Recently the White House web-site has been inundated with requests to allow their states to secede from the union peacefully.
First of all, I understand the frustration of losing the election. It hurts. I also know the frustration of knowing what is coming down the pipe towards us. More taxes. More regulation. Less freedom. More crap from the White House. It's like the time when I was in the backyard with some friends years ago and we were watching our kids play on the swing when we saw my friends 3 year run in front of the swinging kids. We knew what was about to happen but were powerless as we watched my son swing right into her, knocking her over like a bowling pin. It all happened in slow motion in our minds and I swear I felt a pain strike into me before she was struck.
So to it is with what we see happening before our very eyes. The death of the Republic and the rise of Socialist-States-of-America.
But in reality we are still the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. We must stick together and hope that through education (not the kind the schools provide) we can win back the hearts of our citizenry. Secession is NOT the answer because there are many around the world who would LOVE to see that happen for they know a divide USA is an impotent USA. Tough times are ahead. The 70's were not a cake-walk either. High gas prices. High unemployment. High interest rates (18%). Hostages in Iran. A Republican party in disarray after Watergate. A military coming back from its first defeat (Vietnam). Yet with all of this, America turned around and voted in Ronald Reagan in a land-slide. It can happen again, but only if we stick together.
Finally, I do not think it wise to "sign" the White House website request to secede. Putting your name on a document that some could use against you in the future is not a wise thing. I know it may be a way of "protesting" but protest is only useful if it brings about a change. This type of protest will never bring about change and is a dead end. Some have decided to protest by flying their flag upside down. This has been used by sea going vessels as a sign of "distress" and is not dishonoring the flag. However, I say do not do this lightly. Be ready for those around you who do not understand this as a sign of distress to call you unpatriotic and look to do you harm. Also, be ready with an answer to those who question your upside-down-flag. Be reasonable and thoughtful. Not angry.
If you have read my other blogs you know how much value I put in education. To me that is half the battle. For too long we let our public schools do all the teaching and this is what they have brought us. We must first educate ourselves and then our children, our grand-children, nieces, nephews, boy-scouts .. who ever. We must teach them REAL history and REAL values. We are blessed by God with the internet and EASY access to materials both written and in videos. We can show them Reagan's 1964 speech and Milton Friedmans 1980 TV series "Free to chose" . There are also countless websites that offer education free of charge such as : Prager University and Declaration Entertainment
And these are just a few..
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your MIND
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Monday, November 12, 2012
Between a rock and a hard place
Now the election is over and American has found itself in dire-straights for the next 4 years with a debt ceiling crisis looming (referred to as the fiscal cliff) we are right where many on the extreme-left have wanted to put us for a long time. Taking a page from Ronald Reagan they have put us on a road to serfdom that we may not be able to get out of without some Houdini-like maneuvers on our part.
To those who are unclear about that last sentence let me be more expound. Back in the 80's the US was in the middle of the Cold-War with their arch rival the USSR (Soviet Union) and many feared that the two countries would square off in a nuclear-war contest. Ronald Reagan however turned the Cold-War into Economic-War. Using our economic might, he ratcheted up our military spending building better aircraft, ships, submarines and satellites (Start Wars Initiative to take down incoming enemy missiles). Russia countered our efforts by spending larger and larger parts of their GDP to build up their own military, but because of their economic model their did not have as deep of pockets as our US government did causing them to go further into debt. As a result the people of the USSR suffered. They had to go without for a long period of time (food and resources were in short supply). The grumblings of "the masses" forced Russia to invoke Perestroika (reforms) that allowed more freedom of speech and ownership. This was the beginning of the end for the USSR.
Finally the debt was too much and the only way out was a full blown bankruptcy. Just as a company that is debt ridden can go through bankruptcy so also a country can and the methods are quiet similar.
First a company sells off its less necessary and viable parts allowing it to focus on its main areas. For Russia, this was letting go of its eastern block countries like Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia etc. With these gone, Russia would be able to serve its own people better
Second a company must restructure itself and come up with a better business plan/model. This may mean firing the CEO and several VP's and managers while also changing their system of rewards and bonuses. For Russia, this was throwing away their old Constitution and system of government and coming up with a new system that is fairer and just. Their new system allowed capitalism and free-markets to come in and develop new businesses.
With the first 2 steps in place, a company needs to bring in new investors to help fund them and pay off old debts (or at least the ones they can pay back). Without the first 2 steps, very few would be willing to take a chance. For Russia, we became their largest investor and gave them loans to keep their lights on until they could become a democratic republic.
Now here we are facing a debt crisis. Not one created by external forces, but one created by those inside who care little about our history and our system of government. Like Russia, we have been duped into running up huge debts through social-security, welfare, medicare and food-stamps. Later on we will start to feel the weight of the debt of all debts: Obamacare. All of this, at a time when our country is not at its HEIGHT of economic power, but at its WEAKEST. Our economy is in a perpetual recession (no one likes to say DEPRESSION anymore). Higher taxes coming will do two things.
1) Slow our economy further causing more layoffs. These layoffs will increase to government
expenditures in welfare and food-stamps.
2) Higher taxes will cause lower revenues (Laffer-curve) as incentive to grow income will be
reduced. Higher debts will call for MORE taxes and therefore reduced revenues
At some point we, like Russia, will have to say "UNCLE" and call in the bankruptcy attorneys (the UN) to negotiate a new system of government. This new system of course will not be as free as the last one, because to them it's FREEDOM that is the cause of all the ills in this world. To them, too much freedom is a bad thing and allows too much money to go in the hands of too few. Ronald Reagan predicted this day would happen and said in his 1960 speech, "When that time comes, our surrender will be VOLUNTARY because by that time we will have been weakened within: spiritually, morally and economically".
To those of you who think this is all just conspiracy stuff, let me discuss what happened in 2008. If you remember when the debt-crisis first came out in the fall of 2008, by January of 2009, Congress had a 2000 page stimulus bill ready to pass with over $800 billion in goodies to pass out. Did that bill just write itself? Of course not. A group called "The Apollo Alliance" had been working on it over several years in the "event such a catastrophe occurred", Amazing huh? We are so lucky to have such a group spending their time thinking about these things. Given this, don't you think there are people out there right this very minute working on a NEW CONSTITUTION for us to pass in the event we just might need one?
What can be done? We are in a very difficult position. If business pushes itself and gets the economy running it will only encourage more people to vote for the democrats and would show Obama as the "economic saviour" of our country and further push his agenda. If business slows down and lays off more people then that plays into the democrats hands all over again and will cause us to race towards the fiscal-cliff.
To me the only solution would be for business to shutdown in a massive way such that no matter how much sugar the media tries to put on it things will look extremely bad. This will destroy Obama's clout and any "mandate" he thought he had and hopefully by 2014 we would be able to have a revolution at the polls where people will vote with their pocket books and not their bleeding-hearts.
To those who are unclear about that last sentence let me be more expound. Back in the 80's the US was in the middle of the Cold-War with their arch rival the USSR (Soviet Union) and many feared that the two countries would square off in a nuclear-war contest. Ronald Reagan however turned the Cold-War into Economic-War. Using our economic might, he ratcheted up our military spending building better aircraft, ships, submarines and satellites (Start Wars Initiative to take down incoming enemy missiles). Russia countered our efforts by spending larger and larger parts of their GDP to build up their own military, but because of their economic model their did not have as deep of pockets as our US government did causing them to go further into debt. As a result the people of the USSR suffered. They had to go without for a long period of time (food and resources were in short supply). The grumblings of "the masses" forced Russia to invoke Perestroika (reforms) that allowed more freedom of speech and ownership. This was the beginning of the end for the USSR.
Finally the debt was too much and the only way out was a full blown bankruptcy. Just as a company that is debt ridden can go through bankruptcy so also a country can and the methods are quiet similar.
First a company sells off its less necessary and viable parts allowing it to focus on its main areas. For Russia, this was letting go of its eastern block countries like Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia etc. With these gone, Russia would be able to serve its own people better
Second a company must restructure itself and come up with a better business plan/model. This may mean firing the CEO and several VP's and managers while also changing their system of rewards and bonuses. For Russia, this was throwing away their old Constitution and system of government and coming up with a new system that is fairer and just. Their new system allowed capitalism and free-markets to come in and develop new businesses.
