Washington – As Congress weighs a hike in the federal minimum wage to $7.25, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and supporters of an increase suggest that the typical minimum wage employee is struggling to raise a family on a single income. The Employment Policies Institute (EPI) notes that U.S. Census Bureau data strongly dispute this portrait as simply untrue. Furthermore, the vast majority of the benefits of such an increase will not reach its intended target—working families.

Who will be helped? Who makes minimum wage now?

An analysis of data compiled by the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey shows that the average family income of employees who would benefit from a minimum wage increase to $7.25 is nearly $42,000 a year. Why? Because fully 85% of employees whose wages would be increased by this proposal either live with working parents or another relative, live alone, or have a working spouse.
Additionally, the majority of potential beneficiaries do not work full-time, and nearly 25 percent don’t even work 20 hours a week. Fully half of all beneficiaries are 25 years old or younger.

Just 15% of beneficiaries will be sole earners in families with children, and each of these sole earners has access to supplemental income through the federal and state earned income tax credit (EITC).

Of U.S. employees affected by the proposed $7.25 minimum wage:

· 41% of minimum wage earners live with a parent or relative · 21% of minimum wage earners are a dual earner in a married couple · 23% of minimum wage earners are a single earner with no kids · Just 15% of minimum wage earners are single parents with kids or a single earner in a couple with kids, and each of these sole earners has access to supplemental income through the EITC.

In this article, Employment and the Minimum Wage, Alaska is the focus and demonstrates even in a high growth market, the minimum wage increases unemploymentas shown by this graph:

This graph illustrates that minimum wage increases will affect roughly 7.5% of the total workforce in the U.S.

Even a study ordered by Bill Clinton showed that the minimum wage decrease emloyment. In this study, Statement on The Impact of Federal Minimum Wage Increase on Small Business the minimum wage demonstrates and adverse effect on employment and small business. A few tidbits:

In 1981, the congressionally-mandated Minimum Wage Study Commission concluded that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage reduced teenage employment by 1 percent to 3 percent.

A review of the Card study of California by Professor Lowell Taylor of Carnegie Mellon University found that the state minimum wage increase had a major negative effect in low-wage counties and for retail establishments generally. Thus Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker of the University of Chicago concluded that "the Card-Krueger studies are flawed and cannot justify going against the accumulated evidence from many past and present studies that find sizeable negative effects of higher minimums on employment."

The fact is that virtually every major study that has ever been done has found significant job losses from an increase in the minimum wage, with the rare exception of those done by Card and Krueger. (Krueger served as chief economist for the U.S. Department of Labor under Robert Reich.) A survey of earlier studies by the U.S. General Accounting Office in 1983, for example, "found virtually total agreement that employment is lower than it would have been if no minimum wage existed."

Research also shows that the minimum wage increases welfare dependency. A recent study by Peter Brandon of the University of Wisconsin, for example, looked at welfare rates in states that increased their minimum wages in the 1980s with those that did not. In those that did, the average time on welfare was 44% higher than in states that did not. Much of the reason is due to reduced employment opportunities for welfare mothers. In states not raising the minimum wage, half of welfare mothers worked during the years surveyed, while in states that raised the minimum wage only 40% reported working.

Intuitively one would have expected a higher minimum wage to make work more rewarding for those on welfare. However, the interaction of the welfare and tax systems means that some working people are actually worse off after an increase in the minimum wage. Economist Carlos Bonilla of the Employment Policies Institute found a dramatic example of this in California after the minimum wage rose from $3.35 to $4.25. After accounting for the phase-out of AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), Medicaid, and food stamps, and federal, state, and local taxes, it turned out that a single parent earning the minimum wage was $1,800 per year worse off after the increase than before.

The case against the minimum wage is strong. In fact, it should be abolished. Even the New York Times, that bastion of liberalism, has said so. As the headline on its January 14, 1987 lead editorial put it: "The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00." Indeed, according to Professors Robert Meyer of the University of Chicago and David Wise of Harvard, abolition would actually increase the aggregate income of youth in this country. Raising the minimum wage simply moves us further in the wrong direction.

The studies have been done, and the facts are in. For years the data have shown the minimum wage is bad, bad policy, bad for workers, bad for the economy. Do Democrats learn from history, or facts, or logic? Of course not because the thought of increasing someone's wages, even to the detriment of that worker, the business, and the economy, menas votes. But let's try one more time, to all the liberals, THE MINIMUM WAGE DOESN'T WORK! Unintended consequences, please watch your unintended consequences.

Cross Posted at Blogger News Network and The Wide Awakes.

My Jihad

2005-03-05T19:16:00.000-06:00

I am starting my own holy war. Alright, it's not really a war, and there's nothing holy about. I'm just tired of all the political correctness crap going on today, and everyone becoming offended by something somebody says somewhere in the world today. GET OVER IT! I'm tired of it!

I'm tired of homosexuals being offended by some guy that makes a comment about anal sex. Hey guys (gays) isn't that what you do? Isn't that the way someone is infected with AIDS most effectively? Isn't that why AIDS is running rampant in the homosexual community, because you guys like to have anal sex? GET OVER IT!

I'm tired of a woman, a heterosexual women, being labeled heteronormative, as if heterosexuality is ABNORMAL! Then, when she declares a woman these days can have a career, kids, and a loving husband, there are some who become offended. Offended of WHAT?! Of TRUTH? Any woman can have those things. It doesn't matter if you're gay, or transexual, or transgender, or ugly, a woman CAN have those things; it's a matter of choice. GET OVER IT!

I'm tired of the media and liberals eliminating the label "Islamic terrorist", as if it's not politically correct. GUESS WHAT GUYS, the MAJORITY of pinheads killing innocent civilians, women and children are ISLAMIC TERRORISTS! These are TERRORISTS that practice the religion of ISLAM and legitimize these terrorist acts by claiming they did it in the name of Islam! THEY ARE ISLAMIC TERRORISTS! If Gandhi had preached hate and told his followers to kill innocent civilians, we would call them "Hindu terrorists" or "Gandhi's Gang of Terrorists", anyway, they would be called WHAT THEY ARE! GET OVER IT!

I'm tired of Dan Rather. I'm tired of him constantly whining about how "those documents are real". He knows the "story is true". Hey Dan, THE DOCUMENTS WERE FAKED! EVERYBODY KNOWS IT BUT YOU! And guess what Dan, THE WORLD IS ROUND! You won't fall off the edge if you go to far! You'll just end up in the same place you started! And a few other things as long as we're at it: Elvis is dead, Bush won, and no one knows what the frequency is! GO home and GET OVER IT!

I'm tired of the Pope and the Catholic church. They declare homosexuality is a sin, yet refuse to condemn pedophilia by Catholic priests! Hell, we'll just move them to another parish without telling anyone, so they can molest more kids, and when someone finds out, we'll just pay them off! Fantastic Mr. Pope! I wonder what God will say when you come face-to-face with Him (and very soon at that). So, until you clean up your own house (of God), as far as homosexuality is concerned, GET OVER IT!

I'm tired of Democrats holding up judicial nominations with the filibuster. Something doesn't make sense to me; it takes 51 ayes to confirm a judge, but 60 votes to override a philibuster! In fact, the filibuster was not intended for president's court nominations; it has specific uses and that's NOT one of them. Now the Dems are pissed off the "rule" of the filibuster may be changed to 51 votes for an override. That way, at least a vote will be taken on the nominations. Hey Democrats, YOU LOST, KERRY LOST, BUSH WON! GET OVER IT!

More Liberal Fallacies and Entitlements

2005-03-03T18:26:00.000-06:00

I sat on this article for over a week, and the more I read it the more it pissed me off. It is titled, "In High Gear: The GOP Class War" By Max J. Castro, from Progreso Weekly. Now it says THE GOP CLASS WAR. I began reading this looking for how the right is creating/fighting this "class war." Needless to say, again, it was the left that is creating this illusion with their far-from-truthful talking points.

