Monday, November 28, 2011

Quotes from LaLa Land

The following material from the Media Research Center. It's indicative of why compromise with the left is impossible. How is it possible to compromise with people who think and talk like this?

“The utter confusion in the Republican presidential nominating process results from two discernible facts. One: they hate. That’s the simplest explanation of the disastrous course of this selection process. They hate so much they are not in the mood to fall in love with a candidate or even fall in behind someone. Their brains, racked as they are by hatred, they lack the ‘like’ mode. They are in no mood to go around looking around for a politician they like. The hating is so much more satisfying.”— MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Hardball, November 15.

Sad thing for this confused man is that he actually believes what he says.

HBO’s Bill Maher: “You’ve got to feel very bad for Mitt Romney. I mean, he’s been led, so far, by Trump, then Bachmann. Then Perry. Then Cain.”
Host George Stephanopoulos: “But, he kinda hangs in there. He’s everyone’s second choice.”
Maher: “I’m rooting for him. You know? Because, look, in a country with only two political parties, the Republican can always win. I mean, at least he eats with a knife and fork. I mean, he is all that stands between us and the rise of the apes.”
— ABC’s Good Morning America, November 14.

So who's filled with hate? The sad part about this is that Bill Maher is a joke, yet gets to say this kind of stuff on network TV.
“When I point out that Sarah Palin is a vainglorious braggart, a liar, a whiner, a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, and the leader of a family of inbred weirdos straight out of The Hills Have Eyes, that’s not sexist. I’m saying it because it’s true.”
— Bill Maher, as quoted in a November 21 Newsweek profile of the HBO Real Time host.

I rest my case.

Friday, November 25, 2011

Who are the obstructionists?

Favorite line of Democrats when it comes to the failure of the supercommittee: It's the Republican's fault! Well, facts don't really back this up.

First of all, depending on which report you read, the Republicans on the supercommittee were willing to accept anywhere from $250 billion to $500 billion in additional revenue (translated as tax increases). But the Democrats wanted $1 trillion.

Secondly, the Democrats really didn't support any spending cuts. John Kerry, a member on the committee, admitted on MSNBC that the cuts the supercommittee Democrats were proposing were actually just a slowing of the rate of growth of government and not actual cuts.

Wes Pruden puts it this way:
If only there was no profound (insert word “partisan” here) and angry disagreement over how to find a detour from the road to financial oblivion. If only the Democrats would agree to cut the size of government. If only the Republicans would agree that big government is the answer. If only pigs could fly.

But they can’t, and neither can the partisan divide be bridged by a pontoon, however well meaning the pontoon men may be. Money is only part of what the debate is fundamentally about. Big government, designed to grow ever bigger with the turning of the seasons, is what the modern Democratic Party is all about. The Democrats are committed to building a bigger trough. The Republicans are committed to dismantling troughs. It’s all in the DNA.

President Obama is not to blame. He is a true believer in the European model of the welfare state. Everybody who was listening learned that three years ago. The fact that the European welfare states are crashing is irrelevant to him; true believers are never rattled by facts, not even facts that slap them in the face like a cream pie. The opportunity to impose a failing welfare state on America is what drew him to the presidency in the first place. The congressional elections last year, the Republican rout that Mr. Obama rightly called a “shellacking” of his party, made no impression, either. The results were all about cutting taxes and dismantling government, but not to Mr. Obama. Those elections were merely a few pebbles in the road to Utopia.
And here's an interesting chart, especially for all of you out there still ranting "it's Bush's fault!"

Please note that the deficits, by fiscal year, don't include FY2011, in which the deficit was $1.3 trillion. Bush averaged $266.7 billion a year, while Obama's average is $1.33 trillion.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Occupiers have to be idiots because Pelosi loves them

Or is Pelosi the idiot? Probably both. 

On the occupy protesters, Pelosi previously said: "God bless them . . . for their spontaneity. It's independent . . . it's young, it's spontaneous, and it's focused. And it's going to be effective."

These people really don't even know what they are protesting about. Wall Street? Banks? If they're mad about their economic situations, they mostly have themselves to blame, or the university they attended. They were scammed. They should be protesting their universities, their professors who sold them a lot of crap. Or they should be on the steps of Congress, which for the last 40 years has created a mess of of things.

Obama loves them too. Go figure. He recently said that the occupiers were the "reason he ran for office." Give me a break. He ran for office because he is a narcissist and wanted the power. All he's done is make it harder for people like the occupiers to succeed (of course if they'd quit protesting, cut their hair and take a bath, and start looking for work, they'd be better off, but I digress).

Now, I'm not defending the banking industry per se. There is much to be fixed, and neither Democrats nor Republicans have fixed the industry. Probably made it worse.

But when you embrace anarchy, theft, sexual assault and rape, and even murder, which all have happened at many of the "camps," then you don't belong in Congress or the White House.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

The failure of the Super Committee

Liberals will be in denial (and are), but the real reason the committee failed to compromise on budget cuts is not the intransigence of the GOP, but the desire of Democrats to raise taxes. Obama and the Dems have tried to raise taxes all year, but the GOP hasn't budged. Sometimes NO is a better answer than YES. If you're a parent, you'll understand that.

According to Conference Co-Chairman Jeb Hensarling, at the Wall Street Journal, "Why the Super Committee Failed:

Even if Republicans agreed to every tax increase desired by the president, our national debt would continue to grow uncontrollably. Controlling spending is therefore a crucial challenge. The other is economic growth and job creation, which would produce the necessary revenue to fund our priorities.

In the midst of persistent 9% unemployment, the committee could have enacted fundamental tax reform to simplify the tax code, help create jobs, and bring in over time the higher revenues that come with economic growth. Republicans put such a plan on the table—and even agreed to $250 billion in new revenue by eliminating or limiting most of the deductions, credits, loopholes and tax expenditures mainly enjoyed by higher-income Americans. We offered this to avoid the even larger tax increases already written into current law that will intensify the pain Americans are feeling during these difficult economic times.
Republicans were willing to agree to additional tax revenue, but only in the context of fundamental pro-growth tax reform that would broaden the base, lower rates, and maintain current levels of progressivity. This is the approach to tax reform used by recent bipartisan deficit reduction efforts such as the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission and the Rivlin-Domenici plan.

The Democrats said no. They were unwilling to agree to anything less than $1 trillion in tax hikes—and unwilling to offer any structural reforms to put our health-care entitlements on a permanently sustainable basis.

Unfortunately, the committee's challenge was made more difficult by President Obama. Since the committee was formed, he has demanded more stimulus spending and issued a veto threat against any proposed committee solution to the spending problem that was not coupled with a massive tax increase.
The GOP has passed 15 pieces of job creation legislation this year, but the Dems in the Senate have refused to even vote on them. 

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Global Warming. Global Cooling. Whatever!

From the PJ Tattler: Another food fight breaks out

The charts are misleading, because the top chart is over more than 200 years, while the bottom chart is over only about 10, but look at the top right corner of the top graph: it drops, and appears to stay flat for the rest of the chart.  The bottom graph is a magnification of just that section, and shows how flat temperatures have been for the last ten years (and a substantial dip right at the end — this could be a cold winter, folks.)

Of course, the problem with that is that the CO2-forced anthropogenic global warming models all say temperatures should be increasing steadily, not taking 10-15 years off.  Now, not that this isn’t a disproof: there are other possibile explanations, but it is evidence against the simple models that ought to be explained, not hidden.

Actually, the average temperature over the last 50 years has increased 1.6 degrees. If it continues, that is about 3 degrees per century, not the 10-15 degrees claimed by many. Go back 1000 years. The planet was warmer than it is today. Go back 85 million years. It was a lot warmer than today. Explanation? There are only hypothesis, not proof.

For those of you who think the debate on global warming (climate change) is over, as per Mr. Gore, you need to realize that when scientific debate is closed, it becomes more like a religion than scientific investigation.