With the first 2 steps in place, a company needs to bring in new investors to help fund them and pay off old debts (or at least the ones they can pay back). Without the first 2 steps, very few would be willing to take a chance. For Russia, we became their largest investor and gave them loans to keep their lights on until they could become a democratic republic.
Now here we are facing a debt crisis. Not one created by external forces, but one created by those inside who care little about our history and our system of government. Like Russia, we have been duped into running up huge debts through social-security, welfare, medicare and food-stamps. Later on we will start to feel the weight of the debt of all debts: Obamacare. All of this, at a time when our country is not at its HEIGHT of economic power, but at its WEAKEST. Our economy is in a perpetual recession (no one likes to say DEPRESSION anymore). Higher taxes coming will do two things.
1) Slow our economy further causing more layoffs. These layoffs will increase to government
expenditures in welfare and food-stamps.
2) Higher taxes will cause lower revenues (Laffer-curve) as incentive to grow income will be
reduced. Higher debts will call for MORE taxes and therefore reduced revenues
At some point we, like Russia, will have to say "UNCLE" and call in the bankruptcy attorneys (the UN) to negotiate a new system of government. This new system of course will not be as free as the last one, because to them it's FREEDOM that is the cause of all the ills in this world. To them, too much freedom is a bad thing and allows too much money to go in the hands of too few. Ronald Reagan predicted this day would happen and said in his 1960 speech, "When that time comes, our surrender will be VOLUNTARY because by that time we will have been weakened within: spiritually, morally and economically".
To those of you who think this is all just conspiracy stuff, let me discuss what happened in 2008. If you remember when the debt-crisis first came out in the fall of 2008, by January of 2009, Congress had a 2000 page stimulus bill ready to pass with over $800 billion in goodies to pass out. Did that bill just write itself? Of course not. A group called "The Apollo Alliance" had been working on it over several years in the "event such a catastrophe occurred", Amazing huh? We are so lucky to have such a group spending their time thinking about these things. Given this, don't you think there are people out there right this very minute working on a NEW CONSTITUTION for us to pass in the event we just might need one?
What can be done? We are in a very difficult position. If business pushes itself and gets the economy running it will only encourage more people to vote for the democrats and would show Obama as the "economic saviour" of our country and further push his agenda. If business slows down and lays off more people then that plays into the democrats hands all over again and will cause us to race towards the fiscal-cliff.
To me the only solution would be for business to shutdown in a massive way such that no matter how much sugar the media tries to put on it things will look extremely bad. This will destroy Obama's clout and any "mandate" he thought he had and hopefully by 2014 we would be able to have a revolution at the polls where people will vote with their pocket books and not their bleeding-hearts.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Increase the DEBT by increasing TAX RATES
PREFACE:
Obama just met with reports to discuss the issue of the national debt. During the speech Obama specifically said that in the talks he would NOT allow "dynamic scoring" of whatever budget is produced. What is "dynamic scoring" ?? It is where the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) takes into account that raising tax rates effects taxpayers behavior and can cause a decrease in revenue (and therefore an increase in the national debt). This blog was written BEFORE the President made his remarks and proves that the President fully knows that the Laffer-Curve is real which is why he wants to use "static scoring" in which tax rates do not effect our behavior (under this method we would gladly pay 100% of our income to the government).
PLEASE READ THE REST OF THIS BLOG FOR MORE EXPLANATION
Does the title of this blog seem odd?
It will for most people.
Human reason seems to make you think that RAISING TAXES should INCREASE REVENUES and therefore DECREASE THE DEBT.
But that is not reality (something Washington DC is lacking in). It has been a long proven fact an effect called "The Laffer Curve" is an economic reality.
The Laffer-Curve was developed by the famous economist Art Laffer who showed that people do not hand over their income to the government without considering ways to reduce their tax levels. To prove this effect, let us first consider a graph showing the relationship between tax rates of 0% to 100% and how much revenue the government collects. At the low end when the government has a tax rate of 0% the government collects $0 in revenue ( 0 time anything is 0). When the government sets the tax rate to 1% they will collect $R of revenue. When they raise the tax level to 2% they can pretty much be sure they will collect 2 x $R in revenue since the tax level is still relatively low. At 3% they will collect 3 x $R.
Now let's consider the extreme level of 100%. How many people are going go to work if they have to turn over 100% of their income to the government. That is slavery! Since there is no incentive to work, there will be $0 collected by the government. Even at 99% there is still little desire to work. At some level (maybe 70%) we might feel some accomplishment in going to work and begin to get off our couches and earn some income, although most of us would find some way to under-report our income either by working for cash or barter so that we can keep more of our income.
So we have 2 areas of positive revenue growth on both the left (low side) of the scale and at the right (high side) of the scale. Therefore there must be a place in the middle where they meet in which the slope of the line is 0 (or horizontal). This point on the graph is pointed to above with arrow from X% . This place is where the MAXIMUM level of tax revenue is gathered by the government. Going OVER this level and the government will start to see a REDUCTION in revenues gathered.
The question remained for some time , "What is the value of X?". For some time, many thought the level was at about 70%,but after the Reagan tax reduction from 75% to 38% we saw the government revenues grow and not shrink therefore we knew X had to be much lower. Finally a study done by 2 professors of economics at UC Berkley called the Romer-and-Romer study (they are married) determined that X was at about 33%. which is where our highest level of taxation is today.
Are these two economists just some right-wing-tea-party-loving extremists? NO! In fact, these 2 professors were put on the Obama administrations counsel on economic reform so we can be sure that President Obama is fully aware that moving the tax levels above where they are today will cause the government to see a reduction in tax revenues if they pursue their "plan of increasing the taxes on the top 2% of earners".
I believe this is the Presidents overall strategy for by doing so he can bankrupt the country at a faster rate AND make it seem like it was not his fault since, after all, he forced the wealthy to pay more of their "fair share". You might say he will be able "have his cake AND eat it too". Today he just wants a 3% increase on the highest tax rate, but what will happen is we will see fewer $$ in revenue and an increase in the national debt. The democrats will call for even HIGHER tax rates on the wealthy which will result in even LESS revenue The debt will grow faster and the democrats will call for even HIGHER taxes....
Do you get the picture now?
Each increase in taxes will result in fewer revenues and more debt thereby making us drive toward the "fiscal cliff" at higher and higher speeds.
Obama just met with reports to discuss the issue of the national debt. During the speech Obama specifically said that in the talks he would NOT allow "dynamic scoring" of whatever budget is produced. What is "dynamic scoring" ?? It is where the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) takes into account that raising tax rates effects taxpayers behavior and can cause a decrease in revenue (and therefore an increase in the national debt). This blog was written BEFORE the President made his remarks and proves that the President fully knows that the Laffer-Curve is real which is why he wants to use "static scoring" in which tax rates do not effect our behavior (under this method we would gladly pay 100% of our income to the government).
PLEASE READ THE REST OF THIS BLOG FOR MORE EXPLANATION
Does the title of this blog seem odd?
It will for most people.
Human reason seems to make you think that RAISING TAXES should INCREASE REVENUES and therefore DECREASE THE DEBT.
But that is not reality (something Washington DC is lacking in). It has been a long proven fact an effect called "The Laffer Curve" is an economic reality.
The Laffer-Curve was developed by the famous economist Art Laffer who showed that people do not hand over their income to the government without considering ways to reduce their tax levels. To prove this effect, let us first consider a graph showing the relationship between tax rates of 0% to 100% and how much revenue the government collects. At the low end when the government has a tax rate of 0% the government collects $0 in revenue ( 0 time anything is 0). When the government sets the tax rate to 1% they will collect $R of revenue. When they raise the tax level to 2% they can pretty much be sure they will collect 2 x $R in revenue since the tax level is still relatively low. At 3% they will collect 3 x $R.
Now let's consider the extreme level of 100%. How many people are going go to work if they have to turn over 100% of their income to the government. That is slavery! Since there is no incentive to work, there will be $0 collected by the government. Even at 99% there is still little desire to work. At some level (maybe 70%) we might feel some accomplishment in going to work and begin to get off our couches and earn some income, although most of us would find some way to under-report our income either by working for cash or barter so that we can keep more of our income.
So we have 2 areas of positive revenue growth on both the left (low side) of the scale and at the right (high side) of the scale. Therefore there must be a place in the middle where they meet in which the slope of the line is 0 (or horizontal). This point on the graph is pointed to above with arrow from X% . This place is where the MAXIMUM level of tax revenue is gathered by the government. Going OVER this level and the government will start to see a REDUCTION in revenues gathered.
