Thursday, May 28, 2009

I Guess Blue Cross, Aetna, Cigna and UHC Aren't Too Big To Fail

In discussion around the Obama healthcare plan and why it is the perfect solution to all of the world's problems, a statement was made this morning that we would "get rid of" the insurance companies. That was one of the main ways that the cost of health care would come down. I'm not saying that insurance isn't contributing to the cost in some ways, but it's also working to control it. To say we will "get rid of" the insurance companies is a pretty bold statement.

I've been searching the net but can't find a definitive count of how many people the medical insurance industry employees, but I'm guessing it's a pretty hefty number. So it's OK for these healthy companies to fail due to a government program, but it's not OK for unsuccessful companies to fail because of their own bad decisions.

This is the new fairness being instituted by our current administration

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Why Do We Want To Be What We Fought To Escape?

Obama seems bound and determined to turn us into England. But didn't we fight the revolution so we weren't England? And why would we want to be them anyway?

The English people are the most filmed and photographed by their government. All things that the ACLU would pitch a fit over if it as anybody but Obama headed that way. So is that what we want?

Nationalized healthcare in England is the model that Obama wants to use. The administration says that our current system is failing the people who can't get care. So does the British method fail no one? Don't think so. They already found out that totally socialized medicine doesn't work and had to reintroduce some free market health care back into the system. I have a friend over there who had to drive her father 4 hours for a procedure. Not because there was nowhere nearer that could do it, but the place that could do it had already met it's cap for that procedure for the year. So they had to search to find someplace who had not. This is exactly what we want to do.

How about taxes. They just hiked their tax rate to 50% and isn't that VAT thing done over there as well. So you pay an additional 20% on purchases. That's for that FREE healthcare thing. Gas prices about $7 a gallon. That's where we want to go.

Our founding principles and our Constitution was set up so that we would NOT become Great Britain. So why are we abandoning that philosophy now to follow in the steps of a country we have traditionally led?

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

What is the Liberal Definition of Fair?

I would really love to know how the liberal democrats define fair or fairness. They talk an awful lot about what is fair, the fair share, restoring fairness, but I'd love to know how they define it. Based on the examples they use or what they're pushing, their definition of fair seems to be unfair.

We're going to take money from somebody who earned it to give it to somebody who did not. That's liberal fair. This group pays 0% in taxes and that group pays 40% but that group isn't paying their fair share. Base a legal decision on individual circumstances instead of the law. That's liberal fair. Take money from people who paid their mortgages and give it to people who didn't. That's liberal fair. You got the highest test score but you're the wrong color so somebody who scored lower gets your job. That's liberal fair. You have a secured debt but the unsecured union creditors should get more. That's liberal fair. People who followed the immigration laws are waiting years to get a visa while people crossing the line illegally should get a visa now. That's liberal fair.

If you don't work you get less than somebody who does. That's liberal unfair. People who don't save money and have a terrible credit score can't get the same loan as somebody who does save and has a great credit score. That's liberal unfair. The majority passes a law the minority doesn't like. That's liberal unfair. A less qualified woman doesn't get a job over a more qualified man. That's liberal unfair. I make less money than somebody else. That's liberal unfair. And of course, any voting for a republican must be the result of something unfair.

Based on these examples of what the liberals call fair and unfair it seems to me they don't understand the meaning of the word. Can anybody please tell me how the liberals define fair?

I'm Sick of Being Treated Like An Idiot

The Obama and Sotomayor press conference may have just pushed me over the edge. I am so sick and tired of being treated like an idiot. Obama gets up there and speaks the exact opposite of what he does and I'm supposed to sit back and feel reassured? I don't think so.

I am so tired of being expected to believe whatever he says in spite of his actions. I'm so tired of hearing him say one thing and do another. I'm so tired of the assumption that I can't think for myself. I'm tired of the condescension of the president. I'm tired.

I'm not an idiot. I'm not brilliant by any stretch of the imagination, but I am capable of cognitive thought and the constant assumption that I, and the rest of the American people, are not is really chapping my ass.

The sheer cojones of the man to stand up there and spout the importance of upholding the rule of law and the constitution when he supported a filibuster of the constitutionalist judges appointed by Bush is amazing. He can tell bold face lies on his stances and opinions without blinking an eye and we're just supposed to accept this. And what upsets me the most is that too many people do accept it.

God please send us a leader who believes in the intelligence of the American public and does not assume we are all driveling idiots. Is that really so much to ask?

Monday, May 25, 2009

Happy Memorial Day

Memorial Day is technically and traditionally a day to honor those who died in service to our country, but for many, has expanded over the years into an honor of those we have lost in any way.

I have been incredibly lucky to have never lost a loved one in service to our country. I've had many friends and family members who have served, but they all made through alive. Thank God. So in today's blog I have no memory of a lost loved one who died in service to share with you. However, last April I made a trip to Washington DC and visited Arlington Cemetery. While there, I watched the changing of the guard at the tomb of the unknown soldier. This was one of the single most power experiences of my life.

There was a large crowd of people there to watch, but they all fell silent. The normal jostling for the best position to see, had stopped. No one spoke. No one moved. The ceremony itself is so powerful in part because of how seriously the soldiers charged with the guard take it. This is the ultimate memorial to those who died in service. The tombs are guarded 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. It is said by those who have served in that honor guard that a soldier is not dead until he is forgotten, and the honor guard never forgets.