The climate has always been changing. Most likely always will, but I -- and you -- can't prove a thing.

And that's probably my first and last post on this subject.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

The Democrats Don't Have A Clue

Why anyone would vote for a Democrat is beyond me.

Did you know that a recent bill was proposed by a Democrat to provide free diapers?
An economic recovery bill authored by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D.-Conn.) seeks to empower struggling families by directing the federal government to distribute free diapers through day care centers.

The Diaper Investment and Aid to Promote Economic Recovery Act (DIAPER Act) would “relieve some of the stress on families facing hardship in this economy” by providing this direct service, DeLauro said in a letter to congressional colleagues urging them to co-sponsor her bill.
And Harry Reid says private sector job market is doing just fine!
Responding Wednesday from the Senate floor to a question about a new Democrat plan to raise taxes on working Americans to pay for another $35 billion bailout for the states and public employee unions, Reid said:

"It's very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it's the public-sector jobs where we've lost huge numbers, and that's what this legislation is all about."

No, we're not making this up. The comment is utterly wrong, of course, and underscores Democrats' cluelessness and insensitivity to the damage they've inflicted on the private economy since taking power in 2006.
 And then Biden accuses Republicans of wanting more rape!
It was on Tuesday during a speech at the University of Pennsylvania where Biden initially argued that another round of government spending was needed to prevent sexual assaults.  “It’s not temporary [administration’s proposed stimulus] when that 911 call comes in and a woman’s being raped, if a cop shows up in time to prevent the rape.  It’s not temporary to that woman.”  Then in the same speech he wished Republicans were themselves rape victims.  “I wish they had some notion of what it was like to be on the other side of a gun, or [to have] a 200-pound man standing over you, telling you to submit.”

Biden’s demagogic language aside, police budgets are the responsibility of each individual state, not federal bureaucrats.  And as Ed Morrissey at HotAir notes, the President’s “jobs” bill doesn’t go directly to hire police officers anyway.  Instead, “it allows states to paper-over budget gaps for another year rather than address their systemic budgetary issues, and protect unionized bureaucrats whose jobs should be on the chopping block.”

The exchange between the vice president and HUMAN EVENTS was taken on Wednesday after Biden gave a speech calling for yet another government stimulus program.  This one is union-backed, and aimed at getting teachers and public-sector employees back to work.
 And of course, Obama is out there saying crap like this:
"My plan says we’re going to put teachers back in the classrooms, construction workers back to work," President Obama said at a campaign event today. "Tax cuts for small businesses, tax cuts for hiring veterans, tax cuts if you give your workers a raise –- that’s my plan."

The Republicans plan, Obama says, boils down to this: 'Dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.'
Actually, Mr. Obama, the Republicans want to quit spending money we don't have. If nearly a trillion dollars of "stimulus" money didn't work, why would $480 billion work? If you think the anyone with half a brain believes you, wait until November 2012.

And people think it's the Republicans, who haven't actually had control of Congress since late 2006. That's five years of Democratic rule. So if you think it's the Republicans, you really are clueless.

The Straight Stuff

The folks who are getting free stuff,
Don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff,
Because the folks who are paying for the free stuff,
Can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

The folks who are paying for the free stuff,
Want the free stuff to stop.
And the folks who are getting the free stuff,
Want even MORE free stuff on top of the free stuff they're already getting!

The people who are forcing the people who PAY for the free stuff,
Have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff,
That the people who are PAYING for the free stuff,
Are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

The people who are GETTING the free stuff,
Have been convinced they need to HATE the people who are PAYING for
the free stuff by the people who are forcing the people who are PAYING for
the free stuff and GIVING them the free stuff in the first place.

That's the straight stuff!

Hat tip to Gary Simmons (I softened the language slightly)

Monday, October 10, 2011

The 1st Admendment and Occupy Wall Street

I fully support the first amendment and the right of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, as mis-guided and ill-informed as they are.

What's really going on?

F. Robert, over at F. Robert's World, could not have stated it better. I repeat his entire post here:

Massive, highly organized, and well financed demonstrations are occurring across the country and in my opinion they represent a perfect example of transference to divert the electorate’s attention from the problems facing President Obama and the Democrat Party. Just consider who is behind these Occupy Wall Street gatherings:, the Teamster’s Union, the Service Employee’s International Union, George Soros, and several other groups that thrive with the support of the current sympathetic administration and the Democrat Party votes (think ACORN).

With President Barack Hussein Obama’s support continuing to fall in the polls, unemployment hovering around 9.1%, and a strong campaign challenge being formed by the Republican Party, I believe the current demonstrations are all meant to divert attention away from the President’s problems, and cast the Republican’s and their candidates as the villains.

When questioned, many of those demonstrating cannot render a coherent reason for their participation. The main-stream media is granting the demonstrators a major forum with constant video on the major national newscasts, but few if any call attention to the fact that the Democrat Party was responsible for the legislation that led to the collapse of the financial institutions, the failure of over-sight by a Democrat controlled Congress, the failure of Congressional pressures from Senators Durbin (D-IL) and Dodd (D-CT), and Rep. Frank (D-MA). Why were Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and other financial institutions urged to grant loans to individuals who had little or no ability to repay their debt?

These demonstrations are an old political trick that has been around for years and we have seen it work time and time again. When you tell a lie enough times, people will believe it. The banks and Wall Street are not the cause of the current financial problems being faced by this country, because it was the utter failure of Presidential and Congressional leadership to adequately provide proper over-sight and appropriate controls.

All these demonstrations redirect the electorate’s attention from the current problems facing the Obama administration, such as illegal immigration, Operation Fast and Furious, growing $14.5 trillion federal debt, staggering 9.1% unemployment, Obamacare, considerable growth of government employment, and massive spending under Obama, etc.

Obama’s cohorts were successful in his first campaign using transference effectively and they are doing it again. Wake-up America! You are being used and abused and diverted from the significant issues of the day so Obama’s re-election chances are enhanced by diverting our attention away from the important issues of the day with a phony, divisive, well-organized and financed nation-wide mob action.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Which Speaker of the House had the largest debt increase?

When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as Speaker of the House in 2007, she vowed there would be “no new deficit spending.” Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.

The chart below tells a different story.

Friday, September 30, 2011

Andy Rooney retires after a gazillion years

An icon of CBS for a million years (or 33 or so), he's finally retiring. (He was born in 1919).

One quote of his that I like a lot.

"I didn't get older by accident, it just happened. If you're lucky, it will happen to you."

Yea, baby. If you think it's a bitch getting older, think again.

Friday, September 23, 2011

How "Progressives" are taking over our country

From Orange County, California, as reported by the American Thinker (among others):
An Orange County couple has been ordered to stop holding a Bible study in their home on the grounds that the meeting violates a city ordinance as a "church" and not as a private gathering.
Homeowners Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, of San Juan Capistrano, were fined $300 earlier this month for holding what city officials called "a regular gathering of more than three people".

That type of meeting would require a conditional use permit as defined by the city, according to Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), the couple's legal representation.

The Fromms also reportedly face subsequent fines of $500 per meeting for any further "religious gatherings" in their home, according to Pacific Justice Institute.

"We're just gathering and enjoying each other's company and fellowship. And we enjoy studying God's word." Stephanie Fromm told CBS2.

If we left these "progressives" to continue to take control of our schools, homes and government, we will sink into tyranny (we're almost there folks). Another reason people are leaving California for Texas and Oklahoma, where you can hold bible study at home.

An note about the $300 fine for holding regular gatherings in your home with more than three people. I guess the weekly poker games with the guys is a thing of the past as well.

Astounding. You think it couldn't happen here!

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Guess they don't teach math at Havard

President Obama said this the other day: "They should have to defend that unfairness -- explain why somebody who's making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that -- paying a higher rate."

Huh? Here's the actual taxes both would pay.