Here is a bit from the article:

While President Bush tries to sell the American people on a bogus plan to solve a non-existent social security crisis, real and present crises fester unattended or are aggravated by Republican policies.

Health is a prime example. More than 45 million Americans lack insurance coverage today - not in 2042 - and the number keeps rising. Latinos, the fastest growing population in the country, is also the least likely to have coverage. That’s a bad omen for the future. What is Bush proposing to do about this crisis? Nothing.

Let's review. We have Bush pushing a bogus plan to solve a non-existent problem, while he ignores the REAL problems. So, what are these REAL problems? Health insurance is the problem according to the article, right? And Bush is not proposing anything to solve this problem...hmmm. Last time I checked, the government couldn't force the consumer to buy health insurance, car insurance - YES, health insurance - NO. So people are CHOOSING NOT TO BUY health insurance, and somehow that's Bush's fault. Apparently, illegal aliens are the least likely to have health insurance...I wonder why...oh I know, IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY!
As I read this, I wondered if this idiot owns or has stock in an insurance company. CONCLUSION: no problem, no class warfare, individuals have chosen NOT to buy health insurance, no government intervention, just as it should be.

Next:

But the health care problem in this country is more than just the tragedy of tens of millions of people who lack a basic human right. It’s an economic calamity as well - for the nation and for families and individuals. The United States spends a higher percentage of its Gross Domestic Income (GDP) on health care than any other nation, and the result, as translated into indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality, are mediocre compared to other rich countries. Yet costs here are continuing to rise rapidly.

Is this guy claiming health insurance is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT? If you read it again, you'll understand that he's talking about HEALTH CARE, NOT HEALTH INSURANCE. OK, now we have differentiation. The citizens of the US spend A LOT of money on health care AND health insurance, no question. But what is the "health care problem" he's talking about? It seems to me that he is saying HEALTH CARE is a basic human right, and that's the problem here in the US. If this is what he is saying, HE IS LYING. I've never heard of anyone being denied access to HEALTH CARE in this country. Anyone, at anytime, can go to the emergency room at a hospital, or set up an appointment with a doctor and receive health care. So what is the REAL problem he's talking about? I'm still not getting the liberal agenda here.

The problem is not just at the national level either. A recent study found that health costs often spell economic disaster for American families. Half of all bankruptcies in this country result from medical bills. Even more amazing is the finding that points out just how broken the health care system in this country is beyond the issue of having or not having insurance coverage. For many of the people bankrupted by monster medical charges had health insurance coverage.

Now it becomes clear, it's the COST of receiving health care that is the problem. So much of a problem that people file bankruptcy because they can't pay their health care bills. The problem IS NOT HEALTH INSURANCE since the author claims those with health insurance file bankruptcy also.

The study, published in this month’s Health Affairs, estimates two million people annually, including 700,000 dependent children, are affected by medical bankruptcies. "Our study is frightening. Unless you’re Bill Gates you’re just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," said Dr. David Himmelstein of the Harvard Medical School, the lead researcher. Himmelstein said those bankrupted by the high cost of medical care were "average Americans who happened to get sick." Indeed, 75.7 percent of them were insured at the onset of illness. The reality of American health care according to the study is that "even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick."

Here is confirmation that HEALTH INSURANCE IS NOT THE PROBLEM. The problem is the COST of health care. So what is happening, and who does this author blame?

What are Republicans planning to do to help prevent Americans from suffering a financial catastrophe on top of a serious illness? Worse than nothing: They are getting ready to pass a law to make it harder to declare bankruptcy. Doing the bidding of yet another group of corporate cronies - in this case the credit card companies - Republicans in Congress are hoping to parlay their strengthened dominance in both houses into a victory that consumer advocates say would come at the expense of the public.

Of course! It's the Republican's fault! It's a financial crisis. People who have received health care are faced with an enormous bill, and instead of setting up a payment plan or something like it, they file for bankruptcy. If they choose a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, they NEVER HAVE TO PAY THOSE HEALTH CARE BILLS! COOL! But wait! Republicans want to make it harder to file for bankruptcy. HOW DARE THEY! Republicans want to make people PAY THEIR BILLS and be accountable! HOW HORRIBLE!!
But what happens when these people file for bankruptcy and don't pay their bills? That's right, it INCREASES THE COST OF HEALTH CARE, making it that much harder for people to pay their raising health care costs, which increases the amount of bankruptcies, which increase the cost of health care... Do you get the picture?

The author goes on to bash Bush's policies in other areas and cite Paul Krugman, of course. But what of his original thesis? What class war is Bush instigating? None that I can see. It is more of the same from these liberals, steal from the rich and give to the poor, income redistribution, socialism, pure and simple.

It's a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, A Beautiful Day for a Neighbor Would...

2005-03-02T17:39:00.000-06:00

Ahhh, you can almost smell the spring in the air. Just take a deep breath...ack ack ack cough cough...oh well, here we go again.

Can the left get any nicer, compassionate, and warm and fuzzy?

Boxer to keep claws out during second Bush term

Democrats to maintain filibusters on Bush nominees

Do I feel a hug coming on?

Dean Says Conservatives Are 'Evil'

'Dean Scream' Clip Was Media Fraud

Why didn't you tell me it's for "public use"? Of course you can steal my private property from me to help increase your tax base...silly.

A NEW BREED OF TAX TYRANT

Will court curb eminent domain?

Land war goes before Supreme Court

OH MY GOD!!! A REPORTER FROM THE RIGHT?!!! He's gay...and conservative?...it must be Bush's fault...somehow...

Gannongate: It's Worse Than You Think

The Liberals are right. Let's model our labor force after the Europeans. They're OBVIOUSLY doing something right over there. Good wages, fewer hours, lots of vacation time...sounds good to me.

French jobless rate hits five-year high

German jobless rate at new record

Eminent Domain

2005-03-01T16:05:00.000-06:00

Thomas Jefferson on private property:

The right to procure property and to use it for one's own enjoyment is essential to the freedom of every person, and our other rights would mean little without these rights of property ownership.

"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:36

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466

"By nature's law, every man has a right to seize and retake by force his own property taken from him by another by force or fraud. Nor is this natural right among the first which is taken into the hands of regular government after it is instituted. It was long retained by our ancestors. It was a part of their common law, laid down in their books, recognized by all the authorities, and regulated as to circumstances of practice." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:104

"Charged with the care of the general interest of the nation, and among these with the preservation of their lands from intrusion, I exercised, on their behalf, a right given by nature to all men, individual or associated, that of rescuing their own property wrongfully taken." --Thomas Jefferson to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1810. ME 12:383

"Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of." --Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:440

Private property was held as a sacred right by Thomas Jefferson and our founding fathers. It was a sharp ideological contrast to the belief held by the Europeans at the time. Freedom, true freedom, was born from the knowledge that the property you owned was yours, and no one else’s; no one, no government, could take your property by will, by law, or by force. This was a defining moment in our short history as a nation. It differentiated us from the rest of the world.

Yet today, we are facing one of the biggest fights in our country’s history over this very basic, very sacred, right to private property. It is a fight not waged against the left or the right but a combination of both whose lust for power and money has corrupted their interpretation of our constitutional right to private property.

Today, politicians and developers are hand-in-hand, utilizing the government’s power of eminent domain to take private property from a citizen and then turn that property over to a private developer, all for the reason of increasing the tax base. There is no reasonability test, no assurance that taxes collected will be increased, no consideration for our constitution, all for economic development.