The men selected to serve as guards take their responsibility very seriously, so seriously that they refused to leave the tomb even when the entire city of Washington was being evacuated for a hurricane. Standing there watching the service, I felt tears fill my eyes and eventually spill over. An incredibly powerful experience.

Later in that same trip I saw the Iwo Jima memorial at night. I was on a tour of the monuments by moonlight and the tour guide was extremely knowledgeable. We were told that if you drive around the monument there is an optical illusion that makes it appear as if the flag is actually rising as you watch. Me made that drive, and it did. My uncle's brother served at Iwo Jima, one of the small percentage of men there who made it out alive.

Washington DC has many memorials to our men and women who have died in service to our country. Each is powerful in it's own right. Seeing these, and being reminded of what has gone into protecting our country, was an experience I would not trade.

We are a country and a people who remember those who serve. A happy Memorial Day to you all.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Integrity - The Endangered Virtue

Wouldn't it be great if we spent as much time and effort protecting our endangered virtues as we did our endangered species? Can we get lobbyists for our virtues? A whole virtue movement?

A trip to the grocery store prompted this idea for me. I was doing my weekly shopping and paying close attention to what I was spending. I'm taking a trip to Scotland so every penny I spend now is being watched because I could be spending it on my trip. I was adding up my items in my head to make sure I kept myself within my budget as I was shopping. But when I wen through the check out my items came to much less than I had calculated. This bothered me quite a bit because, though I can't do advanced trigonometry in my head, I can do algebra. When I checked my receipt I realized that the 20 lb bag of cat food did not scan.

I can't say that for a half a second I didn't consider just letting the mistake stand, but it I couldn't do it. I couldn't steal cat food. As a chronic insomniac I have a hard enough time sleeping at night without adding that guilt to it. So I told the cashier and I paid for the cat food. The cashier looked at me oddly and said, "well at least you're honest." This reminded me of another time I was at the grocery store. This was when the new $10 bills had just come out. I bought stamps and paid with a $10 and got change for a $20. I really could have used the extra $10 at that time, but again I couldn't keep it. Especially knowing that the kid behind the counter would suffer for it. When I told him I'd paid with a $10 and not a $20 he argued at first and then checked the drawer and, sure enough, there was a $10 in the $20 slot. He said that his drawer had been coming up short all week and that was probably why. So although I had told him, others had not. Others had taken money that they knew was not due them. This brings up the question of integrity.

What is integrity? I consider it as doing the right thing even when nobody is watching. I don't know if what I do counts considering that I have a very strong faith and a knowledge that God is always watching. This is the way I was raised, and the values that were instilled in me by parents with strong and unshakable integrity themselves. But what about those that have been taught to take what you can get? We stopped teaching right from wrong and now our integrity is endangered. And nobody seems to care. People stand up and shout that it's wrong to let a species become extinct, and I agree with that, but they'll let our integrity, honor and character fall into oblivion.

Is there really any question that the country and the world would be a much better place if everybody displayed integrity and honor in their dealings with others, but we have let this fall by the wayside. We've let he progressives tell us that we can't teach right from wrong in our schools and that we can't legislate morality. Is that what we call progress? A reversion to selfishness and greed? They consider this progressive? Where is the progress in that?

Those of us who understand the importance of integrity, honor and character in our country and the world need to hold those without it accountable. We need to fight to save it. And most importantly, we need to fight for it's reproduction in others. We need to fight for our integrity at least as hard as we fight to save the polar bears. We need to be our own lobbyists. So here's to saving our endangered virtues. Long may they reign.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Obama Administration Creates Their Own News

The current administration has been masterful at controlling the press and the news. The first and most important step in converting any Democracy into a Dictatorship. But now he's taken it even a step further. There are now events to which the Washington press corp is no longer welcome. Instead, the Obama administration will pick and choose what they want the press to see, and release that to them. Really not a good sign.

At this point in time, the events to which the press corp is excluded are relatively benign, but this test run won't last long. I believe that they are testing the waters to see if they can get away with it, and if they do, it will just expand.

Think about every movie you've seen or book you've read with a new totalitarian government installed and what they have in common. The new power controls the flow of information to the people. If you control the information, you control the people. This is where we're headed. The freedom of the press was considered a right because they are necessary to hold our government accountable to the people. The mainstream press has been doing a piss poor job of this lately, but at least they still had the opportunity. The question is will they stand for the eroding of that opportunity.

The press corp is notoriously left wing and support the usurpations of the power of the individual while jealously guarding their own rights. Let's see how they deal with this one. Will the slobbering love affair with the current administration continue when the press corp is forced to accept only those crumbs of information that the administration is willing to feed them? I hope not. I dearly hope that at some point, somebody in the press corp decides to try to find out what the administration does not want them to see.

Control the release of information and you control the people. A philosophy that Hugo Chavez has used in order to turn Venezuela from a Democracy to a dictatorship, and a philosophy that Obama appears to be adopting.

Now Mr Obama, please tell us again how you love our Constitution.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

We've Got Them Running Scared

It is becoming clear that Obama is finally beginning to hear the people, and we've got him on the run. Think about his speech on Gitmo. Where did he hold it? He placed himself in the national archives with the Declaration of Independence behind him. He constantly spoke about the constitution and the principles on which we were founded. He's finally realizing that the American people do actually care about our Constitution, and as a result he's trying to make us believe he cares about it to.