-Taxpayer earning $50K - pays $4,156 in federal income taxes, or 8.3% effective tax rate (not higher than 15% as erroneously bellowed by the illustrious campaigner)

-Taxpayer earning $50M - pays $17,466,318 in federal income taxes or 34.9% effective tax rate (considerably higher than, well, you know)

Remember how taxes work? For the single teacher making a gross income of $50,000 after standard deductions and exceptions, he or she is not paying tax on the full $50,000. The first $8,500 of taxable income is taxed at 10 percent. From there, up to $34,500, the tax rate is 15 percent, then 25 percent over $34,500. So the amount of tax paid as a percentage of income is never the highest bracket your marginal income may land you. Obama is intentionally misleading the public to conduct his class warfare. 

Even if the $50M were all long-term capital gains (assets held for one year or longer), the taxes would be $7.5 million, or 15%, nearly twice the effective rate of the teacher.

Guess Obama and his staff need to go back to class. No wonder you can't fix anything.And Mr. President, this is indeed class warfare, regardless of what you say. (Hard to believe anything this guy says anymore).

Perry's first web ad

This is not an endorsement of Gov. Perry. I am yet undecided. There is too much time left before the primaries to make a decision. A lot could happen. But as political ads go, I think Perry's is not bad at all.

Friday, September 2, 2011

A List of Taxes

I'm sure there are more, but you get the drift. Are you fed up yet? And please note, none of these taxes existed 100 years ago. Some of these are called "fees" but I consider any payment to the government a tax. Now, remember, our liberal friends in power want to tax sodas and carbon dioxide. Where will it stop?

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Driver's License Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges&Penalties-tax on top of tax
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State & Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

Monday, August 22, 2011

Obama the Oracle

A recent prediction of Obama, during a CBS interview last week:

"I don't think we're in danger of another recession, but we are in danger of not having a recovery that's fast enough to deal with what is a genuine unemployment crisis for a whole lot of folks out there..."

Because not one of his other predictions have come true, I'll stick with my financial advisor, who thinks there is a huge chance of another recession, or even a depression, and a bear market like he predicted in October 2007. He has a much better track record than any politician.

What does Mr. Obama want to do? (After he gets off vacation of course.) While he talks about reducing the deficit and balancing the budget, he doesn't mean now. No, no. He's talking 10 to 20 years from now. Right now we have to "double-down" on stimulus spending. Oops, I meant investment. Because the last few trillion worked so well at jump-starting the economy, which we know it didn't.

 That's because we haven't done enough. Well, Mr. President, I think you and your party have done more than enough, and if you and Congress would just stay on vacation and leave us alone, we'll work this out just fine without you. 

Treacherous puppets of The Man

"There may be a touch of Stockholm syndrome in there, because anytime I see a person of color or a female in the Republican Party or the conservative movement or the tea party, I wonder how they could be trying to curry favor with the oppressors."

This was out of the mouth of actress Janeane Garofalo -- a former comedian who has become a vile, offensive, Republican-bashing bitch -- on the Current TV talk show of foul-mouthed and former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann.

The response from Michelle Malkin, a "person of color" herself, and a female conservative:

"I've heard more than 20 years of this oppressive windbaggery from do-gooder liberals who treat my unhyphenated American brothers and sisters and me as treacherous puppets for The Man. Their smug refusal to acknowledge free will, individual choice and true diversity of thought confirms that race-obsessed liberals remain the most unrepentant and odious racists of all."

Saturday, August 20, 2011

For those who survived the 30s thru the 70s

Got this in an email. Thought it cute enought to repeat...

TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED THE 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s!

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can and didn't get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-base paints.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, locks on doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had baseball caps not helmets on our heads.

As infants and children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, no booster seats, no seat belts, no air bags, bald tires and sometimes no brakes.

Riding in the back of a pickup truck on a warm day was always a special treat.

We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and no one actually died from this.

We ate cupcakes, white bread, real butter and bacon. We drank Kool-Aid made with real white sugar. And, we weren't overweight. WHY?  Because we were always outside playing...that's why!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.

No one was able to reach us all day. And, we were OKAY.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride them down the hill; only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem

We did not have Play stations, Nintendo's and X-boxes. There were no video games, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVDs, no surround-sound or CDs, no cell phones, no personal computers no Internet and no chat rooms.

We had friends and we went outside and found them!

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

We would get spankings with wooden spoons, switches, ping pong paddles, or just a bare hand and no one would call child services to report abuse.

We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.

We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them.

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law! When we got in trouble in school, our parents sided with the school. It was double trouble.

These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever. The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.

We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all..

If you are one of us, congratulations!

You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated so much of our lives for our own good.

While you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave and lucky their parents were.

Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it? Or at least eat a big bowl of real ice cream, not the low-fat variety...

Friday, August 19, 2011

Tax the miles you drive?

As vehicles get better and better gas mileage, we use less gas. That reduces the revenue the government collects because it taxes each gallon. Well, that just won't do. Democrats will always find a way to increase taxes.

By the way, is there anything that is not taxed today?

So to increase the amount of revenue for all of Obama's pet projects, Sen. Kent Conrad (D.-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, is expected to make a recommendation later this year on whether the federal government should drop the gas tax and implement the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax.

But it probably won't go very far. Even environmentalists oppose the legislation because they said it would be contrary to the incentive to buy fuel-efficiency vehicles, and that the technology required to collect the mileage information is an invasion of privacy.

But the idea does shed light on the way your average Democrat thinks.

What has become of America?

Originally printed in the local newspaper in Tawas City, Michigan, by Ken Huber:

Has America become the land of special interest and home of the double standard? Lets see:

If we lie to the Congress, it's a felony and if the Congress lies to us its just politics; if we dislike a black person, we're racist and if a black person dislikes whites, its their 1st Amendment right; the government spends millions to rehabilitate criminals and they do almost nothing for the victims; in public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK, but you better not use the word God in the process; you can kill an unborn child, but it is wrong to execute a mass murderer; we don't burn  [history] books in America, we now rewrite them; we got rid of communist and socialist threats by renaming them progressive; we are unable to close our border with Mexico, but have no problem protecting the 38th parallel in Korea; if you protest against President Obama's policies you're a terrorist, but if you burned an American flag or George Bush in effigy it was your 1st Amendment right.

You can have pornography on TV or the internet, but you better not put a nativity scene in a public park during Christmas; we have eliminated all criminals in America, they are now called sick people; we can use a human fetus for medical research, but it is wrong to use an animal.

We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't want to work; we all support the Constitution, but only when it supports our political ideology; we still have freedom of speech, but only if we are being politically correct; parenting has been replaced with Ritalin and video games; the land of opportunity is now the land of hand outs; the similarity between Hurricane Katrina and the gulf oil spill is that neither president did anything to help.

And how do we handle a major crisis today? The government appoints a committee to determine who's at fault, then threatens them, passes a law, raises our taxes, then tells us the problem is solved so they can get back to their reelection campaign.

What has happened to the land of the free and home of the brave?

Another liberal talking point about Texas

One statistic that we’re likely to be hearing a lot over the next few months, and over the next year if Gov. Rick Perry becomes the nominee, is that Texas has the highest uninsured rate of any state in the nation, with one out of every four residents lacking health coverage (or 25.6 percent).

Those poor, poor Texans. And it must be Perry's fault to treat Texans so mean. (Perry has already been called "Perry the Meany")

But not so fast, batman! Statistics are useless unless you dig into the data and find out why the numbers are what they are.

The following facts are based on an article in the Washington Examiner:

1. Census data on the number of uninsured are often misunderstood or intentionally distorted.

2. The high proportion of Hispanic immigrants, a community that has a higher than average uninsured rate. In fact, if you look at the Census data on the uninsured, the four states that border Mexico are among the top six states when it comes to the uninsured rate: Texas (1), New Mexico (2), Arizona (5), and California (6). The top 10 included other states in the general neighborhood: Nevada (4) and Louisiana (10); and Florida (3), which also has a high Hispanic immigrant population.