The question remained for some time , "What is the value of X?". For some time, many thought the level was at about 70%,but after the Reagan tax reduction from 75% to 38% we saw the government revenues grow and not shrink therefore we knew X had to be much lower. Finally a study done by 2 professors of economics at UC Berkley called the Romer-and-Romer study (they are married) determined that X was at about 33%. which is where our highest level of taxation is today.
Are these two economists just some right-wing-tea-party-loving extremists? NO! In fact, these 2 professors were put on the Obama administrations counsel on economic reform so we can be sure that President Obama is fully aware that moving the tax levels above where they are today will cause the government to see a reduction in tax revenues if they pursue their "plan of increasing the taxes on the top 2% of earners".
I believe this is the Presidents overall strategy for by doing so he can bankrupt the country at a faster rate AND make it seem like it was not his fault since, after all, he forced the wealthy to pay more of their "fair share". You might say he will be able "have his cake AND eat it too". Today he just wants a 3% increase on the highest tax rate, but what will happen is we will see fewer $$ in revenue and an increase in the national debt. The democrats will call for even HIGHER tax rates on the wealthy which will result in even LESS revenue The debt will grow faster and the democrats will call for even HIGHER taxes....
Do you get the picture now?
Each increase in taxes will result in fewer revenues and more debt thereby making us drive toward the "fiscal cliff" at higher and higher speeds.
New Poll: 50% of Americans believe in Santa Claus
A poll done on Tuesday delivered some very good news for our retail stores this Christmas. The poll revealed that 50% of Americans believe in Santa Claus. That's right Virginia! There IS a Santa Claus after all only he does not reside at the North Pole and he does not ride a red sleigh pulled by 8 reindeer. Instead Santa Clause now resides in a large white building on Pennsylvania avenue in Washington DC and he doesn't limit his gifts to just good little boys and girls. He gives gifts to all of his constituents who voted for him and coal (the clean variety) for those who did not. He also doesn't need to carry a large red sack over his shoulder and deliver them on one night a year. Instead, this Santa Claus delivers all year long and his gifts are handed out by elves who work (if you want to call it "work") in unemployment offices and welfare offices across our land handing out free money and food stamps for all who "need" them. He can also hand out electronic gift cards to the banks using the Federal Reserve through Qualitative Easing (QE1,2,3...) so he doesn't have to use printing presses to print REAL money and get his fingers dirty with all the ink.
Yes America now believes in Santa Claus.
They believe that all these free gifts are all payable by taxing the rich, but little do they know that if they confiscated 100% OF ALL THE WEALTH (not just their income but also emptied their bank accounts and confiscated all their assets) we would only be able to pay for 1 year of our national expenditures and after that there would be nothing left over for the next years expenditures.
But as we the "grown-ups" know , there is NO Santa Claus. We know this because it is US who pays the credit card bills in January for all the crap we lavished on our children on December 25th. We feel the pain of cutting back on things we like to do and places we like to go to so we can make those payments (with interest) and so it is with our country. The children now out-number the grown-ups and they want Christmas to be extended and made a year-round holiday. The children voted and Santa Claus won and like our own situations at home, we the grown-ups will be footing the bill for generations to come. There is little that the other side can do other than wait for the bag of goodies to run out. After all, how can the other side compete with Santa Claus? If you gave a child a choice between Santa Claus giving him free gifts or him making his own toys, what do you think they will choose? No matter how eloquently you speak of the feeling of satisfaction you will get by making your own toys and how proud you would feel about them, the child will always choose "free gifts". So what do we do?
To me the answer is education.
I am sorry to say this, but it's time we stop teaching our children about jolly old St. Nick. Maybe we need to teach our children reality rather than mythology. We need to educate our children about taxes and spending. We need to indoctrinate them on the values of making things and producing rather than sucking on the teet of the government. We need to teach them about freedom and free-enterprise. We need to show them that you cannot solve all the worlds problems and develop a totally "fair" society. We need to teach the the evils of Socialism and that any one who can "give you everything" can also therefore "take everything you have".
The church as well MUST take a stand and be involved in this education as well. Especially the Catholic Church. For too long the Catholic Church has sided with Democrats on "social issues" (even though they violently disagree on abortion) and now finds itself at odds with the party it once promoted. Now it is time for them to change sides and help educate the immigrants who come here (most of whom are Catholic) on the problems of the Democratic Party and on what it means to be an American. For too long the churches have been silent, thinking it to be a "sin" to speak "evil" against the government even though the government speaks evil of them. THIS HAS GOT TO STOP!
Unless we do this, we will doom our children to a bankrupted country (just like the USSR in the 90's) and faced with a choice of either crushing levels of taxes or a NEW CONSTITUTION and a NEW FORM OF GOVERNMENT (and trust me that new government will not promote a free society either).
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Beware the man who has nothing to lose
Well the election is over and Obama has 4 more years to tear down this country with his taxes and regulations and as he messaged to Vladimere Putin, he will have more "flexibility when he wins his next election".
For those who think Obama will consult Clinton on how to conduct himself on his 2nd term, move to the center and reach out to Republicans all I have to say to is..
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MINDS????
Obama has never lived in the center and certainly will not be worrying about how to get there now.
No. He has wanted this position and he has us exactly where he wants us. He has NOTHING TO FEAR because he has NOTHING TO LOSE.
He has already said he doesn't need Congress. After all he can change our country by using his many administrations and czars.
He doesn't need Senate approval for his appointments... he can appoint whoever he wants when they are in recess or declare another person to be the Czar of XYZ
He doesn't need bills to pass the House or the Senate... he can have the EPA pass any regulation he needs or order the Justice Department to ignore any law he doesn't agree with.
He doesn't need Congress to approve of where or how he uses the military... he can order his drones at will to kill whoever he wills (US citizen or not) or send in his troops in any country for however long he needs (like he did in Libya).
He doesn't need to ever answer to Congress for any laws his administration may have broken... he can just declare Executive Privilege at will and prevent any committees from getting to bottom of its many cases it is investigating.
He doesn't need a budget to be passed ... he can just have the Federal Reserve hand out free "digital money" to the banks through QE3,4,5.. (Qualitative Easing is where the Fed electronically prints money into the banks accounts which he has done 3 times already) and cause massive inflation when that money goes into circulation.
(In fact I think Congress should just go on a 4 year vacation because I can guarantee they won't be needed by this President and will be wasting there time hanging around the Capitol building waiting for bi-partisan direction to come from the White House)
He doesn't need to fear the press for he knows they are his lap dogs (attack dogs when he needs them).
I have little hope that the next 4 years will be better than the last 4 years but I pray that I am wrong. But one hope I do have is this....
OBAMA CANNOT RUN FOR A THIRD TERM!!!!
THANK GOD!
POST NOTE:
The Roman Empire started out as a Republic as well and only with the advent of a General by the name of Julius Caesar did they abandon this form of government for an Emperor. As the Emperor's became more and more powerful their Senate became impotent and their wealth and power was squandered until there was nothing left. And so it will become of us too I fear for history repeats itself for humans are deaf to its lessons.
For those who think Obama will consult Clinton on how to conduct himself on his 2nd term, move to the center and reach out to Republicans all I have to say to is..
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MINDS????
Obama has never lived in the center and certainly will not be worrying about how to get there now.
No. He has wanted this position and he has us exactly where he wants us. He has NOTHING TO FEAR because he has NOTHING TO LOSE.
He has already said he doesn't need Congress. After all he can change our country by using his many administrations and czars.
He doesn't need Senate approval for his appointments... he can appoint whoever he wants when they are in recess or declare another person to be the Czar of XYZ
He doesn't need bills to pass the House or the Senate... he can have the EPA pass any regulation he needs or order the Justice Department to ignore any law he doesn't agree with.
He doesn't need Congress to approve of where or how he uses the military... he can order his drones at will to kill whoever he wills (US citizen or not) or send in his troops in any country for however long he needs (like he did in Libya).
He doesn't need to ever answer to Congress for any laws his administration may have broken... he can just declare Executive Privilege at will and prevent any committees from getting to bottom of its many cases it is investigating.