It is occurring all over this country, and now the most important case is before the Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London. From The Boston Globe, by Jeff Jacoby, Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice puts the stakes bluntly:

‘‘Every home, church, or corner store would produce more jobs and tax revenue if it were a Costco or a shopping mall,’’ he says. If state and local governments can force a property owner to surrender his land so it can be given to a new owner who will put it to more lucrative use, no home or shop in America will ever be safe again.”
When Bullock argues that New London wants to throw people out of their homes for the sake of ordinary economic development, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asks why that’s a problem. New London is depressed, she says; what’s wrong with trying to ‘‘build it up and get more jobs?’’ If the city could buy property on the open market and turn it over to a developer, wonders Justice David Souter, why can’t it use eminent domain to achieve the same end? Justice Stephen Breyer notes that there is bound to be some public benefit from almost any land taking. Isn’t that enough to satisfy the Constitution’s ‘‘public use’’ requirement?
It is a depressing colloquy for anyone who believes that property rights are fundamental to liberty. But there is worse to come. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor presses Wesley Horton, the lawyer for New London, on whether eminent domain can really be deployed to condemn any property that could be put to better use.
‘‘For example, a Motel 6,’’ O’Connor says. ‘‘A city thinks, ‘If we had a Ritz-Carlton, we’d get higher taxes.’ Is that OK?’’
‘‘Yes, that’s OK,’’ Horton replies.
Justice Antonin Scalia: ‘‘You can take from A and give it to B, if B pays more in taxes?’’
Horton: ‘‘Yes, if it’s a significant amount.’’

Got that? Anyone’s property can be taken by eminent domain if the government identifies another owner who could use it to earn a higher profit. New London isn’t alone in making such an outrageous claim. In planning commissions and redevelopment authorities nationwide, the Fifth Amendment’s ‘‘public use’’ requirement has been ignored for years. The question now is whether five Supreme Court justices will agree to kill off this piece of the Bill of Rights for good, or to bring it back to life. The fate of more than just seven Connecticut homeowners is riding on their decision.

Here in Aurora, Illinois, we have a candidate running for mayor, Richard Irvin, who has continually called for utilizing eminent domain to take private property and then give that property to private developers, all for economic development and increasing the tax base. He has called these properties “economically blighted”. We also have an alderperson, a supporter of Mr. Irvin, who has called for the use of "amortization of non-conforming uses." That means she wants the City government to mandate the down zoning of particular properties if the homeowners fail to do so after a certain amount of time, using the idea of financial compensation the amount of which slowly diminishes as time goes bye.

I had emailed Mr. Irvin and asked him about his stance on private property and the use of eminent domain. I did this because Mr. Irvin is an attorney and this issue concerns the constitution. Mr. Irvin did not respond to my email, but a campaign worker did on his behalf:

Richard Irvin shared your email with me regarding the use of eminent domain in Aurora. I requested an opportunity to respond and with Mr. Irvin’s approval I would like to offer the following response.

Your concern about 5th Amendment Rights and “takings” of personal property are indeed basic and protected rights but I could not disagree more with your characterization of the use of eminent domain as “reckless, fiscally irresponsible, and constitutionally wrong”. Your argument is fundamentally wrong in that you are relying on only one aspect of the workings of our federal common law system. Both “law” and “precedent” must be considered by the courts in determining any ruling. It is the precedent component that justifies the use of eminent domain for the uses that Richard Irvin has described.

The following text is from the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, Kermit L. Hall., and is a good summary of the precedent that allows this use:

Case - Berman v. Parker1954 decided by vote of 9 to 0. A Washington D.C. urban renewal statute allowed the city to condemn land and sell it to private developers, who would redevelop it according to the renewal plan. The plan included not only slum eradication but also beautification projects. A landowner challenged the statute , mainly on the ground that, under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, the condemnation was not “for public use.” The Owner argued unsuccessfully that there was no public use because the land was sold to a private developer and for the purpose of beautification. The Supreme Court upheld the statute.

The decision is important in two ways. Firstly, it established that aesthetics are a legitimate public purpose, for which government may regulate and condemn land. This principle has encouraged increased governmental intervention to achieve aesthetic and environmental goals. Second, Berman made clear that the phrase “public use” in the Takings Clause did not mean land condemned had to remain in governmental ownership or be used physically by the public. The Court seemed to hold that eminent domain might be used to advance any goal that government could pursue under any of its powers. Subsequent decisions have confirmed this broad understanding of Berman. Thus, under the Takings Clause, “public use” means only public purpose.

That is the technical/legal side of the issue and I can assure you that Mr. Irvin did not incorporate eminent domain into his economic plan without regard for the law and more importantly the probability of practical and effective use of that tool. Hundreds of millions of dollars of redevelopment have been done in major cities such as Indianapolis utilizing eminent domain as the catalyst for that revitalization. Richard has meet with attorneys, financiers, and the mayors who have successfully utilized eminent domain. This is far from reckless, it is actually a common and proven strategy.

We, citizens of Aurora, have become accustom to avoiding legal confrontation as a result of our timid legal council and lack of mayoral leadership in this area. There is clearly a leadership vacuum and I believe Richard Irvin is the one to fill that void. He is creative with his solutions and has the courage to see them through. It is clear that none of the other candidates has anything comparable to offer and the issue of eminent domain and economic development are a perfect example. Since Richard Irvin revealed his economic plan not only have the other candidates taken much of it as their own but they city itself through the AEDC has endorsed the use of eminent domain as part of the latest downtown strategy. Richard leads on this and many other issues.

One problem with comparing this case with Aurora is that in Berman v. Parker some of the conditions of these properties do not exist here in Aurora. For example, the area to be redeveloped was described thusly: 64.3% of the dwellings were beyond repair, 18.4% needed major repair, 57.8% of the dwellings had outside toilets, 60.3% had no baths, 29.3% lacked electricity, 82.2% had no wash basins or laundry tubs, and 83.8% lacked central heating. This is hardly indicative of the situation here in Aurora. Aurora does have some vacant buildings, are they blighted? No. Are they bringing in the highest amount is taxes possible for that parcel? Probably not. Is that worth the price of violating someone’s constitutional right? Of course not.

Do the ends justify the means? Is violating someone’s right and taking their private property worth the potential of increased taxes? What happened with fiscal responsibility of government? Where does it stop? What about “intellectual property”? How soon will it be before someone claims they can put your ideas to better use and utilizes eminent domain to take your right to that intellectual property away from you?

What “unintended consequences” may we see if Kelo v. New London is upheld? Property values will decrease due to the “risk” of owning property, therefore, the property taxes will decrease also. This reduction in property value and the resulting decrease in property taxes will motivate governments to increase those taxes to offset those losses. The knowledge that property can be taken from you at any point in time will reduce property ownership. Developers will reap huge financial rewards by surveying existing neighborhoods for viable development properties and then taking them by force for development. There would be no limit to the number of times a particular property can be taken and redeveloped, as long as there is a potentially higher financial gain.

The left loves to talk about how the rich are getting richer while the poor are becoming poorer. In the case of eminent domain, if the Supreme Court upholds Kelo v. New London, rich developers and politicians will become richer while they walk all over the private property rights of those who have worked hard enough to own property and begin to live the American Dream, all with the help, consent, good tidings, and good riddance of the United States Supreme Court.

Maybe a Taco Bell would bring in higher taxes than Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's house...

Cross Posted at The Wide Awakes and Blogger News Network.

You Must Admit Your Problem Before the Healing Can Begin

2005-02-27T14:26:00.000-06:00

Liberals are still having a hard time accepting their own philosophy, socialism. Liberals claim to believe in capitalism. They claim they believe in the free market. The problems arise when they talk about their beliefs in areas such as business regulations, labor, and profits.

Liberals believe corporations make too much money. How many times have we heard about the amount of profits made by drug companies? Oil companies? So what do they propose? They want price controls and higher taxes, hardly a capitalistic stance.

Liberals believe most workers are slaves to these corporations, underpaid, overworked. They believe in the minimum wage and the living wage. They want the government to set wages and conditions of employment. One liberal blog wants everyone paid overtime for every hour over 40 worked. Ted Kennedy wants to mandate seven (7) sick days to all employees. Liberals believe the government should legislate employee issues; they want the government to become the HR department for every business. When a business does NOT CONTROL its own workforce, wages and conditions of employment, it doesn’t really run that business, and therefore, doesn’t own that business. This is NOT a capitalistic view of business; it is SOCIALISM.