3. It has been estimated that in 2006, 29 percent of the state’s uninsured were illegal immigrants.

4. Texas has a younger population than the national average, and as noted above, many young people don’t purchase insurance because they don’t feel they need it.

5. Another factor is that despite being a low regulation state in many ways, Texas actually ranks fourth when it comes to mandating insurers offer certain benefits in all of their policies, according to a Council on Affordable Health Insurance report. Texas has 60 such mandates driving up the cost of insurance, such as making sure policies cover in vitro fertilization and morbid obesity treatment. Perry opposed most of these mandates, but was overridden by the State Legislature.

Perry will have a tough time defending the insured rate in Texas, because the underlying reasons are complicated, which can't be crammed into a 30-second sound bite.

And then, if you're a liberal, you won't listen anyway.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Refuting liberal talking points about Texas

I knew it wouldn't take long after Gov. Rick Perry announced his presidential campaign before all the pundits came out with "facts" about how Texas is really a bad place and Perry is a bad governor. I've heard it all before, but most of it is not based on any thoughtful analysis of the real data.

Here's one example. One writer compared the median income in California vs. Texas, stating that the level of income in Texas was so much worse than anywhere else. California has a median income of $56,000 while Texas comes in at $48,000. Now go look at the cost of living and decide which income has more purchasing power. Texas blows California away. According to, a one-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles ranges from $1,500 to $2,500 a month. In Dallas, the same apartment rents for $700 to $1,200. You can get a fairly nice three-bedroom, 1400-square-foot house in the Dallas area for about $100,000, maybe a little more. Try that in California.

But don't get me wrong. Texas ain't perfect and I haven't decided if I'd vote for Perry. And while there is no income tax, property taxes make up for it.  Take a look at Texas' neighbor Oklahoma, with an income tax, but lower property taxes. And it's scorchingly hot here in the summer.  Like Phoenix, but with a little extra humidity thrown in. But the winters are much colder. Half the state is mostly desert, and it's pretty flat. I like mountains, so I'll probably not retire here, but many people from California and New York are doing so right now. But baby, there are jobs here.

Here's some more liberal myths (thanks to

Texas Liberal Myth #2: Texas' 8.2 percent unemployment is hardly exceptional - Texas is adding jobs at a rate faster than any state at 2.2 percent. But the state's unemployment rate is 8.2 percent, which is higher than blue states like Massachusetts and New York. How is this possible? Easy. Texas' population is growing much faster than any other state. They have added 739,000 residents since the recession began. If Texas had the same population at the beginning of the recession that they do now, its unemployment rate would be 2.3%.

Texas Liberal Myth #3: Texas has only created low-paying jobs - Texas median hourly wage is $15.14 which is actually slightly below the median (28th out of 51 regions). But wages in Texas have actually increased in Texas since the recession began. In fact, since the recession started hourly wages in Texas have increased at a 6th fastest pace in the nation. And as stated above, the cost of living in Texas more than makes up for slightly lower wages.

Texas Liberal Myth #3: Texas wouldn't be leading in job creation without the oil industry - Energy has been a major source of job growth in Texas. In the last year, 25 percent of all job growth has come from the energy sector (which includes all natural gas, coal, and electricity generation). But even if you remove all of Texas' energy-job growth, it would still lead the nation in job creation.

At, the following line of reasoning highlights the errors in thinking made by many people:
One can argue that Perry had very little to do with the job situation in Texas, but such a person should probably prepare themselves for the consequences of that line of reasoning. If Rick Perry had nothing to do with creating jobs in Texas, than why does Obama have something to do with creating jobs anywhere? And why would someone advocate any sort of "job creating" policies if policies don't seem to matter when it comes to the decade-long governor of Texas? In short, it seems to me that this line of reasoning, in addition to sounding desperate and partisan, hogties its adherents into a position where they are simultaneously saying that government doesn't create jobs while arguing for a set of policies where government will create jobs.
You can also read about more myths and why there aren't really true, with charts and data sources. Another author blows Debbie Wasserman's (DNC Chairman) reasoning out the water.

So the next time you hear left-wing talking points about Texas coming from the mouths of Democrats, or MSNBC, the Huffington Post, bloggers, or other "news" sources, think again. While I may or may not support Perry for president, I'm pretty tired on "informed" people blowing "facts" out of their rear ends. If you want to refute this post, you'd better have some hard data, with links, and not some reference to a idiot blogger.

Yea, I get cranky about this. So be it. I'm just tired of all the bool sheet, as they say in Texas.

Worst President Ever!

"President Obama is barnstorming the heartland to boost U.S. jobs in a taxpayer-financed luxury bus the government had custom built -- in Canada, The New York Post has learned."

What a jerk. First, he should have had the bus customized here, in the United States of America. Second, he shouldn't even use a bus at my expense. Third, he isn't boosting anything except his own ego.

Can't wait until we get this ass out of office.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Just as Gunnery Sgt Ermey would say

For more information about the Gunnery Sgt. Ermy, see R. Lee Ermey at Wikpedia. (Hint: He played a therapist in a Geico commericial, among many other tv and film projects).

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Obama's lack of leadership

After all that has happened in the last week, what is our "leader" in the White House calling for?

1. Extend the payroll tax cut. As if that really worked in the first place.
2. Extend unemployment benefits beyond 99 weeks. Another great program that has completely failed to lower unemployment. It actually makes it worse.
3. More "investment." Let's build some roads and bridges. Really? Let's spend some more money we don't have. That should do the trick.

"Markets go up and markets go down," was his response to the recent implosion of the markets. What a lack of insight this man has.

Is he really trying to destroy us from within? Or is he just incompetent?

But remember: None of this is his fault, or so he says.

Friday, August 5, 2011

Throw the bums out

Amusing quotes from Ronald Reagan

To highlight this day in history, Aug 5, when President Reagan fired 11,000 air traffic controllers in 1981, here's some humorous quotes from the gipper. And we all need a good laugh now and then.

"Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Barack Obama loses his."

Opps. Sorry. He actually said Jimmy Carter, but you get the drift...

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement."

''The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.''

''Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.''

''I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency -- even if I'm in a Cabinet meeting.''

Would someone please educate Paul Krugman?

According to this quack, inflation is "hypothetical." A quote from Paul Krugman's latest op-ed  in the New York Times:

The Fed has by no means done all it could, partly because it was more concerned with hypothetical inflation than with real unemployment, partly because it let itself be intimidated by the Ron Paul types.
Time to get out of your ivory tower, dude. Have you been to the gas station or grocery store, looked at your electric bill, or even been out of the house lately?
I don't know about this guy, but ever time I turn around, something is more expensive than it was last week, last month, or last year.

The problem with Krugman is that too many people take his word as gospel, when it should be relegated to just another left-wing nut trying to form a economic theory through liberal filters. Doesn't work.

And don't defend him because of his Nobel Prize. These prizes are now not worth the paper they are printed on (even though the recipient gets a huge amount of cash.)

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Democrats? Republicans? Who created the Federal debt?

I read this all the time on left-wing web sites: "George Bush and the Republicans created our Federal Debt. (Or Reagan started it.)" And if you visit conservative web sites, just the opposite. "Obama and the Democrats exploded the debt."

Well, it can't be both ways. Maybe both parties are responsible. So what's the truth, based on hard numbers?

First, some assumptions for those of you who are a little fuzzy on how our Federal government works. Presidents submit budgets to Congress (or at least they are supposed to). Congress then takes that plan, debates and revises it, votes on it and when approved, sends it to the President, who can then either sign it, or veto it. If it's vetoed, it goes back to Congress for another round, until it finally gets signed by the President. In some cases, the President's veto gets overruled by the Congress, in other cases a compromise is reached.