He doesn't need a budget to be passed ... he can just have the Federal Reserve hand out free "digital money" to the banks through QE3,4,5.. (Qualitative Easing is where the Fed electronically prints money into the banks accounts which he has done 3 times already) and cause massive inflation when that money goes into circulation.
(In fact I think Congress should just go on a 4 year vacation because I can guarantee they won't be needed by this President and will be wasting there time hanging around the Capitol building waiting for bi-partisan direction to come from the White House)
He doesn't need to fear the press for he knows they are his lap dogs (attack dogs when he needs them).
I have little hope that the next 4 years will be better than the last 4 years but I pray that I am wrong. But one hope I do have is this....
OBAMA CANNOT RUN FOR A THIRD TERM!!!!
THANK GOD!
POST NOTE:
The Roman Empire started out as a Republic as well and only with the advent of a General by the name of Julius Caesar did they abandon this form of government for an Emperor. As the Emperor's became more and more powerful their Senate became impotent and their wealth and power was squandered until there was nothing left. And so it will become of us too I fear for history repeats itself for humans are deaf to its lessons.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Prop 30 revenge
Well with 41% of the precincts reporting, it looks like Proposition 30 here in California is going to be passed.
For those of you who are outside of California (I envy you), Prop 30 requires 1/4 % sales tax increase along with increasing the tax rates on those making more than $250,000 dollars. All this money will be used to pay for the pension shortfalls of our beloved public school teachers who work so hard 9 months a year (sarcasm added).
So how should Californian's get the final say in this? Well I can't do much about the income tax increase, but I can do something about the sales tax increase.
My answer? Buy all your big items on the internet at every opportunity.
Stick it to California and tell them you are not going to be sheared anymore.
For those of you who are outside of California (I envy you), Prop 30 requires 1/4 % sales tax increase along with increasing the tax rates on those making more than $250,000 dollars. All this money will be used to pay for the pension shortfalls of our beloved public school teachers who work so hard 9 months a year (sarcasm added).
So how should Californian's get the final say in this? Well I can't do much about the income tax increase, but I can do something about the sales tax increase.
My answer? Buy all your big items on the internet at every opportunity.
Stick it to California and tell them you are not going to be sheared anymore.
Open Letter to Mitt Romney
Dear Mr. Romney,
Thank you for your service and your effort at defeating Obama in this election. You worked tirelessly and did everything we could expect from a candidate. You showed grace and kindness that was not returned by the other side. Though they tried to destroy your reputation and cast you as a horrible person, you took the high road and made your campaign about the economy and how we need to turn this ship around before we bankrupt our children. You ran a very moral and uplifting campaign that we can all be proud of. As I have told my family, I would rather run a campaign that God can be proud of and lose than to run a campaign that the Devil would enjoy and win.
You have nothing to be ashamed of and you can hold your head high. May God bless you and encourage you in the days to come. If you ran again I would vote for you all over again.
John from Rocklin, CA
Thank you for your service and your effort at defeating Obama in this election. You worked tirelessly and did everything we could expect from a candidate. You showed grace and kindness that was not returned by the other side. Though they tried to destroy your reputation and cast you as a horrible person, you took the high road and made your campaign about the economy and how we need to turn this ship around before we bankrupt our children. You ran a very moral and uplifting campaign that we can all be proud of. As I have told my family, I would rather run a campaign that God can be proud of and lose than to run a campaign that the Devil would enjoy and win.
You have nothing to be ashamed of and you can hold your head high. May God bless you and encourage you in the days to come. If you ran again I would vote for you all over again.
John from Rocklin, CA
Monday, November 5, 2012
Probationary period is over..time to let him GO!
If I sat at my desk during work and did nothing but play solitaire or Sudoku all day long I would be guilty of stealing from my employer because I am not performing the duties for which I agreed to be paid for. In fact, at where I work, being caught sleeping on the job is grounds for automatic termination.
Firing someone is not easy nor is it enjoyable. Recently a good friend of mine was re-hired by the company I work for, only he was not the same person who had previously worked with me. He went through some very painful and stressful situations while working for other companies which, I believe, caused him to have a complete nervous breakdown. It was difficult to watch a person who once was so brilliant and so capable be turned into an introverted and impotent employee. He never came into work but opted to work from home on his computer. Week after week went by and no progress was made. He missed staff meetings constantly. He forgot critical meetings and deadlines. After 6 months, his probationary period was over and our boss had to make the critical decision to let him go. It was agonizing but there was no other choice.
To let him continue "working" would make all of his guilty of cheating the company out of 100's of thousands of dollars. I hated to see him go because I saw him not only as a co-worker but also as a friend of 18 years.
So it is with our choice tomorrow (Nov 6th).
We made a choice back in 2008. We chose (although I did not vote for him, as an American I must say WE CHOSE because that is what WE DID) an unknown upstart from Illinois. A man who never worked in business but instead was a "community organizer". We chose a man who spent most of his years in the Illinois senate voting "present" rather than "yes" or "no". A man who spent only 2 years as a US Senator. We chose a man who could give great speeches and had great campaign slogans of "HOPE and CHANGE" or "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN".
This was similar to what I did when I helped re-hire my friend. I saw some changes in his behavior that was concerning during his interview. He spoke very softly (almost to the point you could not hear him). He appeared VERY agitated when the subject of some people he worked with previously came up. But we (there were several of us who interviewed him who were his friends) decided to look past all of that because we were emotionally attached to him. We hoped that during his probationary period things would change and he would come around and be the engineer he was before. But, alas, that was not to be the case and our hopes were dashed.
The same can be said for President Obama. We had the same "hope" when the American people elected him, but now 4 years later the "probationary period" is over and we must decided to keep him on for 4 more years or let him go. And like my situation, I must decide if I am going to be complacent and be an accomplice in this theft or I am going to do the right thing.
Let's look at the facts:
When we interviewed him in 2008 he said he would cut the national debt in half by the end of his first term. He called Bush's addition of 4 trillion in 8 years (500 Billion every year) "unpatriotic". Now 4 years later Obama has added 5 Trillion dollars (1,250 Billion every year).
When Obama took office he said that with the $800B stimulus he would get unemployment down to 5.2% in 3 years. Well it has been 4 years and unemployment is 7.9% (and really its 10.5% if you factor in those who have given up looking for work).
In 2008 Obama lambasted Bush for spending too much time on the golf course and not in the White House dealing with issues that concern our country. Bush played 24 rounds of golf in 8 years (3 per year) and so far Obama has hit the links over 100 time in 4 years (25 per year). He also came off the golf course with just 20 minutes to spare before the take down of Osama Bin-Laden was complete (which is why in the Situation Room photo he is wearing someone else's jacket at the table).
In 2000, the Bush administration found out who was responsible for 9/11 within 24 hours. In 2012, it has been over 7 weeks and the Obama administration has yet to determine who and what caused the 9/11 attack on Benghazi that killed 4 Americans including a US Ambassador. Instead, they trotted out the YouTube video as the cause of riots and arrested an American citizen as the instigator even though we can see from the videos of the attack that it was an organized raid on our facilities and not a mob riot.
During the BP oil spill, Obama order ALL off-shore drilling stopped (not just those doing 1-mile deep drilling) causing many of our oil rigs to leave our coasts and drill for other countries because they are not going to stick around unused waiting for Obama to open them back up. He also gave $2 billion dollars to a Brazilian oil producer to drill in the Gulf at a depth 3 MILES (3 times more than BP was doing).
In 2008 he said he would be the most bi-partisan president ever. But instead under his leadership the Senate has not voted a budget in over 3 years and his own budget proposal was so far out of reality that the House voted against it 414-0 and the Senate voted against it 97-0. (He is not even uni-partisan with his own democrats).
When he could not get Cap-and-Trade passed through Congress he order his EPA to find ways to implement it though regulation by making CO2 an environment hazardous waste. (Yes. What we exhale as humans is now under government control). When he failed to get any legislation passed on immigration as he promised he would (even though for 2 years he had full control of the House and Senate) he decides to bypass Congress again and orders his justice department to not prosecute cases involving illegal immigrants under the age of 25. (Where is his vow to uphold the laws of the land and the Constitution?). He also orders his ICE agents to NOT assist Arizona in processing illegals they capture on their roads.
In 2008 he said it was wrong for Bush to use drones to kill terrorists because of civilian casualties. As President he has not ended the use of drones but increased it. His answer to civilian casualties is to RE-DEFINE all people killed within a 50 foot radius of a drone strike to be terrorists since their proximity to the target means they are probably involved.