The fact that Obama is draping himself in the Constitution at the same time he's shredding it, is actually a pretty good sign. He's learning that he has to at least pretend to want to follow the Constitution or he'll lose his oh so special approval rating. But what he doesn't yet understand is that we're looking for, no wait, we're demanding that he does more than pretend. It's not enough to say the constitution is more than words on old parchment. It's not enough to say you studied it. It's not enough to say you love it. You have to actually FOLLOW it.

The majority of people in this country are crying out for a leader who is a Constitutionalist. Somebody who really believes in the principles and guidelines laid down in that document, and is willing to speak out in it's defense. A leader who will be strong enough to decrease the power of government instead of greedily seeking to expand their own. A leader who understands that our freedoms are not granted by our government but by our God.

Thomas Jefferson said that when a people fear their government, that's tyranny. But when a government fears the people, that's liberty. Obama is doing his best to evince a design to reduce us under absolute despotism, but we refuse to be afraid.

We're on our way to regaining some lost liberty. We've gotten them a little bit scared. But a little bit isn't enough for me. When it comes to this situation I have a touch of Verruca Salt in me. I want it and I want it now. It is time to really put the fear of the people into the so called leaders of this country. We need to have them shaking in their individual and collective boots. To put it bluntly, 'cuz that's what I do best, we need to scare the bloody damn bejeezus out of them.

Let Freedom Ring!

Time Marches On And Sooner Or Later You Realize It's Marching Across Your Face

This is one of my favorite lines from "Steel Magnolias". That one and "the only thing that separates us from the animals is our ability to accessorize." Both of these lines, in their own way, pertain to my topic today. And that topic is about an obsession with superficiality at the expense of substance.

It seems to me that people care more about how they, and others, look than about how they behave. They care more about how something is said than they do about what is said. They care more about how something appears than about how it actually is. In a government by the people this is dangerous and sad.

We live in a time where our outward appearance is our first priority and our inner beauty runs a far distant second. If even that. I'm not saying that we shouldn't take care of ourselves, or take pride in how we look, but we should also take care of who we are. There's nothing at all wrong with dying your hair, whitening your teeth, moisturizing your skin and working out, but there must be more to us than that. It frightens me to death that more people in the US recognize Paris Hilton than Joe Biden. It frightens me that people who voted for Obama thought Sarah Palin was his running mate. It frightens me that people listen to the rhetoric of a speech but not it's content. It frightens me that some people don't listen at all. Basically, I'm one very scared spinster. Thank God I have the cats to protect me.

It is our responsibility as citizens, our duty as overseers of our government, to look past the surface, whether it be the glitz of flowery speech or the dull reflection of a dry one, and really hear what is being said. To think about what was said and come to our own conclusions. But to come to a conclusion we must think, and we must see, and we must hear. And we must talk about it with others. We will not all come to the same conclusions, and this is what makes this country great. I don't demand that everybody see things my way, but I do ask that they see.

I know, considering that this is a political blog, that I am probably preaching to the choir. Those of you who read blogs such as mine are already more substance that superficiality driven and I applaud you for that. But I just had to vent anyway. Thank you for listening.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

We Perform Best When We Fly Without A Net

We've become a nation protected from the consequences of our actions. It sounds good, but it's not good. It's actually destroying us. Feeling the consequences of our actions is what teaches us what we should and should not do. A lesson we've been pitifully slow to learn. We make a misstep and fall on our faces, or even just skin our knees, and the nanny government runs in to protect us. This is fine for a nanny and a toddler. It's not fine for adults and their government.

Our lives are shaped by the decisions we make. Be they good decisions or bad, these choices determine the path of our lives. But as adults, we've learned that if we misstep and fall on our faces, we still have a nanny to come make it all better. As a result, we don't pay all that much attention to where we're going. We have that safety net beneath us to catch us when we fall and prevent us from being hurt, so where's the incentive to be careful? There isn't one.

The government has been, and is continuing to, protect us as individuals, corporations, and state governments from the consequences of bad decisions. As a result, we're not learning to make good decisions. Health care coverage for everybody, doesn't that sound wonderful, but what about the people who made the conscious decision not to have insurance so they could have more spending money? Why should they be protected from that decision? People made the decision to spend way more money than they had or could pay off. If we protect them from the consequences of that decision will they start spending responsibly? Why would they when there's somebody there to bail them out.

The worst part is that the safety net, the federal government, is protecting itself from the consequences of it's actions by getting more money from the people they supposedly protect. So it's a cycle. We make bad decisions, get bailed out by a government making bad decisions, who gets bailed out by us.

Removing that safety net is one of the best things that could happen to us as a nation. If we aren't protected from overspending, and have to really pay attention to what we're doing, we do a better job of promoting the free market. If you're cautious about what you spend, and pay attention to getting the best deal for your dollar, then the companies have to compete to give you the best deal. When we can overspend and the government will come in and save us, we pay less attention.

The current process is to have the responsible people, monitoring their actions, and paying attention to where they're going, bear the cost of the irresponsible. Any parent will tell you that if you protect your child from the results of irresponsible decisions, they'll never learn to be responsible. That's what is happening right now. We're doing the entire country a disservice by protecting people from bad decisions. A disservice to the responsible by making them foot the bill, and a disservice to the irresponsible by not teaching them the lessons in responsibility they need.