So technically, Congress is responsible for spending, as outlined in the Constitution. But the President also has a huge influence in the amount and type of spending that is approved.

To get to the bottom of this, I created a chart of Congresses and Presidents and which party controlled each chamber and what party the President was from, beginning in 1953 and ending in 2010. I totalled all deficits and put them in columns based on who controlled Congress and who controlled the White House. The deficit or surplus amounts I used were in current dollars, not adjusted for inflation.

Who controlled what?
Republican Presidents: 36 years
Democrat Presidents: 21 years
Republican Congresses: 10 years
Democrat Congresses: 37 years
Split Congresses: 10 years

Who spends what?
Democrat Congresses: $10,350 billion
Republican Congresses: $1,397 billion
Democrat Presidents: $4,353 billion
Republican Presidents: $7,394 billion

(Note: I didn't include split Congresses, because in all cases except one, the Democrats were in control of the House, which has the most power over the budget).

The only conclusion I can reach is that the Democratic Party, when in control of Congress, spends like drunken sailors with no restraint. But, as Reagan once said, that is unfair to drunken sailors because at least they're spending their own money. Yet, on the other hand, many of our Republican Presidents should be ashamed of themselves for approving all the Democrat-approved spending. (In a few cases they actually didn't, because the Congress overruled them).

Well, it takes two to tango, and the result is that we are now more than $14,000 billion in debt (when you add in the 2011 deficit of approximately $1,500 billion), and by the end of next year this will go to more than $16,000 billion. The two worst years where 2003 with $892 billion (all Republicans) and 2010 with $1,350 (all Democrats).

For those of you weak in math, $16,000 billion is $16 trillion, or $16,000,000,000,000. This works out to about $52,400 for each man, woman and child living in this country. And here I thought I was finally debt free.

So it isn't all one party's fault, though in the long run Democrats tend to spend more.

But regardless of who's at fault, We the People are sick and tired of this and want Washington to live within its means. The rest of you who want more of this crap, or think its all good and we should be spending even more, should see a therapist.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Tea Party Terrorists

Remember when Obama called for more civility in our public discourse? He really only meant that for Republicans and conservatives. Liberals and democrats are exempt.

Personally, I'm a little tired of the double standard, but I understand the mentality behind it. Left-wing tactics call for marginalizing your opponent. They know they can't debate facts; therefore, if you disagree with a liberal, you're a racist, moron, ignoramus, terrorist, bigot, homophobe, islamaphobe, idiot, extremist, crazy, greedy, and the list goes on.

When you try to correct their re-writing of history (see a good example of typical liberal rants here), you're at least ignorant, but more probably stupid.

Here's what Maureen Dodd wrote in the New York Times about Tea Partiers:

But, in this case, it was the president — and the federal government — being chased through dim corridors by a maniacal gang with big knives held high...They were like cannibals, eating their own party and leaders alive. They were like vampires, draining the country’s reputation, credit rating and compassion. They were like zombies, relentlessly and mindlessly coming back again and again to assault their unnerved victims, Boehner and President Obama. They were like the metallic beasts in “Alien” flashing mouths of teeth inside other mouths of teeth, bursting out of Boehner’s stomach every time he came to a bouquet of microphones.
So true fiscal conservatives are now monsters.

But wait, there's more. In another NYT opinion piece, Joe Nacaro wrote:
You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them. These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. . . . Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that's what it took. . . . For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests. But rest assured: They'll have them on again soon enough.
All that over $7 billion in spending cuts for next year (none for this year)! Sure, our politicians are saying they'll cut $1.2 trillion, or $2.4 trillion (they really don't know) or more over 10 years, but that doesn't even come close the balancing the budget.

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal summarizes the whole mess like this:
The Obama presidency has reduced the liberal left to an apoplectic rage. His Ivy League credentials, superior attitude, pseudointellectual mien and facile adherence to lefty ideology make him the perfect personification of the liberal elite. Thus far at least, he has been an utter failure both at winning public support and at managing the affairs of the nation.

Obama's failure is the failure of the liberal elite, and that is why their resentment has reached such intensity. Their ideas, such as they are, are being put to a real-world test and found severely wanting. As a result, their authority is collapsing. And if there is one thing they know deep in their bones, it is that they are entitled to that authority. They lash out, desperately and pathetically, because they have nothing to offer but fear and anger.
Americans wants Washington to quit over-spending. But Democrats -- and liberals in general -- are acting like children who don't get their own way.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Washington Examiner: Daily Outrage

Who: The National Institutes of Health

What: The NIH sent more than $90 million of taxpayer money to China to fund several public health research projects, according to the Daily Caller. In one of those studies, which cost $17 million, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a study of prostitutes, some only 14 years old, and their clients that looked into the use of microbicides as a way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases.

Where to vent: Call NIH Director Francis Collins at 301-496-2433.

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

Friday, July 29, 2011

A blast from the past: Obama on the debt ceiling

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” - Sen. Barack Obama, 2006

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Now I know: Pelosi is insane

After declaring that not one Democrat will vote for Boehner's budget plan, she is reported to have said:
"What we're trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We're trying to save life on this planet as we know it today."
This is the same person that, as Speaker, said that Congress had to approve the Health Care Bill in order to see what was in it. No wonder we are in such trouble. After five years of Democrat control, we're almost there...

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Liberals and conservatives: Are we really that different?

A few years ago, I received an e-mail from a fellow in southern Oklahoma who was starting an e-mail newsletter called The Texoman, which signifies an area on each side of the Red River in Texas and Oklahoma called Texoma. I happen to live just south of that border in Texas.

His purpose, he said, was to provide a forum for honest debate on the issues. But after reading several issues – and responding to one – I decided that his newsletter was so left-leaning in content I didn’t need to receive any more issues. There didn’t seem to be any debate at all. Besides bashing conservatives in general, most of the newsletter was just repeats from left-wing websites.

So I e-mailed the editor and asked that I be taken off the distribution list because I didn’t find any serious discourse in the content. What I received back shocked me, because in no way did I attempt to denigrate his publication or his right to send it out; I just didn’t want it anymore.

According to this gentleman, because I was a conservative – a term I had never used to describe myself – I was filled with hate and anger. “You and your buddy Rush are going to destroy this country,” he stated. Of course, he had no way of knowing if I ever listened to Rush Limbaugh, let alone that we were friends.

It got me to wondering – once again – what causes this type of reaction from our liberal friends. You know them: instead of really wanting to debate the issues, they attack you personally. While not all liberals are like this, it's been my experience that most are.

The question is what are the differences between conservatives and liberals, besides the supposedly differing political philosophies of more government vs. less government? So I dug into some of the literature, read a couple of books, and while I do have a degree in psychology, I don’t claim to be an expert. But what I found opened my eyes a bit. In general, liberals just have a different world-view, based more on emotion than logic.

According to a book by Peter Schweizer, about 71 percent of conservatives say they have an obligation to care for a seriously injured spouse or parent, compared with 46 percent for liberals. Asked if they would endure all things for the one they love, 55 percent of conservatives say yes, compared with 26 percent of liberals.

Equally revealing, liberals are far more likely to say they are depressed and to view the world bleakly. Schweizer attributes that to an attitude that they and those around them are victims and helpless unless the government intervenes.

In answer to a question from Newsmax, Schweizer says that may help explain why liberal politicians and reporters tend to see everything with pessimism, from the economy to the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

Schweizer says the media and liberal professors have successfully obscured these differences by painting a picture of conservatives as mean-spirited. He quotes one professor as saying that conservatives embrace the “unimpeded pursuit of self-interest” to get what they want and that as children, they were insecure and whiny.

In a NYU study, researchers have found evidence that supports a 2006 PEW Research Center survey. The survey showed that 47 percent of conservative Republicans describe themselves as "very happy" while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats describe themselves similarly.