In 2008 he said it was wrong of Bush to keep enemy terrorists in Gitmo without a trial even though these men are not US citizens he argued they deserved an American trial by jury. In 2011 the President orders the drone strike of Anwar al-Awlaki an American citizen who had Al-Qaeda connections. Later he orders another strike for Anwar al-Awlaki's 16 year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki because they deemed him a threat since most likely he had been radicalized as well and would most likely take his fathers place. (Where were these 2 US citizens rights to a trial by a jury Mr. President?)
In conclusion, we must FIRE this worker though it pains us to do so because we had such great hopes for him. We cannot expect better from him, in fact we can only expect worse. As in my case, people usually are on their BEST BEHAVIOR during the probationary period because they know they are being watched closely and they might not get held on. Often people's behaviors get WORSE after their probationary period because they know it will be harder for the company to fire them and they can get away with more. Those are the hard facts we must face.
Obama will , in my opinion, become more extreme in his views and his actions. He will issue MORE executive orders ... not less. He will order MORE regulations through the EPA ... not less. He will ignore the Constitution more... not less.
Firing someone is not easy nor is it enjoyable. Recently a good friend of mine was re-hired by the company I work for, only he was not the same person who had previously worked with me. He went through some very painful and stressful situations while working for other companies which, I believe, caused him to have a complete nervous breakdown. It was difficult to watch a person who once was so brilliant and so capable be turned into an introverted and impotent employee. He never came into work but opted to work from home on his computer. Week after week went by and no progress was made. He missed staff meetings constantly. He forgot critical meetings and deadlines. After 6 months, his probationary period was over and our boss had to make the critical decision to let him go. It was agonizing but there was no other choice.
To let him continue "working" would make all of his guilty of cheating the company out of 100's of thousands of dollars. I hated to see him go because I saw him not only as a co-worker but also as a friend of 18 years.
So it is with our choice tomorrow (Nov 6th).
We made a choice back in 2008. We chose (although I did not vote for him, as an American I must say WE CHOSE because that is what WE DID) an unknown upstart from Illinois. A man who never worked in business but instead was a "community organizer". We chose a man who spent most of his years in the Illinois senate voting "present" rather than "yes" or "no". A man who spent only 2 years as a US Senator. We chose a man who could give great speeches and had great campaign slogans of "HOPE and CHANGE" or "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN".
This was similar to what I did when I helped re-hire my friend. I saw some changes in his behavior that was concerning during his interview. He spoke very softly (almost to the point you could not hear him). He appeared VERY agitated when the subject of some people he worked with previously came up. But we (there were several of us who interviewed him who were his friends) decided to look past all of that because we were emotionally attached to him. We hoped that during his probationary period things would change and he would come around and be the engineer he was before. But, alas, that was not to be the case and our hopes were dashed.
The same can be said for President Obama. We had the same "hope" when the American people elected him, but now 4 years later the "probationary period" is over and we must decided to keep him on for 4 more years or let him go. And like my situation, I must decide if I am going to be complacent and be an accomplice in this theft or I am going to do the right thing.
Let's look at the facts:
When we interviewed him in 2008 he said he would cut the national debt in half by the end of his first term. He called Bush's addition of 4 trillion in 8 years (500 Billion every year) "unpatriotic". Now 4 years later Obama has added 5 Trillion dollars (1,250 Billion every year).
When Obama took office he said that with the $800B stimulus he would get unemployment down to 5.2% in 3 years. Well it has been 4 years and unemployment is 7.9% (and really its 10.5% if you factor in those who have given up looking for work).
In 2008 Obama lambasted Bush for spending too much time on the golf course and not in the White House dealing with issues that concern our country. Bush played 24 rounds of golf in 8 years (3 per year) and so far Obama has hit the links over 100 time in 4 years (25 per year). He also came off the golf course with just 20 minutes to spare before the take down of Osama Bin-Laden was complete (which is why in the Situation Room photo he is wearing someone else's jacket at the table).
In 2000, the Bush administration found out who was responsible for 9/11 within 24 hours. In 2012, it has been over 7 weeks and the Obama administration has yet to determine who and what caused the 9/11 attack on Benghazi that killed 4 Americans including a US Ambassador. Instead, they trotted out the YouTube video as the cause of riots and arrested an American citizen as the instigator even though we can see from the videos of the attack that it was an organized raid on our facilities and not a mob riot.
During the BP oil spill, Obama order ALL off-shore drilling stopped (not just those doing 1-mile deep drilling) causing many of our oil rigs to leave our coasts and drill for other countries because they are not going to stick around unused waiting for Obama to open them back up. He also gave $2 billion dollars to a Brazilian oil producer to drill in the Gulf at a depth 3 MILES (3 times more than BP was doing).
In 2008 he said he would be the most bi-partisan president ever. But instead under his leadership the Senate has not voted a budget in over 3 years and his own budget proposal was so far out of reality that the House voted against it 414-0 and the Senate voted against it 97-0. (He is not even uni-partisan with his own democrats).
When he could not get Cap-and-Trade passed through Congress he order his EPA to find ways to implement it though regulation by making CO2 an environment hazardous waste. (Yes. What we exhale as humans is now under government control). When he failed to get any legislation passed on immigration as he promised he would (even though for 2 years he had full control of the House and Senate) he decides to bypass Congress again and orders his justice department to not prosecute cases involving illegal immigrants under the age of 25. (Where is his vow to uphold the laws of the land and the Constitution?). He also orders his ICE agents to NOT assist Arizona in processing illegals they capture on their roads.
In 2008 he said it was wrong for Bush to use drones to kill terrorists because of civilian casualties. As President he has not ended the use of drones but increased it. His answer to civilian casualties is to RE-DEFINE all people killed within a 50 foot radius of a drone strike to be terrorists since their proximity to the target means they are probably involved.
In 2008 he said it was wrong of Bush to keep enemy terrorists in Gitmo without a trial even though these men are not US citizens he argued they deserved an American trial by jury. In 2011 the President orders the drone strike of Anwar al-Awlaki an American citizen who had Al-Qaeda connections. Later he orders another strike for Anwar al-Awlaki's 16 year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki because they deemed him a threat since most likely he had been radicalized as well and would most likely take his fathers place. (Where were these 2 US citizens rights to a trial by a jury Mr. President?)
In conclusion, we must FIRE this worker though it pains us to do so because we had such great hopes for him. We cannot expect better from him, in fact we can only expect worse. As in my case, people usually are on their BEST BEHAVIOR during the probationary period because they know they are being watched closely and they might not get held on. Often people's behaviors get WORSE after their probationary period because they know it will be harder for the company to fire them and they can get away with more. Those are the hard facts we must face.
Obama will , in my opinion, become more extreme in his views and his actions. He will issue MORE executive orders ... not less. He will order MORE regulations through the EPA ... not less. He will ignore the Constitution more... not less.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Bengazi-gate
Well this president just keeps stepping in it. As we find out more and more about what was going on in Libya, we see that much of what the President has been telling us is just not true.
First of all we find out that Al-Queda is NOT weakening but instead is growing stronger. We find out that our embassy was struck 2 times before this year and even had a hole blasted into its walls that a truck could drive through. Also we see that our people there asked for more security two times in August and both times were refused. Finally we hear them call out for help the night of 9-11 3 times and their pleas fell on dead ears.
Where was the President? Las Vegas... that's where!
Who was advising him? Apparently no one is the answer!
Email's show that it was a straight on terrorist attack and not a mob action caused by a stupid YouTube video. Yet the President went on TV interviews for up to 2 weeks after the attack and stuck with this ridiculous story.
We have been lied to over and over again and like a stupid teenage girl who doesn't want to acknowledge that their boy-friend is cheating on them some in this country REFUSE to see it any other way.
Wake up America! This President is a pathological liar!
First of all we find out that Al-Queda is NOT weakening but instead is growing stronger. We find out that our embassy was struck 2 times before this year and even had a hole blasted into its walls that a truck could drive through. Also we see that our people there asked for more security two times in August and both times were refused. Finally we hear them call out for help the night of 9-11 3 times and their pleas fell on dead ears.
Where was the President? Las Vegas... that's where!
Who was advising him? Apparently no one is the answer!