We've bailed out bad companies and bad banks, and will now probably bail out a bad state government. California has behaved irresponsibly and instead of making them deal with the consequences of that, make some tough decisions, and learn from their mistake, we're going to bail them out with money from taxpayers in other states. Not good. Not good at all.

So I say remove the safety net and let the American people feel the consequences of their actions. Some people will have very hard lessons to learn, but we have to remember that they're in the positions they're in based on the decisions that they made. Some people HAVE to learn things the hard way and will never learn until they are faced with the hard consequences. I know. I am one of those people.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Uncommon Courtesy

I attended a high school graduation ceremony last night and was appalled at the rudeness, lack of consideration, and general disrespect to the graduates and the other attendees that was displayed. It became painfully evident that common courtesy has become uncommon.

I was late for the ceremony because I had no idea where I was going and Mapquest didn't really help. So in the sheer mass of people there, I couldn't find the friend whose son I was there to see. I found a seat on the first row of the bleachers, so I was in a position to witness more of the rudeness than some others may have seen. When the speakers began, both the teachers and the students, people continued to chat in the stands. There were a few times that I could barely hear the speakers over the surrounding noise. It became apparent that some people didn't want to hear the speakers and didn't really care if anybody else did. People were popping up and down and strolling back and forth. Women in shoes they didn't know how to walk in tromped up and down the bleachers wobbling this way and that. Kids were allowed to run amok and jump down the bleachers making the wood echo and shake.

And then, as if the noise and the general disruption wasn't enough, people began to leave after their student had been called. So sitting in the pathway, I had a steady stream of people filing past me, talking, stopping and blocking my view, stomping down the bleachers, and generally causing an uproar. I actually missed the name I was there to hear because of all of this. If you want to sneak out, OK, but this exodus was far from surreptitious. There was a complete and utter lack of consideration for anybody else there.

What has happened to good manners? Do they even exist anymore? Are they an antiquated notion that only weird people observe? Have we become so self-centered that we're incapable of considering how others may be impacted? From what I witnessed last night, I'd have to say the sad answer to that question is yes.

Monday, May 18, 2009

How Much Do We Actually Pay In Taxes

With the wild spending spree the new administration and Congress have been on, and with the statements about paying a fair share in taxes, I decided to try to figure out what percentage of my salary I actually pay in taxes. It's appalling.

When we think about our tax rate we generally think about payroll taxes only. But there are so many more. In looking at my W-2 I calculated that between federal and state taxes I pay 29% of my salary just in payroll deduction taxes. If that weren't bad enough, once I started adding the other taxes it got really frightening. The corporate tax rate is 25%, so for the bills I pay I have to figure that at least 25% is the passing on of their taxes to me. So if half of my take home pay goes to my bills, then I'm paying 25% of half of my remaining 60% in additional taxes. So now my tax rate is up to 44%.

If I spend the remaining half of my take home pay (30% of my salary) then I'm paying corporate taxes again, but I'm also paying sales taxes. So for that last 30% of my salary that I actually get to enjoy, I'm getting taxed even higher. These 2 taxes together equal an additional 17% of my total salary. So now I'm up to a combined tax rate of 61%.

So now what about all of those hidden taxes on individual items. Plus the tariffs and import taxes. It's totally conceivable that with these additional taxes my total tax rate could easily equal a full 2/3 of my salary. Between the federal and state governments they're taking 2/3 of my salary and then have the temerity to tell me they don't have enough money to keep police on the streets. If they're taking 2/3 of everybody's salaries what, pray tell, are they doing with that money that it is still not enough.

With the additional spending and quadrupling of the deficit, we all know they're going to ask us to pay more in taxes. My question is not whether it will eventually get to the point where my WHOLE salary is paid in taxes, but how soon that will happen.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Obama's Commencement Speech All About - Himself

I just read through the text of Obama's speech at Notre Dame and I was amazed at how little of it was about the students and how much of it was about himself. He even managed to work in a plug for his book.

He starts out thanking them for the honorary degree and mentioning how Arizona didn't give him one. Then he goes into exactly why the students need to support his socialist agenda as they move further into adulthood. How they need to save the planet from the damage we have done to it. He talks about how terrible we are as people and why his policies are needed to make us all nice to each other again. And then he gets into the abortion discussion. And here is where I got really disgusted.

He does a lot of talk about how two sides of an issue should be able to work together without characterizing each other. This is really rich coming from the administration that labels pro-life people as potential terrorists. Then he says "So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies." This from the man who said if his daughters got pregnant he wouldn't want them "punished" with a baby. Also from the same progressive party that said you can't legislate morality and legislated immorality instead. Then he says "Let's make adoption more available." This was downright insulting. There are waiting lists years long to adopt. American couples are going overseas to adopt children because here, we kill them instead of adopting them out. Then comes, "Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term." I'm sorry, but wasn't Obama a vocal supporter of denying health care to baby's born in spite of an abortion attempt? So was this a plug for his universal health care bill? I think so.

This goes on and then moves into how big of an impact the catholic church had on him. I guess this was after his mother had him in the Muslim school in Indonesia. Then the speech returns to being all about him and his policies. But my favorite line, in the midst of all his discussion about himself and how what he's doing is right for the world, is this line, "It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness." This man, as he makes a commencement speech about himself instead of the graduating students, has the gall to ask them to be wary of too much self-righteousness. What a laugh.