Government intervention in the labor force is prevalent in Europe, especially in France and Germany, and is a major force in the high unemployment and low productivity these countries are experiencing; to the level that France is rethinking its stance on the 35-hour work week and ample time-off policies.

Before the liberals can start the long road back to a true capitalistic and free market economy philosophy, they must first admit their socialistic philosophy. They must understand the unintended consequences of their business ideas: what would mandatory overtime to everyone, mandatory sick-time to everyone, minimum wage, living wage, price controls, and taxation, do to the business sector and the economy as a whole? It would destroy it. That has been the problem with all socialist economies, the utopian ideal overwhelmed logical thinking, proper strategic planning, and a thorough understanding of the consequences.

It’s time for PRACTICAL APPLICATION. This is a test for all you liberals who believe in the liberal’s ideology I described above. I want you all to start a business under LIBERAL rules, which means wage controls, price controls, taxation, government intervention, legislation, and regulations. I am guessing, it will take less than a year for your transformation, that is, it will take less than a year for you to become a conservative.

Welcome Bloggers

2005-02-26T09:21:00.000-06:00

I would like to thank the bloggers that have stopped by and commented, and welcome those stopping by just to take a look. I really appreciate it.

I want to introduce you to new blog links, please stop by and check them out:

Stop the ACLU

Michael the Archangel

Bubble Head

Whymrhymer

Is It Just Me?

Give Me liberty

One Man's Thoughts

Where's Your Brain?

Thank you ALL!

Analysis of Henry Bayer-AFSCME Council 31, IL

2005-02-25T19:19:00.000-06:00

A few things from “On the Move” #88, February 2005, from Illinois Council 31 – American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.

From Henry Bayer – “Taxes, What we need is a fairer system, then it might not be so hard to raise revenues”

The unfairness of our tax system is not confined to the state of Illinois, however. Between 2001 and 2003, the effective federal corporate tax rate was reduced by 20 percent. Corporate taxes have fallen to their lowest level in more than 40 years.

Yes Henry, and those reductions in taxes by the Bush administration did a miraculous job reducing that recession from the dot.com bubble burst to a minimum. Oh, and then we had a small thing called a terrorist attack that cost this country and the economy billions of dollars. Oh, and then we had a small war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those tax cuts kept this economy rolling; an economy which is gaining speed and strength every day.

If you thought that big business and its political allies would be satisfied by these huge breaks, you'd be wrong. Major corporations pushed a measure through the Congress allowing them to pay taxes on profits earned abroad at one-seventh the normal rate.

Tell me Henry, why should a company pay taxes here in America for the business it does overseas? The normal American tax rate on profits made abroad should be ZERO. The American companies doing business abroad are the ONLY companies that are taxed in their home country (America) AND in the host country. American businesses were unable to compete in foreign markets because the TAX playing field was not level. American companies needed those tax breaks to compete. Under your astute thinking, American companies would pay full taxes, here and abroad and would therefore fail abroad, not only losing jobs there but HERE also. Good thinking Henry.

It's not just giant corporations that complain about their high taxes. Wealthy individuals, who even after getting the biggest chunk of Bush's recent tax cuts, echo the charge that they, too, are being overtaxed.

You'd never know from listening to the howls of the super-rich that much of their income is taxed at a lower rate than most of us pay on most of our income. Capital gains and dividends are taxed at a fraction of the rate of wages — a difference that overwhelmingly benefits high income earners, while we get only crumbs off that table.

Let’s see, why are wealthy people complaining about their taxes? It’s because they PAY THE MOST! It doesn’t matter what the rate is; the fact is the rich pay more taxes. 10% of $500,000 is $50,000; 50% of $50,000 is only $25,000. Rates DON’T MATTER, it’s the AMOUNT OF MONEY PAID IN TAXES!!! Money made from capital gains and dividends are taxed at a lower rate because the money used to earn capital gains and dividends have been taxed once already, and this money invested helps grow the economy and therefore increase taxes as well. Anyone can invest in the market, not just rich people, but I’ve never received a job from a poor person.

I can't see the point. Folks collecting capital gains and dividends certainly don't work harder for their income than those of us whose earnings are mostly wages.

Think again Henry. How did those people earn their money? They worked for it, made the correct decisions on life, saved money, and became able to invest. Don’t blame them for making the right choices in life.

While we continue to drift away from the principle that taxes should be based on one's ability to pay, governments at every level are scrambling to find resources for vital services. It would seem that the time is ripe to reverse the trend and bring greater fairness to the tax system, while making sure we raise enough revenues to fund vital services.

How about the government NOT spending MORE than the amount of taxes it collects? Perhaps we should look at YOUR definition of “vital services”? As you increase taxes on the rich, the rich will reduce their “ability” to pay. We should make the tax system more fair by instituting the Fair Tax Plan.

For starters, the President insists that the tax cuts passed in his first term, which went disproportionately to individuals making more than $300,000 annually, and which are responsible for one half of the $420-billion federal deficit, must be made permanent.

Yes they should be made permanent. Again, I have never received a job from a poor person, but I have received a job from a rich person that was able to KEEP MORE OF HIS OWN MONEY which enabled him to invest in his business, expand that business to the point of HIRING MORE PEOPLE. You may also want to check out how much our country’s SAFETY (as in Homeland Security and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan) is part of that deficit.

Secondly, despite the need for more revenue to fund education, health, and other important programs, the president says that any changes in taxes must not result in any net revenue increase.

More money for schools? How about fixing the problems with schools FIRST then analyze the need for and amount of funding? I don’t believe I should pay for someone else’s health care because they “can’t” afford health insurance. All other entitlement programs should be eliminated.

If we're talking about shifting the tax burden but raising no more money, it means some folks will pay more taxes while others pay less. And guess what? Under all the tax schemes being considered by the administration and its allies, our tax system would become even more skewed in favor of the well-to-do.

Let’s be truthful. The rich and wealthy, though they may have their tax rates cut, will still pay more taxes than the other groups even if the amount the others pay goes up. Remember, it’s not the rate; it’s the AMOUNT paid in taxes that count. Overall, why shouldn’t the MAJORITY of people pay the MAJORITY of taxes? Obviously, the MAJORITY of people will utilize the MAJORITY of these “vital services” you claim we so desperately need?

For instance they're looking most seriously at a national consumption tax. But the less you make, the more of your income is spent on consumer goods, like food, clothing, gasoline or other daily necessities. So the less you make, the higher percentage of your income will go to taxes. In this manner our unfair tax system, in the name of reform, becomes even more unfair.

This is a lie, Henry. It is a lie, or you don’t know what you’re talking about; either one is reprehensible. Either you are trying to deceive your readers, or you haven’t read the proposal for the Fair Tax Plan. Every person working will receive their entire pay check, no deductions. Every family will receive a rebate for the taxes paid for the “necessities of life”. The taxes you actually pay depend on your spending habits; you control the amount of taxes you pay. The wealthy will continue to pay the biggest burden while the poor will their fair share on those expenditures OUTSIDE of the necessities of life.

Every change in the tax code should meet two tests: "Does it raise the revenues needed for essential services?" and "Do those with the most ability to pay bear their fair share of the burden?" The Republican tax plans fail on both accounts.

The Republican tax plan is just fine, thanks.

Cross Posted at Blogger News Network

Democrats are the NEW American Socialist/Communist Party

2005-02-23T18:37:00.000-06:00

The labor movement is gaining support from the very liberal media. Here's an article, from MRC, where Katie Couric espouses the virutes of socialist/communist views of labor.

On Monday's Today, Katie Couric conducted a softball interview promoting a Ted Kennedy-sponsored bill to require every employer in America with 15 or more employees to offer a mandatory seven sick days each year. She asked: "So obviously the legislation may be helpful, but the whole mentality of the workplace needs to change as well, right?" Her liberal guest, Linda Meric of the lobbying group 9 to 5, agreed: "The United States is way far behind in terms of the amount of time off that employees get to care for family members, to care for their own health and for other reasons." Couric had no question on the potential cost to employers or any other political or economic objections to the proposal. This wasn't the first time Today promoted European-style regulatory controls on the workplace.