Email's show that it was a straight on terrorist attack and not a mob action caused by a stupid YouTube video. Yet the President went on TV interviews for up to 2 weeks after the attack and stuck with this ridiculous story.
We have been lied to over and over again and like a stupid teenage girl who doesn't want to acknowledge that their boy-friend is cheating on them some in this country REFUSE to see it any other way.
Wake up America! This President is a pathological liar!
Monday, October 15, 2012
The Giving Tree
Many of us remember the famous children's book "The Giving Tree" by Shel Silverstein. (if you have not read the book you can view the following animated short movie)
The Giving Tree
The book tells the story of a boy and a tree. Throughout the story the boy needs things for his life to be fulfilled and the tree gladly gives up its apples, its branches, its trunk and finally its stump. We are made to think that in the end BOTH the boy and the tree are happy together but I beg to differ as I personally felt the boy was a selfish little brat and the tree was taken advantage of over the course of its life.
In retrospect, I think this story is more of an analogy for what we see today. The modern day socialist is represented by the boy and the capitalist system is represented by the tree. As the socialist grows up, he needs things and the capitalist system obliges by giving him money (sells apples), shelter (makes branches into a home), travel (boat from its trunk) and finally a place to retire (its stump for a place to sit).
This is much like what we see around us today. Our capitalist system has provided much to those who care very little about it and each time they come back for more (mostly baby-boomers), wanting more for themselves and demanding higher and higher taxes to pay for it all. Eventually our private sector will be overwhelmed and left with nothing unless we stop making our greedy little demands of it. We cannot keep taking from the capitalist thinking that they (like the government) has an unlimited amount of money to provide for our every whim.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Prop 1313
Have you heard about Proposition 1313? This proposition would tax everyone above 1 million dollars at a rate of 90% and distribute the proceeds to everyone else NOT making 1 million dollars. Are you going to vote YES on this proposition? Sounds like a great idea doesn't it?
Sorry to tell you, but there is no such proposition on the California ballot. But what if there were? Would you be in favor of it? A lot of people would since who doesn't want FREE MONEY? But that is exactly what is wrong with the proposition system. Propositions are part of what is called Direct Democracy. Many states added this as a way to give people a way to work around their politicians to pass laws they desire. The idea may be noble, but the outcome has become disastrous for as all democracies go, they all fall apart.
Why?
People are greedy
We all want more for ourselves and less for others. Using the proposition system it is too easy to take from others and give to ourselves. This does not have to do only with money but also with the rights of others. We want not just money, but also safety and any proposition that gives us either of those often gets our vote. Want fewer criminals on the streets? Put them in prison for the rest of their lives. Want more money for your child's school? Hamstring the government to appropriate a larger percentage of revenues to them. Want lower taxes for your property? Pass a prop to prevent your property from being re-assessed. Want fewer drunk drivers? Pass a prop to reduce the alcohol level to lower and lower levels, take away licenses for longer periods of time, force drivers to have breathalizers installed in their cars.
People are lazy
Who has the time to read over 30 different propositions and decide what to do? None of us that's who! We are inundated with countless props written in language that only a lawyer would be able to understand and therefore we rely on "commercials" to dumb down the prop so we can "understand" it. This problem makes it too easy for the proposition system to be abused and get laws passed that should never see the light of day. The reason we have a republic (not a democracy) is because we need full time politicians who have the time (and the staff) to read and understand the laws and the future problems they may or may not cause.
People are stupid
This fact is hard to separate from the previous problem (laziness) but it deserves to be discussed. Example, if a proposition says it will pay for better roads by selling 100 million dollars in bonds. Does that sound like free money? But it's not free money. All bonds need to be paid back... WITH INTEREST! But very few people ever think about it that way and so many bond measures are passed without much effort at all. Similarly, people also do not consider the ramifications of many law props. Example: California's 3-strikes law. This proposition was passed because many people thought that this would only affect people guilt of major felonies like murder or rape, but little did they know that many non-violent-felony offenders would be put away for good.
What should we do? My answer is simple.
VOTE NO ON ALL PROPOSITIONS NO MATTER HOW GOOD THEY SOUND!!!
(unless of course the proposition promises to end all future propositions)
Sorry to tell you, but there is no such proposition on the California ballot. But what if there were? Would you be in favor of it? A lot of people would since who doesn't want FREE MONEY? But that is exactly what is wrong with the proposition system. Propositions are part of what is called Direct Democracy. Many states added this as a way to give people a way to work around their politicians to pass laws they desire. The idea may be noble, but the outcome has become disastrous for as all democracies go, they all fall apart.
Why?
People are greedy
We all want more for ourselves and less for others. Using the proposition system it is too easy to take from others and give to ourselves. This does not have to do only with money but also with the rights of others. We want not just money, but also safety and any proposition that gives us either of those often gets our vote. Want fewer criminals on the streets? Put them in prison for the rest of their lives. Want more money for your child's school? Hamstring the government to appropriate a larger percentage of revenues to them. Want lower taxes for your property? Pass a prop to prevent your property from being re-assessed. Want fewer drunk drivers? Pass a prop to reduce the alcohol level to lower and lower levels, take away licenses for longer periods of time, force drivers to have breathalizers installed in their cars.
People are lazy
Who has the time to read over 30 different propositions and decide what to do? None of us that's who! We are inundated with countless props written in language that only a lawyer would be able to understand and therefore we rely on "commercials" to dumb down the prop so we can "understand" it. This problem makes it too easy for the proposition system to be abused and get laws passed that should never see the light of day. The reason we have a republic (not a democracy) is because we need full time politicians who have the time (and the staff) to read and understand the laws and the future problems they may or may not cause.
People are stupid
This fact is hard to separate from the previous problem (laziness) but it deserves to be discussed. Example, if a proposition says it will pay for better roads by selling 100 million dollars in bonds. Does that sound like free money? But it's not free money. All bonds need to be paid back... WITH INTEREST! But very few people ever think about it that way and so many bond measures are passed without much effort at all. Similarly, people also do not consider the ramifications of many law props. Example: California's 3-strikes law. This proposition was passed because many people thought that this would only affect people guilt of major felonies like murder or rape, but little did they know that many non-violent-felony offenders would be put away for good.
What should we do? My answer is simple.
VOTE NO ON ALL PROPOSITIONS NO MATTER HOW GOOD THEY SOUND!!!
(unless of course the proposition promises to end all future propositions)
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Let's become more like Russia!
You are probably wondering if I fell out of a tree or got kicked by a mule to make a statement like that. But, no, none of those occurred to me. Of course I am not saying we should go the course of the 1917 overthrow of the czars by the communists. Instead I am saying we should follow their lead (and 42 other countries) that have a FLAT TAX RATE.
Russia had tried the "progressive" tax system (like ours) with all of its deductions and credits and found that a very few people complied. By flattening the tax system and simplifying it it increased participation greatly.
Reasons for a flat tax:
1) It's fair! No loop holes .. no special excemptions ... no misinterpretation
2) Free up companies to spend on productive jobs. Instead of hiring a host of tax accountants and
lawyers, they could hire more people to make or support their products
3) Reduce needed waste in tax reporting to the IRS
4) It will stop Congress from thrashing its citizens with endless changes to the tax code
5) Hopefully states will follow suit and April 15th will just become another day on the calendar.
6) Encourage other countries to set up shop here in the US since they won't be inundated with an
illegible tax code and bring more jobs to OUR COUNTRY
7) Encourage more Americans to invest in our country. Let's face it America many of us shy away
from investing in businesses or the stock market because we don't have a tax accountant to help
us navigate through the federal mess. By simplifying the system more of us regular Americans
would be able to invest with confidence that we are not going to get some ugly audit letter from
the IRS
Russia had tried the "progressive" tax system (like ours) with all of its deductions and credits and found that a very few people complied. By flattening the tax system and simplifying it it increased participation greatly.
Reasons for a flat tax:
1) It's fair! No loop holes .. no special excemptions ... no misinterpretation
2) Free up companies to spend on productive jobs. Instead of hiring a host of tax accountants and
lawyers, they could hire more people to make or support their products
3) Reduce needed waste in tax reporting to the IRS
4) It will stop Congress from thrashing its citizens with endless changes to the tax code
5) Hopefully states will follow suit and April 15th will just become another day on the calendar.