Conservatives put a much higher value on the role of force and accord a lower priority to multilateralism. In The Hill's polling, 68 percent of conservatives but only 28 percent of liberals identified with the need to take unilateral action for our security regardless of what other countries might think. Pew found one of the most important determinants of Republicanism (and I would wager conservatism) was agreement with the view that military strength is the best way to ensure peace.

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227), according to an article by George Will in Real Clear Politics.

Pollsters asked “Everyone has to decide for themselves what’s right and wrong in particular situations” or “There are absolute standards of right and wrong that apply to everyone in almost every situation.” As befits a country almost evenly divided on cultural issues, 50 percent adopted a position of moral absolutism and 46 percent identified themselves as moral relativists. But only about a third of conservatives embraced relativism, while more than 60 percent believe in moral absolutism.

In response to the exit pollsters’ question, only 28 percent of conservatives wanted the government to do more to solve problems, compared with 69 percent of liberals. In practice, of course, conservatives favor a large number of government programs — from education to health care to aid to the poor. But at the broader level of principle, conservatives are deeply suspicious of government’s ability to solve problems.

So it seems that the differences go beyond mere politics, to encompass a person's worldview.

I could sum it up this way: Liberals view the world through an emotional lens and allow their emotions to rule their thinking, while conservatives view the world less emotionally, and generally don't allow emotions to overrule rational thinking.

Which one is better is still up for debate, but considering the long-term affect of liberal policies over my lifetime, I'll lean conservative.

Friday, June 24, 2011

The price of food and the Missouri River flood

Corn and more corn
Have you noticed the ridiculously high prices at the grocery store lately? Blame it on the Corn Bubble. Reuters reports that earlier this month, "the World Bank and other international organizations called on governments to stop their ethanol subsidies because of concerns they were driving up food prices" – and pushing millions of people worldwide into poverty. Read more...

The environmentalists and the Missoroui River flood
There are many well-publicized examples of absurd obeisance to the demands of radical environmentalists resulting in great economic harm. The Great Missouri River Flood of 2011 is shaping up to be another -- only this time, the price will likely be paid in lives lost as well as treasure. Ayn Rand said, "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." Read more...

Both of these examples highlight the law of unintended consequences.

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

OMG! Glad I don't live in Chicago

This is the epitome of narcissism. My sympathies to the Chicago taxpayer who had to watch their taxes go to pay for their new mayor's ego. Each new sign reportedly costs $15,000 to put up, costing the taxpayer nearly $500,000.

The practice wasn't started by Rahm, and he promised to put an end to vanity signs, so why is this one going up?

Don't need no government, man

What's wrong with this statement?
In California, parents want a new law that 'would allow parents ultimate control over their kids' Facebook pages, including the right to demand the company erase certain content or even delete the whole page within 48 hours of the request.'
If you said nothing, you really need to examine your beliefs. Why do we (or Californians) need a law to do what is actually a parental right? We don't need government to raise our children.

No wonder California is in such trouble.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Reaction to Rep. Weiner's lewdness and lies

In response to a defense of Rep. Anonthy Weiner (it's not so bad; look at all the other, but worse, scandals) in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled "Weiner will rise again," one poster said it all.
Well of course he should not resign. If his district is full of liberals they will most likely support him. Forgive me if I am inaccurate, but my understanding of the liberal political philosophy is that it is ok for voters to band together to pass laws which enable the government to take money from the people who earned it and give it to them (the liberals). I would view that as stealing and if you are ok with that, what's a little lying.
Couldn't have said it better myself.

But to the author of the above article in defense of Weiner, it is NOT OK to send sexual comments and photos to nonconsenting women and then lie about it in front of the American people. Should we not hold our elected officials to high moral and ethical standards?

The thinking of the author of the SFChron oped, a self-proclaimed liberal, is the problem with this country, and will be its moral decay and eventual downfall. If you don't believe me, study Greece and Rome.

One-third of companies to ditch health care

The Health Care Affordability Act, or ObamaCare, just got some not-so-good news. According to a management consulting firm, which surveyed 1,300 companies, about one-third of them will most likely quit offering health care benefits when the law fully kicks in (which is conveniently after the 2012 elections).

For those companies that fully understand the law, the number becomes 50 percent.

Of course, those in Congress -- who aren't affected by the law-- or those who work for the Federal government -- who also aren't affected -- or those thousands of companies (cronies of the Democrats) who got waivers, don't care.

Again, the hard-working American taxpayer is screwed.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Government should not be in the biz of creating jobs

I received this article in a newsletter I get each week from the Mises Institute, which promotes the Austrian theory of economics.

The author wanted to remain anonymous because he was afraid his company would suffer retribution from the U.S. Government. Yes, folks, it's come to that under Obama. Speak against him and you become an enemy, and we know that he views political opponents as enemies.

Here's some excerpts:

The last few years as an executive in a manufacturing company gave me a frighteningly close look at the inner workings of regulators in our government. Maybe I'm just naive, but what I discovered was shocking.

In the past, I realized our leaders were disingenuous when they spoke about "creating jobs" and "improving the economy." Now, I have a slightly different take. After my experiences this year, and after giving this a lot of thought, I am adamant that our leaders have no business in the first place "creating jobs," or "improving the economy," or even claiming they have the ability to do so.

In fact, I have witnessed the loss of jobs as a direct result of regulations by unnamed and unelected bureaucrats, who are backed up by threats of prosecution from the government. Our government is stifling job creation.

Although I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am certain that if I wrote about my experience with specifics, the company for which I work would suffer retribution by our government. I do not have the right to put them in jeopardy. And if the legal department of my employer knew I was writing this, they would "lose it." For these reasons, I feel it necessary to write anonymously and with some imprecision.

This fear of retribution, in and of itself, is a powerful statement about the sad conditions in which we live and do business in the United States.

Read the rest of this article at Mises website.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

WIC cuts? Oh my!

WIC, a federal program that is supposed to provide assistance to low-income families with children will have its budget cut back under a GOP proposal. The proposed cut would scale back spending on WIC (Women, Infants and Children) to 2008 levels, about $6.3 billion.

As you can imagine, the left-wingers and liberals and Democrats in general are up in arms over this. What hypocrites, they cry. Taking food away from hungry kids! Tax cuts for millionaires (well, those who make more than $200,000)! Subsidies for big oil with their obscene profits (8 cents on the dollar)! My oh my!

(BTW, any informed person knows that the oil and gas industry does not get subsidies, but tax credits similar to all businesses, so it's really the tax code that needs to be reformed).

The truth is this: Food subsidies now cost the taxpayer nearly $100 billion a year, which has almost doubled in the last decade. The federal government as a whole has about 26 food and nutrition programs operated by six different agencies.

Originally set to help low-income families, currently about 45 percent of all families receive WIC payments. Here we go: So about 50 percent of Americans are helping to support the other 50 percent!

Remarkably, the WIC program accounts for about half of all infant formula sold in the nation. The program was supposed to be only for low-income families, yet it now provides free formula for many middle-income families that certainly don’t need government subsidies.

An even more troubling aspect of WIC is that it encourages parents to feed their babies infant formula rather than breast milk. The share of mothers on WIC who are breastfeeding is substantially lower than that of mothers not using WIC. That effect runs directly counter to the universal advice of health care experts regarding the superiority of breast milk for child development. The WIC program results in low-income parents substituting less nutritious formula for more nutritious mother’s milk.

Another troubling aspect of WIC is that the program’s large subsidies for infant formula appear to be driving up the retail price. The price of formula has risen rapidly since the early 1980s as WIC enrollment has increased. Because recipients are not sensitive to the pricing of WIC food items such as formula, stores can raise prices and receive larger cash redemptions from state agencies.

The WIC program drives up the cost of formula for families not on the program as well, and some portion of the taxpayer subsidies for WIC ends up going to the makers of infant formula. This “leakage” of benefits is a common problem in subsidy programs. It is thought, for example, that rising government subsidies for college education have helped spur the rapid inflation in college tuition costs.