For some reason, liberal believe businesses should be controlled by the government; this is communism, pure and simple. If not complete control, then at the very least, control of the workforce and employee policies. Liberals believe the government should legislate time-off, numbers of hours worked, sick-time, wages and consitions of employment.

If I am wrong, I will surely apologize. However, I believe I am right.

Liberals want government to legislate wages through minimum wage and are now pushing for an arbitrary "living wage." Liberals want government to legislate time-off through the FMLA and are now pushing for mandatory sick-time. Liberals want the government to legislate conditions of employment through the ADA, OSHA, and other agencies and prgrams.

When did our government decide it would be best to become an active partner in every business in this country? What happened to our free market economy, capitalism, and competition?

Now Liberals and unions are pushing for labor rights equal to human rights. How far are we from having government intervene in business decisions such as business closings and mass employee lay-offs? How soon will the government mandate those businesses stay open and those employees stay employed? How far away are we from government controlling or overseeing all aspects of a business? Will we then admit we have become a COMMUNIST COUNTRY?

What happened to a business having the right to succeed or fail on its own merits, management style, and philosophy? When did we lose all respect in the American worker to make the right choices, be responsible for their own actions, and be held accountable for those choices and actions? When did we lose our belief that ANYONE can succeed in this country on their own through hard work and dedication?

We are no longer fostering entreprenuership; we are fostering a society and culture of government entitlements or entitleprenuership or new ways in which to gain government entitlements. We are fostering a government fail-safe plan even though there is no risk to the individual.

When did we start to believe that COMMUNISM will succeed in America? When did Liberals and the Democratic Party become the new American Socialist/Communist Party?

Blogger Network News

2005-02-22T18:35:00.000-06:00

I want EVERYONE to stop by and check out BLOGGER NETWORK NEWS, The Breaking News Source of the Blogoshpere.

The Future of Unions?

2005-02-22T18:16:00.000-06:00

Truthout.org has an interesting article called: U.S. Labor Debates Direction By David Bacon

"Workers are going to get a chance to vote no matter what we do," Stern responds. "But the truth is you have to have a certain amount of strength in this economy to deal with global or national employers. The question isn't whether we're going to take away rank-and-file democracy; it's whether we're going to have the strength in which democracy can be exercised."

Unions need strength; strength is in numbers. Therefore, unions must organize and increase membership. This is the ONLY way unions can gain strength.

Both SEIU and AFT proposals agree that organizing is a critical issue, and that it requires more support, but they have different ideas about where that support should come from. SEIU calls on the AFL-CIO to take the $25 million annually that it receives from union credit card royalties, and use it to boost organizing. Wal-Mart should be the target, the union's proposal explains, because it has become a symbol of low-wage, no-benefit employment, affecting millions of workers in other jobs.

Organizing and unionizing Wal-Mart would give unions a much needed increase in membership and geographically cover a much larger area. Union leadership believes that once Wal-Mart succumbs to unionization, employees in other areas will be much easier to organize.

"When we think about auto, steel and rubber workers," Stern says, "before the 1930s and 40s they didn't have high skilled, high wage jobs. But they got a union, and a union job turned out to be a good job, where you could raise a family and enter the middle class. Wal-Mart jobs are not inherently bad jobs. Wal-Mart workers are not inherently unskilled people. They just work for a company that thinks it's more important to give the five Walton family members, who are each worth 20 billion dollars, another billion dollars a year, rather than to give every employee healthcare."

This is the short-sightedness union leadership displays. Workers work for Wal-Mart because they choose to; everyone has a choice. The Wal-Mart leadership, board of directors, and stockholders determine how profits are spent, and they have NO legal or moral obligation to GIVE every employee healthcare at the cost to stockholders. If the employees do not like this arrangement, they can leave and seek a job elsewhere. Contrary to liberal belief, employees are not owed a job, nor do they OWN that job, nor is that the ONLY job they could possibly find or have.

Contention grew much more heated over how unions should engage in politics, in the wake of George Bush's reelection last November. The AFT's proposal contains no specific recommendations for change, but presents A Peoples' Agenda, arguing that "labor's power, legitimacy and appeal are derived from enduring principles rather than from more-effective tactics and efficient structures." The items on the agenda include full employment and fair compensation, dignified work and dignified retirement, healthcare and leisure, quality public education and available child care for all, civil rights and economic opportunity, decent housing and quality public services, participation in the structure, processes and quality of work, and international solidarity upholding labor rights as human rights.

“A Peoples’ Agenda” has the qualities of a socialistic/communistic ideology. Employers will determine if full-time or part-time employment will effectively fulfill the needs of the organization, not the union. Fair compensation will be determined by the free market and supply and demand economics. Wages should NOT be artificially set high by minimum wage/living wage legislation. An employer can only offer a job and cannot force one upon anyone. People have the right NOT to take a job or quit one they feel is not dignified. Retirement is up to the individual worker to make the right choices and plan for their own retirement. Social Security is only a SAFETY NET and should not be relied on as the sole source of retirement funds. Healthcare is NOT a right and is the ultimate responsibility of the individual. Quality public education is the responsibility of government (and the NEA). Child care is a service for which there must be a demand and a price (cost) for those services; it should not be free or government subsidized. The things the U.S. have are civil rights and economic opportunities for all. Housing is what the individual makes of it, and public services depend on the community in which one lives. Participation is up to the individual; people have as much right TO vote as they do NOT to vote.
American unions are looking to European unions to model. This is a dangerous scenario. Unions are tied into government, in the socialistic business model. What unions are not considering is what this tie has done to European economies. European economies do not come close to matching that of the U.S. Worker production and efficiency are much greater in the U.S. than in any country in Europe.
Labor rights should NOT be compared to human rights. There should NOT be labor rights, other than those rights covered by current laws and legislation. If labor rights were to ever include the right to work, it would be just a step away from government controlling a business, company, or corporation. If that business were to shut down, the government could potentially MAKE it stay in business. When government controls business, societal philosophy will have changed from a free market, capitalistic economy to a communistic economy and government.

SEIU calls for reassessing labor's relationship with the Democratic Party. "Workers don't have a party right now that speaks clearly and precisely to their economic interests," Stern asserts. "Workers are looking for leadership on the economic issues that confront them every day, and don't see in either the Democrats or the Republicans the kind they want. It is up to our union and other unions to raise the questions, Where are the organizations that speak for us? Can we change the ones that are there to be more responsive to workers? If not, what do we need to do? We're not going to win elections for workers when you don't have parties that run on platforms that mean much change in their lives."

Democrats have rarely been labor friendly. Promises are made to gain votes then those promises go by the wayside because of the costly economic repercussions. Politicians will not change the basic economic employee business structure, to one closely resembling that of Europe; it is too socialistic/communistic in philosophy, and the majority of Americans would not support such legislation or the legislators that backed it.
It is time for unions to change. Unions will not survive with this old mentality. Unions have become a business and should be run as such. Offer an employer a good or service they want or need, such as human resources, and perhaps unions can survive.

Cross Posted at Blogger Network News.

Truth is OUT at Truthout.org

2005-02-21T18:55:00.000-06:00

I guess truth doesn't matter at Truthout.org (or any other liberal media outlet for that matter.)

A couple of examples:

The HEADLINE on the home page of Truthout.org: Swift Boat Vets to Attack A.A.R.P.
The REAL HEADLINE of the article: A New Target for Advisers to Swift Vets

So we go from the Swift Boat Vets attacking AARP to ADVISERS of the Swift Boat Vets now being hired to lobby against AARP on the Social Security issue.

A bit of a difference, I would say.

The HEADLINE on the home page of Truthout.org: U.N.: Afghanistan Becoming Chaotic Terror Haven
The REAL HEADLINE of the article: U.N.: Afghanistan Could Become Terror Haven

Here we go from Afghanistan BECOMING a terror haven to it COULD become a terror haven. A subtle yet deliberate attempt to influence the reader, especially those that peruse headlines.