6) Encourage other countries to set up shop here in the US since they won't be inundated with an
illegible tax code and bring more jobs to OUR COUNTRY
7) Encourage more Americans to invest in our country. Let's face it America many of us shy away
from investing in businesses or the stock market because we don't have a tax accountant to help
us navigate through the federal mess. By simplifying the system more of us regular Americans
would be able to invest with confidence that we are not going to get some ugly audit letter from
the IRS
Friday, October 5, 2012
Excuses .. Excuses ... Excuses
So far Obama has had a flurry of excuses from his media pals. Here are just a few:
In reality the curtain has been pulled back and the wizard is just another man pulling knobs and levers.
- It was the thin Denver air
- He doesn't watch enough cable news (namely MSNBC)
- He could not understand the Romney lies
- As a black man he doesn't have the same latitude in responding as a white man because he might come off as an angry black man.
- He was distracted by the fact that it was he and Michele's 20th anniversary.
In reality the curtain has been pulled back and the wizard is just another man pulling knobs and levers.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Freedom or Security
As I was writing the previous article about slave-voters, I thought of the story in the Bible where in Exodus the Jews who had been led out of Egypt where tired of eating the same food and drinking the same water that God had provided for them. Many started to lament that things where "better" back in good old Egypt. They remember the "cucumbers they would eat" and so some were proposing they turn around and head back.
Really? Things were better when they were slaves?
Let's re-count what happened when they were back in "good Ol' Egypt".
1) Pharaoh killed all boys under the age of 5 as his method of "population control"
2) When they complained he told them to "make bricks without straw" which as almost an impossible
task and forced them to gather their own straw.
3) They were not allowed to leave and worship their God in a way that they wanted to.
Moses came and gave them freedom. But with freedom comes less security and more reliance on God and each other through difficult times. Freedom can be scary, but it's not worth enslavement.
Our country was born out of a similar kind of slavery. Ruled by a country and a nobility thousands of miles away that had little care or concern for their well-being, they were "subjects" and not "citizens". England could levy any taxes or regulations on them without their input or consent. They constantly interfered with their colonial government and courts. They showed no respect for their property rights or their ideas. Because of this treatment our country fought back against the most powerful military on earth and WON!.
Now over 236 years later we, like the children of Israel, are lamenting the trials and tribulations of freedom. We fear much around us. We wonder were will my next job be? Who will put my kids through school? Will I be able to retire at 65? Some are capitalizing on that fear (Rahm Emmanuel said "We should never let a good crisis go to waste") are calling for us to relinquish our freedoms in return for security. Give up the free market and allow the government, which can print as much money as they like, to take over large parts of our economy. Take over health-care. Take over the mortgage industry. Take over education. Take over the pharmacies. Take over the auto industry.
The cry during the American Revolution was "Give me liberty of give me death!" but now some cry "Give me security or nothing at all!"
But it is not security that they are selling to you but instead slavery. For when all is said and done, the only ones who will have SECURITY are those who are in power. THEY will sleep well at night knowing you are under their control once again as SLAVES!
Really? Things were better when they were slaves?
Let's re-count what happened when they were back in "good Ol' Egypt".
1) Pharaoh killed all boys under the age of 5 as his method of "population control"
2) When they complained he told them to "make bricks without straw" which as almost an impossible
task and forced them to gather their own straw.
3) They were not allowed to leave and worship their God in a way that they wanted to.
Moses came and gave them freedom. But with freedom comes less security and more reliance on God and each other through difficult times. Freedom can be scary, but it's not worth enslavement.
Our country was born out of a similar kind of slavery. Ruled by a country and a nobility thousands of miles away that had little care or concern for their well-being, they were "subjects" and not "citizens". England could levy any taxes or regulations on them without their input or consent. They constantly interfered with their colonial government and courts. They showed no respect for their property rights or their ideas. Because of this treatment our country fought back against the most powerful military on earth and WON!.
Now over 236 years later we, like the children of Israel, are lamenting the trials and tribulations of freedom. We fear much around us. We wonder were will my next job be? Who will put my kids through school? Will I be able to retire at 65? Some are capitalizing on that fear (Rahm Emmanuel said "We should never let a good crisis go to waste") are calling for us to relinquish our freedoms in return for security. Give up the free market and allow the government, which can print as much money as they like, to take over large parts of our economy. Take over health-care. Take over the mortgage industry. Take over education. Take over the pharmacies. Take over the auto industry.
The cry during the American Revolution was "Give me liberty of give me death!" but now some cry "Give me security or nothing at all!"
But it is not security that they are selling to you but instead slavery. For when all is said and done, the only ones who will have SECURITY are those who are in power. THEY will sleep well at night knowing you are under their control once again as SLAVES!
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
The real reason for so many laws
Recently the creator of that now infamous anti-muslim video has been arrested but not for the making of the video. Instead authorities decided it was time to bring him in for violating his 2010 check fraud probation terms. Of course, the government has no power to convict a person for making a bad movie (and its bad in both content and quality), but without much effort they were able to find something to haul him into jail for.
Before I continue, let it be known I care very little about Mark Youssef (the producer of the film) because he earned his living by producing porn videos so he is no saint by any means. But even so, his story needs to be discussed because he is being made an example of for the rest of us to consider and the message is clear: Be careful what you say for the federal government can find something to haul you into court for as well. For it is of no consequence to the government that you are sitting in a 6x9 cell for probation violations or for voicing your opinion. A cell is a cell and a prisoner is a prisoner. Either way, you are inside the cell and they are outside.
This reminds me of a part in the book "Atlas Shrugged" where Hank Rearden is brought before a court for breaking a government regulation. A government official tells him that the purpose of having a large number of laws on the books is not to make people law abiding, but instead make all citizens "law breakers". For by having so many laws, no citizen could possibly be innocent of them all and therefore they can be controlled by the state whenever needed.
Can anyone of us know for certain that we have not broken some law now on the books? Can we sleep at night knowing for sure we dotted all of our I's and crossed all of our T's on our 1040's or our many other government documents? I don't think so.
To me, the addition of every new law we write does not serve to protect us, the citizen, but instead is to protect the government from us.
Before I continue, let it be known I care very little about Mark Youssef (the producer of the film) because he earned his living by producing porn videos so he is no saint by any means. But even so, his story needs to be discussed because he is being made an example of for the rest of us to consider and the message is clear: Be careful what you say for the federal government can find something to haul you into court for as well. For it is of no consequence to the government that you are sitting in a 6x9 cell for probation violations or for voicing your opinion. A cell is a cell and a prisoner is a prisoner. Either way, you are inside the cell and they are outside.
This reminds me of a part in the book "Atlas Shrugged" where Hank Rearden is brought before a court for breaking a government regulation. A government official tells him that the purpose of having a large number of laws on the books is not to make people law abiding, but instead make all citizens "law breakers". For by having so many laws, no citizen could possibly be innocent of them all and therefore they can be controlled by the state whenever needed.
Can anyone of us know for certain that we have not broken some law now on the books? Can we sleep at night knowing for sure we dotted all of our I's and crossed all of our T's on our 1040's or our many other government documents? I don't think so.
To me, the addition of every new law we write does not serve to protect us, the citizen, but instead is to protect the government from us.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
The Freedom of Speech is NOT a "nice to have"
Studies have been done of companies that are failing and many times an underlying problem pervades them. That problem is a lack of communication where lower company workers do not feel safe expressing their concerns to upper level management. Contrast that to companies who are excelling in their business fields just the opposite is true and people can alert others to issues so they can be addressed before they become full out problems costing the company millions of dollars. The reason this is so vitally important is that instead of having only a handful of eyes (managers) scanning the company for problems you have thousands of eyes all being alert and vigilant.
The same also goes for countries as well as companies. Where countries allow their citizens to voice their opinions, problems seen can be addressed early and the country saved. But like the issue with corporations, those at the top must be willing to hear from those at the bottom. And there is the rub. Many times leaders don't want to hear what is going wrong or how their policies are hurting those on the bottom. It becomes easier for them to shut down those who oppose them than it is to admit their mistake and change course.
This can have disastrous effects.
For example, in 1986 the space shuttle Discovery blew up shortly after liftoff. After many months of investigation it came to our attention that a O-ring crack caused by ice buildup was to blame. But upon further study they found that engineers at the company that made the O-rings knew about the possibility that freezing water would be harmful. They were not allowed to voice their concerns to people up the chain at NASA for fear it would cause a delay in the next launch. In hind-sight that was the wrong thing to be worried about.