Spending must be cut. We just can't keep increasing the number of Americans getting payments from the government. There isn't enough money. Even if you taxed all "millionaires" 100 percent, there still wouldn't be enough money.

There will be some compromises made, and other agencies -- like Defense -- will also have to be cut. Hey, how much are we spending by bombing Libya in an illegal war.

But crying over this cut is nonsense.

I have a new nickname for Obama

Oh yea. After his trashing of U.S.-Israeli relations, and his bafoonery in the United Kingdom, he is now dufus-in-chief. And speaking of his foreign policy handling of Israel, I don't think I've ever witnessed a poorer performance by a sitting U.S. President. He was going to get the world to like us. But they're just laughing.

Netanyahu had him for lunch and spit him right out.

And here he is hard at work in London.

His foreign policy is just as good as his domestic policy: it's a train wreck. I'm not sure we can last the next 20 months. 

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Pelosi gets 20 percent of new healthcare waivers

If "ObamaCare" is so great, why have more than 1,000 waivers been granted? But "we-have-to-pass-the-bill-to-see-what's-in-it" Pelosi's district got more than its fair share.

As reported by the Daily Caller, of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Santana: Great musician, but ignorant of history

At a ball game in Atlanta, here's what Carlos Santana had to say:
"Never mind about immigration, because everyone immigrated. Everyone is an immigrant, other than American Indians," Santana said. "So stop shucking and jiving and slipping and sliding and make some spiritual traction. Spiritual traction is, really read the Constitution, you know, and live your life. Stop shucking and jiving and doing what other people tell you to do. Do what your heart tells you to do...."

"If people want the immigration law to keep passing in every state then everybody should get out and just leave the American Indians here. This is about civil rights."
Wrong. We are NOT all immigrants. I'm not. My grandparents were. Even if you go back to 1775, about half of those signing the Declaration were born on American soil. The others were colonists, not immigrants. 

If you want to get really technical, based on Santana's rant, even the American Indians can be considered immigrants. Their ancestors, it is believed, migrated here as well, across the Bering Straits.

Illegal immigration is a problem. Since the feds aren't dealing with it, the states are forced to. These are not racist laws. And it is about civil rights: The civil rights of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.

Being a good actor or musician doesn't mean you're smart on other subjects.

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Boeing: If government wins, we all lose

Boeing is building a new aircraft, the 787, an aircraft that can carry up to 250 passengers some 8,000+ miles, using 20 percent less fuel than today's jetliners. They have so many orders that the current assembly plant in Washington can't handle all the business.

So Boeing decides to build a new plant in South Carolina to supplement the older factory. After 18 months and about a billion dollars, Boeing is ready to start hiring workers so they can start building next year.

But wait. The union in Washington files a complaint with the feds. So Boeing has to stop until the hearings clear all of this up, which could take up to 2 years and cost millions in legal fees.

The union says Boeing is short-changing the union by building a new plant in a state that doesn't require an employee to join a union in order to work. (Right-to-work state). The union claims the decisions was retaliation for a strike in 2008 which cost Boeing billions. (Some airlines said that if another strike occurs, they'd be forced to take their business elsewhere).

Boeing says the decision was based on business principles, and that after talking to the union about the building of the 787, decided it was better business to build the plant elsewhere. Not one worker in Washington will be laid off, and they will continue to build 8-9 airplanes a month, while South Carolina will build 3 a month.

If the union wins, business everywhere will lose. The American people will lose. International companies will be afraid to build factories here. American business will be motivated to build elsewhere.

If a business can't build a plant or open a new division where they want, based on sound business principles, what has become of this country?

How does this help? How are unions even relevant to today's world? Look at what the unions did to Detroit...

We had more freedoms under King George in 1775, didn't we?

Here's the plant, and below that is the plane Boeing wants to build in South Carolina, but may not be allowed to by our government.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Yes, Mr. President, I do want alligators in my moat

From Lauri B. Regan at American Thinker:
In yet another one of Obama's highly touted campaign speeches (are there any other type?), the President once again chose to use derisive rhetoric to whip up the masses against those horrible Republicans. Obama attempted to put the GOP on the defensive by suggesting that Republicans not only want the country surrounded by a moat to prevent evil immigrants from entering, but that in order to ensure success, they would fill the moat with alligators.

Apparently, the only result that Obama achieved from these ridiculous and extremely un-presidential one-liners was an electorate feeling complete and utter disgust at his obnoxious display of arrogance with regard to such an important domestic issue. The country is in economic turmoil and is being threatened by terrorists who originate in the Middle East and Northern Africa but who are crossing our borders undetected, and our president wants to lead from behind so that he can campaign (and bash Republicans) from in front...

...I am getting sick and tired of his kitschy, fighting rhetoric designed to pit citizen against citizen. And it sickens me that the American taxpayer is paying for the garbage that comes out of this President's mouth -- the man who urges civility is the most hypocritical, uncivil President in the history of the country. And it stems from his flawed character and single-minded desire to remain in power.
I agree.

Once again, Obama is loose with the facts.

In his recent immigration speech, Obama claimed that the "fence is now basically complete." But there are only 350 miles of fence along the 1,954 miles of border. That's 18 percent.

Charles Krauthammer explains all this nonsense perfectly:

Obama then boasted that on his watch 31 percent more drugs have been seized, 64 percent more weapons — proof of how he has secured the border. And for more proof: Apprehension of illegal immigrants is down 40 percent. Down? Indeed, says Obama, this means that fewer people are trying to cross the border.
(On a side note, it has been revealed that Homeland Security has directed the Border Patrol to apprehend fewer illegals crossing the border. Just send them back south. That way, the numbers will agree with the premise that the border is more secure because the Patrol is apprending fewer people.)

Krauthammer continues:

Interesting logic. Seizures of drugs and guns go up — proof of effective border control. Seizures of people go down — yet more proof of effective border control. Up or down, it matters not. Whatever the numbers, Obama vindicates himself.

You can believe this flimflam or you can believe the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. The GAO reported in February that less than half the border is under “operational control” of the government. Which undermines the entire premise of Obama’s charge that, because the border is effectively secure, “Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement” didn’t really mean it.

I count myself among those who really do mean it. I have little doubt that most Americans would be quite willing to regularize and legalize the current millions of illegal immigrants if they were convinced that this was the last such cohort, as evidenced by, say, a GAO finding that the border is under full operational control and certification to the same effect by the governors of the four southern border states.

Americans are a generous people. Upon receipt of objective and reliable evidence that the border is secure — not Obama’s infinitely manipulable interdiction statistics — the question would be settled and the immigrants legalized.
And again, I agree.

More global warming insanity

Every weather event is affected by global warming? Hmmm...Or is it climate change? I never can figure out where we're going. Some days it's warming, other days it's cooling, and lately it's just change, period. Of course the climate is changing. Always has been. But to left-wing kooks, it's a way for them to push their socialist, freedom-destroying agenda.

On a web site called "ThinkProgress", they reveal their mushy thinking in these two paragraphs, nearly blaming the tornado outbreak in late April on the victims because they vote Republican.

“Given that global warming is unequivocal,” climate scientist Kevin Trenberth cautioned the American Meteorological Society in January of this year, “the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of ‘of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.’” [Emphasis mine]

The congressional delegations of these states — Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky — overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that polluting the climate is dangerous. They are deliberately ignoring the warnings from scientists.

For those of you who don't know what a null hypothesis is, I'll provide a brief explanation. A null hypothesis can be considered a default position. For example, in our legal system, a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. The null hypothesis is that the defendant is innocent.

More technically, the typical null hypothesis at the outset of the experiment is that no difference exists between the control and experimental groups (for the variable being compared).