You gotta love these liberal sites.

The Race for Mayor of Aurora, Illinois

2005-02-20T16:15:00.000-06:00

The primary is Tuesday, so go vote...for Tom Weisner. He is the best and most qualified candidate. No he is not Republican, he is a Democrat. Richard Irvin and his outside support is making this race one in which political parties are in the forefront. Unfortunately for them, there is no political party agenda issues to be addressed in Aurora, other than making it a stepping stone for Richard Irvin's political career. The majority of Aurora is Democrat even though Kane county has a Republican majority.

So we have people making this a political party issue where none exists. Some Republicans are unwilling to look at the need for Aurora and support a candidate who is most qualified simply because he is not a Republican. If Richard Irvin had the same strategy with the same issues and stances, but he labeled himself a Democrat, would he have these same supporters? Of course not. However, if Tom Weisner had the same ideas , issues and stances and labled himself a Republican, would he have the same supporters? Most likely so, and probably the majority of Wyatt's, Cunningham's, and Irvin's; it would be a runaway election for Weisner.

Another blog, One Man's Thoughts, is right leaning. He is a conservative, and I am sure he and I would normally see things from the same point of view, but he is obviously an Irvin supporter. That's fine if he would give some logical reasoning to his support of Irvin. Mostly he just slants some thing to make Weisner look bad. He mentioned the contributions to Weisner's campaign coming from supporters outside of City, yet he never mentions Irvin's. Most of Irvin's supporters are from outside Aurora. Here are some of the people who have contributed to his campaign recently:

Irvin for Mayor
A1 - $500+ 30 days prior to 2005 CP
Itemized Receipts
________________________________________ ________________________________________
Olson, Rodney
1102 Prairie Ln.
Yorkville, IL 60560 Individual Contribution
$500.00 on 2/16/2005
________________________________________ ________________________________________
T.J.J. Inc. DBA The Courtyard
3 S. 200 H 59
Warrenville, IL 60555 Individual Contribution
$800.00 on 2/16/2005
________________________________________ ________________________________________
The Jeff Diver Group LLC
1749 S. Naperville Road
Suite 102
Wheaton, IL 60107 Individual Contribution
$500.00 on 2/16/2005
________________________________________ ________________________________________
WTRO
23641 W. Andrew
Plainfield, IL 60544 Individual Contribution
$1,000.00 on 2/16/2005

________________________________________ ________________________________________
Association of Professional Police Officers
350 N. River Street
Aurora, IL 60506 Individual Contribution
$500.00 on 2/11/2005
________________________________________ ________________________________________
John Sexton Sand & Gravel Corp.
02/04/2005
Hillside, IL 60162 Individual Contribution
$1,000.00 on 2/11/2005
________________________________________ ________________________________________
Lindahl Brothers Inc.
622 East Green Street
Bensenville, IL 60106 Individual Contribution
$500.00 on 2/11/2005
________________________________________ ________________________________________
PAL Group
321 S. Center St.
Hillside, IL 60162 Individual Contribution
$1,000.00 on 2/11/2005
________________________________________ ________________________________________
Citizens for Ed Petka
P.O. Box 68
Plainfield, IL 60544 Transfer In
$1,000.00 on 2/10/2005

Hillside? Bensenville? What interest do they have in Aurora...or is their interest in the future of Aurora? We know from Beacon News articles that Irvin has talked to private developers about various properties he wants to forcibly take utilizing eminent domain. I guess the resindents of Moecherville can rest easy knowing they're out of the City and cannot be annexed, even forcibly.

Note to Tom Cross: before you back a candidate and make him one of the new premier Republican candidates for the future of Illinois, I suggest you make sure his stance on issues are roughly the same as yours. I would hate to see you guys taken advantage of, but that would be funny.

The Hypocrisy of and at the AARP

2005-02-20T08:24:00.000-06:00

The AARP is strongly against Social Security PSAa. They claim that putting money in the stock market is as good as throwing it away. They claim that it's not broke, it won't go bust for a long time, any changes will weaken the current system. The fact is, it will go broke in the future. Are we to leave that problem to our kids and grandkids, or fix it now?

The Social Security stystem as we know it is NOT a guarantee. Benefits are NOT guaranteed. Yet all the rhetoric to convince us NOT to change it says these benefits are guaranteed.

The fact is, all the money in the "trust fund" is non-existent. It is in treasury bonds that must be paid, to the tune of $1.6 trillion. Bail out plans are said to cost $2-$3 trillion, this amount for a complete fix, once and for all, and once fixed, individuals will have their own private savings accounts that are out of the reach of Congress. It will be YOUR money.

If one were to peruse the AARP website, you'd find some interesting things. The article on saving social security has some points to consider.

Second, diverting a portion of Social Security money to private accounts means that there would be fewer dollars available to pay Social Security benefits. That would leave the whole system with less of a reserve, as well as less cash on hand to pay beneficiaries. This situation would lead to hard choices: cutting benefits, raising taxes, or doing none of the above and watching the trust fund run out of cash sooner.

According to a letter entitled "The Consequences of Social Security Privatization," signed by Congressmen Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) and the late Robert T. Matsui (D-CA), diverting a portion of workers' current Social Security contributions to private accounts "blows a hole in the Trust Funds…and directly threatens our ability to pay current retirees." They predict that under privatization the trust fund reserves will be wiped out by 2021, a full 20 years sooner than if the system had been left alone.

This is where the $2-$3 trillion comes in. It is to bridge the gap while the PSAs go into effect. There will be no reduction in benefits and no raise in taxes due to the transition costs. But they don't tell you that.

Myth: Individuals will get higher returns with private accounts.

Surely you can do better with your investments than a big bureaucratic government agency can, say those who favor private accounts. Well, the truth is, some people may do better. But who's going to pay for the care and feeding of all those who do worse?

"Under privatization, current workers will have to pay three times," says Certner. "Once to ensure the benefits for those currently at or near retirement, once for themselves, and once more for those whose investments didn't pan out." In the current Social Security system, the risk is near zero. You know it will be there regardless of what the market does. That's because U.S. Treasury bonds don't crash when the stock market does.

Some people will do better? The stocks and bonds available will be conservative to limit liability. Then again, it will be up to the individual to choose those options.

Myth: The Social Security reserves are only on paper.

Well, yes, but that paper is U.S. Treasury bonds, which have been earning a combined interest rate of about 6 percent a year. For more than 200 years, in good times and bad, during wars and depressions, American bonds have always paid off. They're one of the safest investments in the world. In 2003, some $80 billion, about 13 percent of Social Security's total income, came from the interest from these bonds.

First they claim it's a myth, then they say it's true. Then they claim American bonds HAVE ALWAYS PAID OFF! 6% a year is much better than 1.8% that SS is getting now, isn't it?

I guess the argument that really pisses me off is when AARP claims the market is risky. How risky is it? If it is too risky to put your retirement funds, then why is AARP offering THAT service to its mebers?

As the only investment program specifically for investors 50 and over, the AARP Investment Program's information, services, and investment products are designed to help you prepare for whatever may be on the horizon.

The fact to which peole MUST pay attention is that the PSAs are OPTIONAL. You can take the option to put a portion of your payroll taxes into a PSA, or you can continue in the current system as is. The best part is, once you are in a PSA, that money is YOURS, and Congress will NOT be able to spend it.

A Brief Lesson for all you Proponents of the Minimum Wage

2005-02-19T10:40:00.000-06:00

Minimum wage is not only a talking point for liberals, it is one of their problem areas. They see it as a "value" issue, trying to increase the buying power of those poor people in "poverty". What they continually fail to see and undertsand is the negative affects it has on employment rates and the economy. It does not do what they intend it to do. In fact, the unintended consequences on higher unemployment and not reaching its target audience make this a disasterous policy.

I guess when you're trying to BUY votes with the money of wage earners, the unintended negative consequences don't matter. It's the thought that counts.