This wasn't a commencement speech, it was an indoctrination speech. Everything in there was about him and his policies and why they needed to support and promote them. Couldn't the man have put his campaign aside for a moment and made a speech about somebody other than himself? Apparently not.

Friday, May 15, 2009

What If Waterboarding Was Never Used

So what if we didn't water board those 3 prisoners. (Yes, the CIA only ever used it on 3 prisoners). What if we didn't force the issue and use enhanced techniques, and the thwarted attack on Los Angeles was allowed to happen? And then imagine that it was discovered that we had prisoners in custody with knowledge of the pending event. Then what if Bush appears in front of the country and said, "we could have used harsher techniques to get the information from him, but America doesn't torture." Calls for his impeachment would have come immediately.

The press and the bloggers accused President Bush of "allowing" the 9/11 attacks to happen because there was intelligence that something, not what, but something, was being planned. If the second wave, revealed through water boarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was allowed to succeed because KSH was not talking and we weren't forcing the issue, what would the hue and cry have been? Had that happened, the press would not be asking the question of why we engaged in "torture" via water boarding, but would instead be asking why we didn't do everything in our power to find out the information. There would have been Congressional hearings on why exactly we didn't go Jack Bauer on their asses. President Bush would have been accused of being weak and unable to protect the United States.

Because the attack didn't happen, people have the audacity to second guess the CIA and the President in a very tough situation. If the attack had happened, what interrogation methods would have been called for?

Do we really value our lofty values and principles more than the lives of our citizens? If you find that another 3,000 Americans could be killed, is standing on your principles really the right thing to do? Personally, if I thought somebody had that knowledge, I'd be prepared to do way more than water board them. I'd far rather save lives than say we don't torture.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Obama Appoints Himself CEO of All Fortune 500 Companies

Sources at spinsterpov have revealed a plan for President Obama to appoint himself CEO of all Fortune 500 companies. "What I've seen at the banks and car companies," said Obama, "reveals that companies are not doing what I want them to." The only solution to this problem appears to be for Obama to run these companies himself.

Our sources inside the white house tell us that Obama believes too many corporations are delivering products the public wants instead of those products that He believes they need. In order to force citizens to comply with "what he thinks is best for them" he will be taking over these companies and eliminating all products he disagrees with and creating the products he wants. "The only way to get the public to do what they should", said Obama, "is to remove the other options from the market." The re-branding of American products will start with cars we don't want to drive, but will extend to food we don't want to eat, clothes we don't want to wear, electronics we don't want to use and other miscellaneous products we simply don't want.

When questioned on this intended removal of some of America's favorite products, President Obama stated that he knows what's best for the American people. Nuff said.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

White House Solves Medicare and Social Security With One Initiative

The White House hired a team of actuaries to identify where our risks lie with both Medicare and Social Security. The result of the analysis gave a single initiative that can fix both programs and save enough money to justify spending more on other programs.

The head of the actuarial team, Biehn Counter, revealed that the solution was obvious. "You're spending millions on expensive treatments to extend life. This puts a drain on Medicare but also puts a drain on Social Security. The more years you give them the more benefits you have to pay." Therefore, the solution suggested by Mr Counter and embraced by the White House is to deny expensive treatments for the elderly. "There's just no cost benefit to the treatments", Mr Counter explained.

White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, said that people are simply living too long. "People are living well into their 80's and 90's now which means that they are collecting social security for 20 - 30 years. If we could trim that down to 15 we would save enough to pay for health care for everybody."

So the new plan has been revealed. In order to give health care to those who don't have it we're going to deny it to those that currently do. The White House objected to this description saying, "This is an emergency situation and aggressive action needs to be taken." I asked why, knowing it would reach this point, when reforms were proposed in years past they argued that Republicans were "fear mongering". The response was simply that when reforms were previously suggested the current President was still in the State Legislature.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Was Harry Potter Prophetic?

As I watch the mainstream media sit more and more firmly in the current administration's back pocket, as I watch them vehemently attack anybody with a differing opinion, I'm reminded of the Daily Prophet from Harry Potter.

Potter fans may remember how, in The Order Of The Phoenix, the ministry used the Daily Prophet (newspaper for the wizarding community) to attack and discredit their dissenters and cover up their failures. This is so appropriate for what is going on with the mainstream media now.

When we need the journalists to tell us the truth, they give us talking points. They're pushing the same agenda and failing in their most important role of informing the public of our government's mistakes. The use the same methods as the ministry of magic in that they attack the messenger instead of the message. Where the Daily Prophet showed Dumbledore and Harry as crazy, attention seeking liars, our media calls dissenters lying, racist hate mongers. It's one thing to see this in fiction, but another, far more frightening thing, to see that fiction becoming reality.

Add to that the interference in every aspect of the country, and we can compare Professor Umbridge to an Education Czar appointed by Obama. Her tactics are surprisingly similar to Obama's in using threats and behavior modification. Her attempt to control every little thing, enforcing it with threats and harsh punishments (in our case taxes), eventually led to a revolt of the people. A situation that Obama would be smart to avoid.

So was a book revolving around a prophecy, prophetic itself? It's looking that way.