So in the statement above, the null hypothesis is that all weather events are affected by global warming. But for anyone who has studied statistics and/or the scientific method at the graduate level (undergrad schools don't cover it well enough or not at all), this is backwards. The null hypothesis should be that weather events are NOT affected by global warming.

Your actual hypothesis then, the one you have to prove, is that any or all weather events are affected by global warming. This is why the "proof" or "fact" of global warming is wrong when you use the incorrect null hypothesis.

I'm not saying that global warming won't affect weather systems. But to accept the null hypothesis above would be bad science. And just so I don't get blasted by the loonies, polluting the environment is bad because we all like clean air and water, don't get confused here.

No wonder our education system is screwed up. Garbage in, garbage out.

The end of the age of terror?

Eugene Robinson, who lives in a left-wing fantasy world, claims in an IBD editorial that with the death of Osama bin Laden, the Age of Terror is about to end. Yes, there will be some terror attacks in the name of Islam, but "most will be amateurish failures," he writes.

But Foreign Affairs published an article the same day that claims that "Al Qaeda is likely to survive bin Laden's killing for one simple reason: the group had already largely passed him by."

And today, a couple of Taliban suicide bombers kill 80 Pakistani police recruits in retaliation for the killing of bin Laden because the police or army (are they the same?) didn't prevent the U.S. mission.

Sorry Eugene, but the world you live in isn't real.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

The Politics of Oil

Obama claims that we are producing more oil in this country than ever before. But that's not true. According to the Energy Information Agency (EIA), domestic oil production has fallen 50 percent since 1970.

In another statement, he placed a caveat on this production mumbo-jumbo: Production is at its highest level since 2003. Big woop. But this isn't accurate.

Figures from the EIA:
2003: 2,073,453,000
2004: 1,983,302,000
2005: 1,890,106,000
2006: 1,862,259,000
2007: 1,848,450,000
2008: 1,811,817,000
2009: 1,956,596,000
2010: 2,011,856,000

The second caveat is that the EIA projects that production totals are poised to fall from their current levels over the next two years.

Domestic crude oil production, the agency says, is projected to decline by 110,000 barrels a day in 2011 and by an additional 130,000 barrels per day in 2012. The agency makes that projection based on expected production declines in Alaska due to maturing oil fields. Production in the Gulf of Mexico is also projected to decline. Both are partially offset by projected increases in the Lower 48 states, but on balance, EIA sees the numbers falling.

Here's an interview with a former CEO of Shell Oil (which by the way recently had its permit held by the EPA to drill up off the coast of northern Alaska in fields that contain 27 billion barrels -- after investing $4 billion in the project):

Obama and his ilk want higher hydrocarbon prices. They are getting their way. Too bad for most Americans though. But King Obama doesn't have to worry as he jetsets around the globe like a Monarch.

And realize this: Obama is no longer giving policy speeches, but campaign speeches.

Monday, May 9, 2011

Why the tax code needs to be changed

What is someone's fair share? Shouldn't everyone pay at least something, since we all do get benefits from government?

A recent CNN Money article highlights the mess that our tax code is. Why 45 percent don't pay anything at all. The top 1 percent pay as much as the bottom 95 percent.

But there is truth that many higher-income people don't pay their fair share. Some of those who didn't pay taxes: About 18,000 were households taking in more than $500,000 -- and of those, 4,000 made more than $1 million.

Wouldn't it be nice to make a million bucks, tax-free?

This is ridiculous. Many deductions do favor the rich. It's about time we all paid, at least something. If you don't have any skin in the game, you're not going to really care.

Friday, May 6, 2011

Reactions to this week's news

Part of the problem in deciding if government is effective or not is trying to learn the truth of what is actually going on. With the Obama administration, in their attempts to be "transparent," they actually create a public relations nightmare.

While Obama made the right decision to go after Osama bin Laden, the spin doctors at the White House pretty much screwed things for the aftermath. However, while he did make the right decision, the ability to do so was not his doing. No, they were able to kill bin Laden because of programs and policies put in place during the Bush Adminstration, and continued by Obama.

But in the larger, more strategic, view of the world today, we have more problems than ever before.

By Star Parker, a former liberal turned conservative:
The morality of freedom transformed into the politics of race. The antidote of personal responsibility transformed into entitlements and victimization.

We've now gone beyond blacks just buying into the great welfare-state lie. We now have a black president who is leading us all into the abyss.

A black president more interested in protecting abortionists than babies, burying the nation hopelessly in debt, piling on more and more spending with increasingly worthless dollars, to pay for government programs that never have and never will work.

This is happening in a world increasingly in chaos. Millions in nations in the Middle East suddenly are aspiring toward freedom and mobilizing to achieve it as blacks did here in the 1960s.

But they are faced with the same dilemma. What does it mean to be free? It's easier to know what you don't want than what you do.

Unfortunately, the spreading chaos in the Middle East is exacerbated by the absence of leadership from an America, once the world's beacon for freedom.

How can those in the Middle East look to us when the American president's message is that the poor are poor because the rich are rich and that eternal moral truths are irrelevant to political freedom?

All the world is waiting for a new America to come forth that again understands that freedom isn't about politics but about moral truths and personal responsibility.
I couldn't have said it better.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Why are oil prices high?

There are, of course, a lot of ideas out there. I read this morning it was the fault of the Republican takeover of the House. Of course, the House hasn't been able to do anything that is actually constructive, because of the Senate and the White House.

Another group to blame are speculators. I'm sure they have something to do with it, but I don't think the blame is all theirs alone. Then there's the Middle East. Actually, most of the oil is still flowing, so that can't be it all by itself. And when hasn't there been turmoil in the Middle East?

Oil companies. Must be them. Let's investigate. Of course, this has been tried before. Or let's take away some of their tax breaks. That $4 billion would reduce the deficit. Oh wait. Obama wants to "invest" that money in green energy projects. The hell with the deficit. (Deficit under Bush was bad; deficit under Obama is good, right? Or at least that's what Krugman says.)

Or is it the policies of the Obama administration that is driving up the price? I don't think anything Obama or his minions have done has helped. Actually, I believe he wants higher prices to force us to adopt his "green" ideology. He has said so himself.

Most likely, it is a combination of all these factors. Here's some actual figures. You can come up with your own conclusion.
According to projections made by the Energy Information Administration in April 2010, the Gulf of Mexico should have produced 1.84 million barrels of oil a day in the fourth quarter of 2010. Instead, according to the most recent EIA estimate, due to the Obama permitorium, the Gulf only produced 1.59 million barrels. That is 250,000 barrels a day in lost production. Overall, since Obama instituted his drilling moratorium, oil production from the Gulf is down more than 10%.

But while Gulf oil production is down from pre-moratorium estimate, total oil consumption is actually higher than EIA predicted last year. Total crude oil input to refineries is up from an estimated 13.85 million barrels a day to an actual 14.25 million barrels. But if domestic production is down and consumption is up, where is the extra oil coming from?

Foreign oil.

While oil production in the Gulf is down more than 10% from April 2010 estimates, net crude oil imports are up 5%. At $83 dollars a barrel (the approximate average price of oil in the fourth quarter of 2010) that means Obama’s oil drilling permatorium increased American dependence on foreign oil by about $1.8 billion dollars in the fourth quarter of last year alone. The numbers only get worse as Obama’s permitorium further cuts into production. A Wood Mackenzie study predicts that for all of 2011 the permitorium will result in the loss this year of about 375,000 barrels of oil a day.

More imported oil also means higher prices at the pumps. The EIA explains: “Retail gasoline prices tend to be higher the farther it is sold from the source of supply.” It costs more money to transport oil to your gas station from the Persian Gulf than from the Gulf of Mexico.
And another factor not mentioned: Our huge deficits, and the falling value of the dollar. Oil is traded with dollars and when the dollar goes down in value, it takes more dollars to pay for oil.

Isn't it time we adopt an energy policy based on reality? Or just maybe a policy at all?