Who will really benefit from Maryland's Minimum wage hike?

An analysis of data compiled by the Bureau’s Current Population Survey shows that the average family income of Maryland’s employees who would benefit from a minimum wage increase to $6.15 is over $67,000 a year. Why? Because fully 91% of employees whose wages would be increased by this proposal either live with working parents or another relative, live alone, or have a working spouse.

Just 9% of beneficiaries will be sole earners in families with children, and each of these sole earners has access to supplemental income through the federal and state earned income tax credit (EITC). Research from Michigan State University and the Federal Reserve found that the EITC is far more efficient at actually helping those in poverty than an increase in the minimum wage.

“The proposed minimum wage increase is a poorly targeted attempt to help Maryland’s low income working families,” said EPI’s director of research, Craig Garthwaite. “The vast majority of benefits will not go to poor families and the majority of poor families will not receive a benefit.”

· 41% of minimum wage earners live with a parent or relative · 25% of minimum wage earners are a dual earner in a married couple · 25% of minimum wage earners are a single earner with no kids · Just 9% of minimum wage earners are single parents with kids or a single earner in a couple with kids, and each of these sole earners has access to supplemental income through the EITC.

Do facts and logic have an impact on liberals? Obviously not since they continue to inject bad policies such as minimum wage and the living wage on businesses. All in the name of the common good and helping those that can't help themselves, right?

It's time for liberals to take classes in economics, finance, and business. Maybe then they'll learn that they're doing a disservice to all.

Human Rights Hypocrisy

2005-02-18T19:00:00.000-06:00

Dictator celebrates as North Koreans starve

Kim Jong-Il celebrated his birthday in exuberant fashion yesterday, despite worsening food rations among his people and international condemnation of his nuclear ambitions.

Here are the websites for Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. I don't see a story or a word about North Korea, why? Oh that's right, it's because Kim jong-Il would kill any reporter condemning him. It is nice to live in America, isn't it?

Reporters Without Borders has a map on its website that is a Press Freedom Barometer; please check it out. I guess if a country doesn't kill reporters for various views, why not rip that country..oh they are...in America. FREE SPEECH RULES, doesn't boys.

Cry Liberal, Cry

2005-02-16T19:53:00.000-06:00

Some tough talk over at Daily Kos. Tough talk from wussies.

A Republican Hate Fest
by Armando
Wed Feb 16th, 2005 at 13:06:36 PST

Today is a Republican Hate Fest. First this from Powerline:
Jimmy Carter isn't just misguided or ill-informed. He's on the other side.
Nice piece of hate there from the Republicans, calling a former President of the United States, graduate of the Naval Academy, veteran, a traitor. Why do Republicans have so much hate in them?

Was the word TRAITOR in that quote anywhere? I didn't think so. I think he was referring to the fact that Carter is on the other side of RIGHT, better known as LIBERAL.

Next from the NY State GOP Chair:
[T]he Democrats simply have refused to learn the lessons of the past two election cycles, and now they can be accurately called the party of Barbara Boxer, Lynne Stewart and Howard Dean.
The New McCarthyism, first employed in last year's GOP campaign - by Cheney, Hatch and the GOP in general - is now out front, brazen and ugly. The Party of Hate shows its true face.

Brazen? Ugly? Truth hurts doesn't it? The Dems ARE the party of Boxer, sorry that offends or bruises your self-esteem. The fact is the Dems have REFUSED to accept the obvious, you lost because the majority of people do not like your policies, philosophies, and ideologies. FACE THE FACTS...or go cry about it. There is no hate involved here, only facts and logic.

Dean gives the Dem response:
[T]his is not settled. Mr. Minarik has shown neither regret nor remorse for what he said," Dean added, calling on other New York and national Republican leaders to "follow Governor Pataki's lead and rebuke Minarik."
Demand the President of the United States do so too. Afterall, he is the leader of this hate filled Republican Party.

What do the Republicans have to hate? It makes no sense. The Dems are the party of "NO". The Dems are the party of emotion, devoid of logic and facts. The Dems are the party of fear tactics. If these examples are what the Dems deem "hate", I wouldn't want to see them in front of Simon on American Idol. They'd probably break down and cry like babies...oh, they're doing that now.

Now, how did the commentors take the barrage of hate thrown at Jimmy Carter?

Insulting Jimmy Carter is outrageous (3.88 / 9)
No former President has done more for the cause of human rights, voting rights, promoting peace, and his Homes for Habitat started one of the most worthwhile projects ever created for the working poor.
by wishingwell on Wed Feb 16th, 2005 at 13:05:24 PST

I Fully Agree (none / 1)
The very idea that the Republicans are now attacking a humanitarian, Nobel Prize winner who has stepped so far beyond the line of partisanship to help all people of the world is absolutely outrageous. Republicans must be made to account for these statements, and we must not back down. Get Zenmaster Harry Reid out there to throw a few firebombs at them. We can't sit back any longer. Now is the time to fight.
The New Democrat
Envision the future. Visit The New Democrat -http://www.newdemocrat.blogdrive.com
by demburns on Wed Feb 16th, 2005 at 13:13:19 PST

Didn't Arafat get a peace prize too? (1994)

Like Bill Maher said... (4.00 / 2)
Jimmy Carter was always a christian, not a drunk turned christian. Jimmy Carter still teaches Sunday school at his church in Georgia. My little old great aunt and her church women's group drove out to go to his class one Sunday a few months ago. So cute!!
PS He's my mom's hero allow w/ Bishop Desmund Tutu.
"If you sacrifice liberty for security you get neither"
by lawstudent922 on Wed Feb 16th, 2005 at 13:53:06 PST

That's correct, Ted Kennedy was (and is) the "drunk".

He's the wrong sort of Christian (3.66 / 3)
He's got a silly focus on helping the poor, rather than punishing them for poverty. After all, if they were members of the elect, they'd have the outward signs, like wealth, wouldn't they?
by paperwight on Wed Feb 16th, 2005 at 14:01:56 PST

???????????????????????????

Didn't Howard Dean say he hated Republicans and everything they stood for? Yet the Republicans are the party of hate...I don't get it. Illogical thought confuses me.

You're an Idiot

2005-02-16T18:31:00.000-06:00

I would be afraid of a few old guys too: from MRC: "...ABC's Peter Jennings personalized North Korea's boast that it has nuclear missiles as he asserted Thursday night that the communist regime "says it has manufactured nuclear weapons for self-defense against the Bush administration," not against the U.S."

Do they actually believe in anything?...other than Bush is Satan? From the NYT: The Fighting Moderates: "Howard Dean said in accepting the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. "But there is something that this administration and the Republican Party are very afraid of. It is that we may actually begin fighting for what we believe."

HOW DARE HE!?? SELF-SUFFICIET? ARE YOU INSANE!!??? From the Boston Globe: Housing time limit may cut out poorest: "About 4,700 of the poorest individuals and families in Massachusetts would be at risk of losing their state-subsidized housing after three years, and many would be required to work while receiving housing benefits under a proposal buried in Governor Mitt Romney's budget plan.
The administration says that imposing a three-year limit on people who participate in the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program fits with Romney's emphasis on helping the poor become self-sufficient, a goal he is also pushing for welfare recipients."

Well..uh...now that Bush...uh...is President...well..I guess we can print this: From the Washington Times: Repainting the jobs picture: "New employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) revise recent economic history and lend validity to household-collected employment, which has risen faster in this economic recovery than employer-reported payroll jobs."

Oh...and this..I guess... From WSJ: Economy 'in the Zone' . . . "Investors are beginning to suspect that the favorable financial environment may be sustained, despite consensus forecasts suggesting that recent market gains have been too good to last. More than anything else, the key to the outlook is whether low inflation can be maintained through a combination of fundamental forces and Fed resolve. Viewed this way, economic and market prospects are better than the analysts' consensus."

Enjoy.