Obama Possessed by Soul of Jimmy Hoffa

Is Barack Obama the President of the United States, the president of the Unions, or both? There is currently an investigation under way to determine if Barack Obama has been possessed by Jimmy Hoffa. The previous president of the teamsters union mysteriously disappeared in the 1975 after making thwarted attempts to reclaim his position of power within the union. But was his disappearance, or even his death, enough to stop his quest for power.

Theories exist, based on the current President's behavior, which suggest that Jimmy Hoffa has possessed the President and is now seeking power over all unions and not just the teamsters. As evidence, the investigators site the "thuggish" tactics being used by Obama to strong arm, intimidate, and downright threaten any person or organization that threatens the good of the union or it's workers.

One of the most glaring similarities is a crime for which Hoffa was tried, but not convicted, which dealt with extortion of firms employing union workers. See the recent threat from Obama to the state of California to rescind the stimulus money if they're cost cutting initiatives regarding a union's pay were not reversed. Hmmmmm. Sounds Hoffa-esque to me. Hoffa was actually convicted for bribing a Jury and they got him for misappropriation of funds. Now he has even more funds to misappropriate. The blatant filtering of our tax dollars to his supporters is just further evidence that the current President should now be called Barack Hoffama.

Theorists fear which Hoffa traits will appear next. After giving control of private companies to the unions they employ, and threatening an entire state, this power hungry spirit may only get worse. On the other hand, if Obama is not possessed by Hoffa, but is just a recreation of Hoffa in a more pleasing package, that could be more frightening yet.

Monday, May 11, 2009

New Era Of Responsibility

I went out to to send a question to the president and saw something I found hysterical. There was the indication for the 2010 budget with the header "A New Era of Responsibility". Isn't that just a kick in the pants?

Webster defines responsibility as a moral, legal or mental accountability. So is the administration taking accountability for spending twice as much as we have coming in? Nope. Not a bit. This should read a new era of irresponsibility.

Teleprompter Malfunctions - Vast Right Wing Conpsiracy Suspected

Sources indicate that the teleprompter the President uses to speak to his family over breakfast seriously malfunctioned this morning. The teleprompter was pulling a feed from Fox News instead of the words that were originally programmed. This resulted in the President speaking to his wife and children about the increase in spending compared to the decrease in revenue. The President was reportedly "mad as a hornet" over the malfunction.

Sources inside the White House have revealed that a vast right wing conspiracy is suspected. They believe that Republicans and other extremists, knowing that the President is incapable of coherent speech without the teleprompter, are attempting to sabotage the message of the current administration. They believe this was a test to see if the teleprompter could be hacked and the president's message replaced with their own. They are reportedly very grateful that this was identified over breakfast and did not advance to the daily briefing where the teleprompter is also used.

We have also been told that Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, uses this attack to justify the identification of Americans in the Conservative movement as potential terrorists. The CIA will no longer be monitoring communications with Al Qaeda but will instead be monitoring calls into talk radio.

Napolitano said, "We believe that the terrorists who attacked the White House listen to talk radio and will be calling in to take responsibility." With that statement, the Democrats in Congress are pushing to have the Fairness Doctrine re-established stating that the imbalance on talk radio is leading to terrorism within the country.

A new Teleprompter Czar will be appointed shortly to ensure that the hack is not repeated.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

First Lady Breaks Fingernail - Bush Policies Blamed

First Lady Michele Obama broke a fingernail while zipping her dress yesterday. A dress she had, shockingly enough, previously worn. White House insiders revealed that both the President and the First Lady railed against the previous Bush policies that forced her to zip her own dress and, therefore, break her nail.

In an attempt to offset the image of America as an arrogant country, which the President has consistently apologized for, the First Lady is attempting to show herself as a regular woman and mother. She is taking this seriously and has begun doing things for herself that she has not done in years. Zipping her own dress was one of these things.

It is common knowledge in the white house, and in the press, that anything bad that happens is the result of former President George W Bush's policies. However, anything good that happens is the result of President Obama's actions. The broken nail was simply the latest in a long line of tragedies to befall the country as a result of Bush's irresponsibility. Sadly, due to the one broken nail, all of the other nails had to be trimmed to match. This resulted in an emergency visit to the White House's personal manicurist costing the taxpayers $426,000.

President Obama is expected to request funding for a program to supply all Americans with a manicurist stating that the ability of some to afford a manicure while others cannot is a perfect example of the inequality in our nation. The new bill is expected to create 60,000 new jobs in the manicurist industry.

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Obama Proposes Constitutional Amendement to Make Himself King

President Barack Obama petitioned Congress today for a Constitutional Amendment to change the presidency into a monarchy. Stating that he has been ordained by God and chosen by the people to institute a change in the way our government functions, he requested that, from now on, he be referred to as His Royal Highness.

King Barack as he will now be called, went on to say that the leadership of the nation is far too important to be trusted to a bunch of rednecks and hillbillies clinging to their God and their guns. A cheer went up from Congress with this pronouncement as he mirrored the thoughts of so many there. Immediately after the teleprompter quit scrolling, the draft of the new amendment was begun. There was, of course, some argument from the right side of the congressional aisle as the "party of no" objected to this latest advancement in our country's governmental policies. Luckily there are not enough of them to stop the amendment from passing.

The final bill is expected to be presented, voted on and passed on Tuesday. The King's new sceptre and crown have already been ordered and will be shipped from China as soon as they are completed.