Navy to Commission Attack Submarine Jimmy Carter

2005-02-15T20:25:00.000-06:00

Special release from the U.S. Department of Defense

“WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The Navy will commission its newest nuclear-powered attack submarine Jimmy Carter on Saturday, Feb. 19, during an 11 a.m. EST ceremony at Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton, Conn.
The attack submarine Jimmy Carter honors the 39th president of the United States.”

The submarine was also built in the “spirit” of former President Carter. It will have no weapons, and, contrary to the press release, it will not be nuclear-powered, but solar-powered, which my cause future problems. It will have a plaque honoring the late “humanitarian” Yasser Arafat. Special seats will be installed for visiting diplomats such as Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-Il.

This is the second highest honor for the former President. Last year, the 56,000,000-bed President Jimmy Carter Home for the Incurable Pacifist-Liberal was filled to capacity shortly after the November presidential election. Congratulations Jimmy! A well-deserved honor!

Iraq is Bush’s Biggest Blunder

2005-02-14T20:24:00.000-06:00

We all know Bush screwed up Iraq. We’ve heard about the failure to put the appropriate number of boots on the ground over there. We’ve heard about the failure to safeguard weapons dumps allowing insurgents to help themselves. We’ve heard of the failure of the American Army to stifle the insurgency. We’ve heard about the failure to plan, execute, and exit this war. But it’s the failure we haven’t heard about that concerns me the most.

Bush has failed in the WAR FOR OIL! What happened to the OIL? We were supposed to take over the oil fields. We were supposed to take over the pumping, collection, and distribution of Iraq’s OIL. We were supposed to fund this war with this OIL. We were supposed to have their OIL. Where is it!? MY GOD! Can’t Bush do anything right in this WAR FOR OIL!?

Have you seen the price of gas these days? Bush was supposed to cut a deal with the Saudis to lower the price of oil just before the election to ensure his reelection. John Kerry and the Democrats said so, and Bush couldn’t do that right either! This Iraq war is supposed to be about OIL! Yet, the price of oil is still high! Is it Halliburton? Is that it? It is Halliburton isn’t it? They are keeping the price of oil artificially high aren’t they? They are PROFITTING from this WAR FOR OIL aren’t they!?

Excuse me while I go push my Excursion to the grocery store…I need some aspirin (when is aspirin going to be covered under my insurance plan?).

Limos for Liberals

2005-02-14T17:52:00.000-06:00

Before the memories of Bush's win of a SECOND term as President, and before many liberals forget how much they hate America, and before liberals forget their pledge to move to Canada, I am starting a new non-profit organization called "Limos for Liberals."

I am looking for volunteers to drive liberals to the Canadian border. I am offering my Excursion; it can fit eight liberals. If you would like to sign up as a Limo driver, or would just like to donate some gas money, or if you know of any liberals you want to get rid of, please call 1-888-ITS-SOCI-ALIZ-EDMED-ICIN-ETIME (it's a Canadian number) and leave a message. Perhaps you would like to sponsor a Liberal; you can find out about that program, Sponsor a Liberal Team (SALT), at Sticks and Stones.

Remember, this is not just for liberals, but for a better America.

Thank you.

A Little Bit of Something

2005-02-14T05:46:00.000-06:00

From the Boston Globe: Being Howard Dean

"House and Senate Democratic leaders once again were accusing President Bush of giving "tax cuts to the wealthy," sending jobs overseas and driving budget deficits through the roof." Will this pathetic rhetoric ever cease?

"Politics in both Europe and the United States have unhitched the left from its trusted partner, democracy." The Boston Globe actually has one from the other side.

"...a Saudi official said extremist teachings, not poverty or unemployment, are the root causes of terrorism in the kingdom,..." Finally, someone is telling it like it is.

"Government officials and migrants' rights advocates Thursday criticized an immigration control bill approved by the U.S. House that, among other things, calls for the completion of a wall along America's westernmost border with Mexico.
The measure, which U.S. representatives passed by a 261-161 vote, also calls for denying drivers' licenses to undocumented migrants and limiting political asylum requests."

"Germany's federal prosecutor says the allegations that United States Defense Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other top Washington brass were responsible for Abu Ghraib must be investigated in the US, not under German war crimes laws. The decision deals a blow to the American group that brought the case, but it could ease German-American tensions." Sorry CCR and ACLU.

"A Pentagon investigation and newly declassified documents confirm detainees' accounts of the use of sexual tactics by female interrogators at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, The Washington Post reported on Thursday.
At least eight detainees, in documents or through their lawyers, have accused female interrogators of violating Muslim taboos about sex and contact with women, including rubbing their bodies against the men and touching them provocatively, the newspaper said." Imagine, we have to pay for stuff like this here!

Blog Whoring and Blog Pimping

2005-02-12T21:18:00.000-06:00

I hereby offer my blog to be your blog-whore. To use and abuse as you see fit and just as you like it. Do you like it rough, it can be rough? Do you like it quiet, loud, on the side? We can give it to you any way you want it.

The goal of blog whoring is simply to make money, much like some of the liberal blogs receiving money from the left to deliver the left’s propaganda.

Here is a list of services I am offering:

Hand Job- Every post will be hand-typed; no machines (other than a computer) will be used in the propaganda creation. Voice activated software will NOT be tolerated.

Blow Job- You need to blow smoke up someone’s ass? Maybe you want us to divert his attention while you do something else, something you don’t want them to see or notice. Our posting can and will be as eye-catching and as ass-kissing as necessary.

Rim Job- You need propaganda spread around the Pacific Rim? No problem, we have software that can generate any language or dialect from that part of the world.

Around the World- Perhaps you want to spread your “word” around the world in general. We have links and web-hosting services all over the globe. No country is too big or too small.

Snake Bite- Illegal immigration is a hot topic in the Southwest. Would you like to spread propaganda against illegals? In favor of illegals? It doesn’t matter, we have no ethics, as long as the check clears, or you use Paypal. Perhaps you want to go after the white man, whatever you want, whatever you pay for; that’s what you’ll get.

Spanking- We will utilize various resources to come up with adjectives and adverbs to verbally abuse anyone. Just point them out and our rhetoric and abuse knows no bounds. We will give them the verbal spanking and thrashing of their pathetic little lives. Logic, common sense, and debate are out the window. It will be a nonstop spanking.

Humiliation- We also offer humiliation. We will not only humiliate them on their website or blog, but we will humiliate them at every website and blog we can reach. We have a bank of ethnic and socially unacceptable slurs. Political Correctness will be nowhere in sight or mind.

Sadism- We will not only verbally abuse others; we will take pictures of said abuses and send them to you, so that you may enjoy their pain privately in the comfort of your own home (or wherever you go to enjoy such things). It’s all up to you.

Masochism- Perhaps YOU would like us to verbally harass and abuse YOU. It doesn’t matter to us. We would be more than happy to give you a good tongue lashing.

Remember, the more cash you have available, the more we are available to be at your service.

Teach Me a Lesson, Liberals

2005-02-12T10:56:00.000-06:00

I want you liberals to teach me a lesson in economics.

First, some parameters:

The government does not have any money.
Wage earners (those that work for a living and earn money) pay taxes.
The government collects taxes and uses that money to pay for its operations and programs.
The less taxes collected means the less money the government has to spend.
Definition of cost: 1 a : the amount or equivalent paid or charged for something : PRICE b : the outlay or expenditure (as of effort or sacrifice) made to achieve an object
2 : loss or penalty incurred especially in gaining something

Question #1:

How does a tax cut COST the government money?

Another way to think of this: you get an allowance from your Dad of $5.00 a week, just for being you. One week, your Dad decides to reduce that amount to $3.00 a week. Does this cut COST you $2.00?

A tax cut of 10% across the board goes into effect. Employee A's taxes are reduced for $100,000 to $90,000 a year. Employee B's taxes are reduced from $10,000 to $9,000 a year. Now Employee A is STILL paying the same amount of taxes relative to Employee B. Is this a fair tax cut? Should both Employees receive a tax cut of equal amounts? Does this tax cut BENEFIT one Employee over another?

Let me hear you!