Any attempt to stop this new amendment will be considered sedition at best and treason at worst. Having shown such an admiration for Britain's interrogation techniques in the past, King Barack is adopting the traditional British punishment for treason. This means that those convicted of treason will be dipped in hot oil, disemboweled and drawn and quartered. However, they will not be water boarded as that has been determined to be too extreme.

Long live the King.

Friday, May 8, 2009

Drew Peterson's Fiance - How Stupid Can You Be

Drew Peterson, who was finally arrested for the murder of his third wife, is having trouble with his current fiance. She's not so hyped about marrying him anymore. The question I have is what in world would posses you to get engaged to a man who'd been married 4 times before with one wife dead and the other missing? A 4 time married man is not a very good bet in the matrimonial crap shoot anyway, but under the additional circumstances what could she be thinking.

Wouldn't you wonder what was wrong with the man if 4 other women had married and left him? Wouldn't you wonder if he wasn't quite what he appeared to be? I'm leery of anybody who has been divorced twice, if it were 4 times I'd be running for the hills.

Are young women so desperate to get married that they overlook this kind of thing? I just don't understand it. If you can explain it to me, please do.

Budget Cuts, Yippee!

In order to save money (yeah right) we are slashing the federal budget on some pesky programs. Are we getting rid of ear marks? Nope. Are we getting rid of pork projects? Nope. Are we eliminating redundant bureaucracies? Nope. What we are slashing is our national security budget. We don't actually need to protect the country anymore anyway. After all, the rest of the world loves Obama now so nobody would dare attack. Again, yeah right.

President Obama has announced that he is cutting the budget on death benefits for surviving spouses of police officers killed in the line of duty. Well that's a good benefit to cut. Those union workers need their benefits but we shouldn't waste tax payer money on the cops. Oh, and we're cutting the budget for the missile defense system. Just because North Korea is testing missiles that could reach Alaska, well that's no reason to waste money on a defense. After all, if Korea takes out Alaska then Obama gets the benefit of eliminating Sarah Palin. But that's not all folks. Nope, there's more. They've also cut the budget for the building of the border wall. The funds were already approved for that and just haven't been spent because nobody will get around to building the darn thing, so now he's taken the money away. We're just going to give citizenship to everybody who crosses so why bother to try to keep them out. And finally, my personal favorite, the cuts for bomb and nuclear sensing equipment in our ports. After all the hoopla over not having the tools to test the ports, we're now getting rid of what we set up. This all sounds smart doesn't it.

So we're spending our tax dollars buying companies and bailing out unions but taking money from national security. I'm afraid that he really does believe that we're safe now that he's president. I honestly think he believes that he's so popular overseas that nobody will attack us now.

The main function of the federal government is to keep the country secure and protect our sovereignty, but he's spending trillions to set up his pet projects and slashing the budget for the 2 things that should be his priority. And then he keeps coming out and asking for more money for more social programs, like the education grants today. He doesn't seem to understand that there's only so much money to pay for things. Does he think the funding for the government is limitless? Yes, I believe he does. He'll just go to the people he's supposed to be helping in order to get more.

Oh, and did I mention that he wants to tax company supplied health care for people who have it to pay for those who don't. That's a great idea isn't it?

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Beginnings of Behaving Badly

Common courtesy ain't all that common anymore. So what happened to it? Well do you remember years ago the arguments that "you can't legislate morality"? Well that's it. Instead of legislating morality (which is really what laws are) we legislated immorality. We protected bad behavior.

Arguments were made that you couldn't teach morals or values in school. And now we wonder why our children behave so badly. Teachers can't punish students, so now we have teachers who fear for their lives. We said you shouldn't be held responsible for your own actions. That you shouldn't have to deal with the consequences, and that your mistakes aren't your fault but somebody else's anyway. We abandoned the idea that we need to first ensure that our children become decent human beings. And now we wonder why people behave so badly?

Capitalism doesn't work well without strong ethics, but we said we couldn't teach those and we wonder what's going wrong. And instead of taking a long hard look at what we've done, we use this mistake to justify government becoming our nanny. So now the same people who said we couldn't legislate morality are legislating EVERYTHING. We couldn't teach children the difference between right and wrong , but can now legislate what they can eat, what they can say, and how warm they can keep their houses? Now we expel a child for bringing an aspirin to school or for praying for a friend and yet we don't punish verbal or physical attacks on teachers. Where the heck have our priorities gone?

The funny thing is that when I went to school I could take aspirin for my headaches but if I back talked a teacher I was in serious trouble. When did we make this switch and why? I understand that we need to be worried about drugs in school, but we should be as concerned as what comes out of a child's mouth as what goes in it.

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Slow Down and Step Back

Today Kathleen Sebelius, the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, told Congress that Health care reform must be done now, that it can't wait another year. Oh dear, yet another emergency situation in our government. But why can't it wait another year?

What about the situation is so unbelievably horrendous that we cannot take health care reform slowly and do it right? What is so much of an emergency that we have to hurry up to spend yet another several billion that we don't have? Where are we going to get the money? China isn't all that excited about lending us more money.

Why is Health care reform such an emergency? I don't understand. What is so different now that it was 15 years ago? What makes this yet another crisis in the Obama Administration?

Health care reform is going to be a major, major, major change to the country and it is not something that should be rushed. I'm not jazzed about having the government in control of the health care system anyway, and the idea of them rushing into it as the result of another imagined "crisis" scares the bejeezus out of me. I'd far rather see this taken too slowly but result in a great product than have it rushed out and the shiny new health care reform program suck. And let's face reality here, with the government in charge of it there is a 98% probability that the health care reform will suck to a level heretofore unknown to mankind.

This is just one more situation where the White House is stating that something is an emergency and must be done now. The trend we are seeing for this administration is to implement first and work out the kinks later. How much of our money have they wasted because they wanted to get it out there first and set guidelines for the expenditures later?

When it comes to health care reform, slow down, take some time, and if you're going to do it, at least do it right.

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

How About A Few New Political Parties

I've had it up to my eyeballs with both the Democrats and Republicans and how they present the "issues" of the day. How about we create some new parties whose very name states where they stand? Instead of having the two party system with the Republicans and Democrats we could have the Constitutionalists and the Revisionists. Or how about the Individualists and the Collectivists? This is a better representation of the people even if not of the parties.

The Constitutionalist / Individualist party would represent the principles and beliefs of the founding fathers. That government should be small and that the rights of the individual prevail. It would be a party that stands up for personal accountability and ownership of your own life, your own success, and most importantly, your own failures. It would be the party that believes that the Constitution does not evolve except through the amendment process. The party that embraces our early history and the wisdom it provided.

The Revisionists / Collectivist party would represent more the principles of Europe. That we need big government and that the government knows best. It would be the party that believes that the individual rights don't matter as much as the collective whole. That all individuals should be doing what's best for the whole instead of what's best for them. This would be the party that believes that the Constitution evolves with the times and that it's principles are suggestions and not directives. The party that looks to Europe for inspiration instead of to our past.

Most Americans would fall somewhere on the spectrum of these two parties. This would give us clear communication on where the party stands and who we as individuals should stand with based on our own individual beliefs. This would be far superior to the amalgam of the two parties we have seen as they compete for the same voters. And oddly enough, the more they complete for certain demographics the more they abandon the others.

If you have other suggestions or ideas for new party names, please let me know. I welcome comments, but please be polite.

Monday, May 4, 2009

Empathy VS The Rule Of Law

Several times President Obama has stated that he'll look for a Supreme Court Justice who will bring empathy to the bench. I've written on this before, but what makes this one different is an inconsistency that jumped up and smacked me in the face today. My cheek still stings from that slap. On one hand we have the administration speaking about how we have to adhere to the rule of law and no considerations can be given to circumstances when looking at what the previous administration did. They've released the names and addresses of our CIA interrogators, released classified documents, and are even now considering dealing with the Spanish Judge who wants to try our previous president for war crimes. This is all under the guise of "adhering to the rule of law." And then with the next breath they're saying that we need a Supreme Court Justice with empathy. That a person's situation and experiences need to be considered in any decision. This has me scratching my head a bit.

So which is it? Do we adhere to the rule of law, or do we have empathy? No consideration is being made to the previous administration for the situation they were in or the circumstances they faced. No empathy. So is the current administration saying that everybody deserves empathy except for the previous administration?

What bothers me here is the double standard. Pick a stance and hold it. Stay with it. Rule of law or empathy. But either way, we are sure seeing that according to Obama all men are not created equal.

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion. - Thomas Jefferson

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Our Greedy Government

As you might have guessed from the name I write under, I'm a fan of our founding fathers, and especially Thomas Jefferson. All we need to know about how our government should run we can find in quotes from our founding fathers. The recent spending sprees and discussions of tax increases is in direct violation of the intent of our founding fathers.

Thomas Jefferson once said - "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."

Has our government been frugal? Now there's a good laugh. Frugality is definitely not their strong suit. They spend money with less thought than a teenager with their first credit card. Instead of looking for how to make things run more efficiently and save as much of our money as they can, they simply take more. They take our money to create programs that we wouldn't need if they didn't take our money in the first place.

Has our government been wise? The only wisdom they have shown is in how to get themselves reelected. Their ear marks and pork barrel projects are not wise for the country but wise for themselves.

Are they allowing us to regulate our own pursuits of industry and improvement? Didn't we just basically take over the banks? Didn't the government just use our money to save companies who, through their own bad management, drove themselves into bankruptcy?

Our government has become the very opposite of what Jefferson listed as "good". So we can deduce that our government is now bad. Make our government good again. Speak out. Take the government back from the politicians and return it to the people.

Jefferson also said - "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories."

Don't sit idly by. Don't let our government continue to degenerate.

Friday, May 1, 2009

All Men Are (Not) Created Equal

Our Declaration of Independence states that we hold truths to be self-evident. One of them, the first one, is that all men are created equal. This is the main building block of this country. This is the very core of who we are as a country. All men are equal. The law applies to us all the same way. For the same situation a rich man and a poor man will get the same rule of law. We are all the same in the eyes of justice. But is this all about to change?

Obama has stated that he wants to bring "empathy" to the bench. That he wants a Justice (and he may have the opportunity to appoint 3) who can understand what it means to be black or poor or gay in America. What this really means is that he wants somebody to decide cases based on the belief that all men are NOT created equal. Different decisions will be made based on the person's individual circumstances. This is the polar opposite of our self-evident truth. I guess that truth isn't so self-evident to President Obama.

If our first truth, our most important truth, is no longer held to be self-evident, we might want to start saying our farewells to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well.