That is why the Freedom of Speech is not a "nice to have" but instead is a integral part of our country which is why its put at the top of our founding fathers "Top 10 List". Because we have this amendment, every citizen has not only the right , but also the DUTY to alert its fellow members about what they see as wrongs being committed by its leaders, so we as a country are not taken down a dangerous path of destruction.
The same also goes for countries as well as companies. Where countries allow their citizens to voice their opinions, problems seen can be addressed early and the country saved. But like the issue with corporations, those at the top must be willing to hear from those at the bottom. And there is the rub. Many times leaders don't want to hear what is going wrong or how their policies are hurting those on the bottom. It becomes easier for them to shut down those who oppose them than it is to admit their mistake and change course.
This can have disastrous effects.
For example, in 1986 the space shuttle Discovery blew up shortly after liftoff. After many months of investigation it came to our attention that a O-ring crack caused by ice buildup was to blame. But upon further study they found that engineers at the company that made the O-rings knew about the possibility that freezing water would be harmful. They were not allowed to voice their concerns to people up the chain at NASA for fear it would cause a delay in the next launch. In hind-sight that was the wrong thing to be worried about.
That is why the Freedom of Speech is not a "nice to have" but instead is a integral part of our country which is why its put at the top of our founding fathers "Top 10 List". Because we have this amendment, every citizen has not only the right , but also the DUTY to alert its fellow members about what they see as wrongs being committed by its leaders, so we as a country are not taken down a dangerous path of destruction.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
The Freedom to Offend
Back in 1988, a movie called "The Last Temptation of Christ" was released. The movie, directed by Martin Scorsese, was scandalous and showed Jesus:
1) Having doubts about his divinity and his purpose
2) Not dying on the cross or resurrecting from the dead
3) Having a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene .
When the Christian community protested the making of the movie, Hollywood screamed that it was protected by the Freedom of Speech and we obliged. Though it was a clearly made to take down our faith and mock us:
No one died.
No theater was blown up.
No one was arrested and thrown into jail.
No flags were burned.
And yet, when a ridiculous 4th rate movie (you can barely call it a movie) is shown on YouTube saying scandalous things about the "prophet" Mohammad, you see the Islamic world "enraged" and people being killed in the streets. I personally do not agree with the movie, but I also DO NOT believe Mohammad was a prophet. Instead, to me, he was a very intelligent military leader who saw that people who would not fight to protect a city, would fight to the death to protect a religious temple or holy sight. As a US citizen I have the RIGHT to say that no matter what others believe and I cannot be held responsible for how any one person of the 6 billion that inhabit this small world reacts to that belief.
We as Americans must understand there is a reason why the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Religion are put together under the same 1st Amendment and not as separate amendments (1 & 2 or 1a and 1b). You cannot have one without the other. You cannot have the freedom to say what you want without also having the freedom to believe what you want. The two are linked at the hip like a pair of Siamese Twins, never to be split apart no matter how hard they pull away from each other and dislike each other. The Freedom of Speech is there to protect INFLAMMATORY SPEECH rather than NICE speech. For there is no need for the 1st Amendment to say things like:
- The sky is blue
- I like puppies
- I like to draw butterflies
No one looks at any of those statements and then says "WOW! We have to stop that!". For speech that invokes no heated disagreement does not need protection. Instead speech that DOES need protection is speech that stirs up our emotions and our desire to stifle it or limit it in some way.
Instead the 1st Amendment is there to protect things like:
- Atheists are evil
- Christians are hypocrites.
- Jews are dishonest.
- Muslims are terrorists
Do any of those statements offend you? They should!!!
While I don't agree with ANY of those statements, if someone does make statements like those above, that is their right as citizens and they should be protected under our 1st Amendment.
Maybe we should relabel the 1st Amendment as:
The Freedom to Offend and Be Offended Amendment.
1) Having doubts about his divinity and his purpose
2) Not dying on the cross or resurrecting from the dead
3) Having a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene .
When the Christian community protested the making of the movie, Hollywood screamed that it was protected by the Freedom of Speech and we obliged. Though it was a clearly made to take down our faith and mock us:
No one died.
No theater was blown up.
No one was arrested and thrown into jail.
No flags were burned.
And yet, when a ridiculous 4th rate movie (you can barely call it a movie) is shown on YouTube saying scandalous things about the "prophet" Mohammad, you see the Islamic world "enraged" and people being killed in the streets. I personally do not agree with the movie, but I also DO NOT believe Mohammad was a prophet. Instead, to me, he was a very intelligent military leader who saw that people who would not fight to protect a city, would fight to the death to protect a religious temple or holy sight. As a US citizen I have the RIGHT to say that no matter what others believe and I cannot be held responsible for how any one person of the 6 billion that inhabit this small world reacts to that belief.
We as Americans must understand there is a reason why the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Religion are put together under the same 1st Amendment and not as separate amendments (1 & 2 or 1a and 1b). You cannot have one without the other. You cannot have the freedom to say what you want without also having the freedom to believe what you want. The two are linked at the hip like a pair of Siamese Twins, never to be split apart no matter how hard they pull away from each other and dislike each other. The Freedom of Speech is there to protect INFLAMMATORY SPEECH rather than NICE speech. For there is no need for the 1st Amendment to say things like:
- The sky is blue
- I like puppies
- I like to draw butterflies
No one looks at any of those statements and then says "WOW! We have to stop that!". For speech that invokes no heated disagreement does not need protection. Instead speech that DOES need protection is speech that stirs up our emotions and our desire to stifle it or limit it in some way.
Instead the 1st Amendment is there to protect things like:
- Atheists are evil
- Christians are hypocrites.
- Jews are dishonest.
- Muslims are terrorists
Do any of those statements offend you? They should!!!
While I don't agree with ANY of those statements, if someone does make statements like those above, that is their right as citizens and they should be protected under our 1st Amendment.
Maybe we should relabel the 1st Amendment as:
The Freedom to Offend and Be Offended Amendment.
Being stupid pays!
Watching the videos from Chicago of the teachers strike I have to say I feel completely and utterly depressed over the future of our country. These are our children's teachers and they are about as moronic as they come. You want to see why the state of education is so bad in our country then look no further than the level of quality that passes for a teacher today. Teaching used to be an honored profession in our country but the unions have since drained it of all that used to make it honorable. Teachers no longer teach because they love it for if they did they would not be destroying their kids lives by their petty union disagreement.
The Chicago Teacher's Union is emblematic of what is wrong in education all across our country. If you look at what these teacher's receive in pay and benefits it would make your head explode. Take for example that the AVERAGE teacher in Chicago gets paid $76,000 per year and on top of that the average retired teacher is paid $77,000 per year with no contribution made by the employee at all (state must pay out 46% more for this) and full health benefits until Medicare kicks in (cost is 5% more). This means that while the employee is paid on average $76,000, the state actually pays $114,000 ($76,000 x (1 + 0.46 + 0.05) ) to cover the pay and benefits. All this for 9 months of work! In fact the average teacher works 180 days a year while the average non-teacher works 250 days per year (50 wks * 5). Therefore if you pro-rate the cost, the teacher is actually getting paid $158,000 per year.
Not bad for a group that pulls students from the lower end of the SAT scale to its profession. As the old saying goes: "Those who CAN ... DO! Those who CAN'T ... TEACH". A 2005 study of students graduating from college in the teaching profession had an average SAT score of 965 while the overall average for all college bound students was 1026. A NY Times article put it this way
the 965 level so they only got about HALF of the answers right on their test.
So unlike the rest of the world, being stupid pays!
The Chicago Teacher's Union is emblematic of what is wrong in education all across our country. If you look at what these teacher's receive in pay and benefits it would make your head explode. Take for example that the AVERAGE teacher in Chicago gets paid $76,000 per year and on top of that the average retired teacher is paid $77,000 per year with no contribution made by the employee at all (state must pay out 46% more for this) and full health benefits until Medicare kicks in (cost is 5% more). This means that while the employee is paid on average $76,000, the state actually pays $114,000 ($76,000 x (1 + 0.46 + 0.05) ) to cover the pay and benefits. All this for 9 months of work! In fact the average teacher works 180 days a year while the average non-teacher works 250 days per year (50 wks * 5). Therefore if you pro-rate the cost, the teacher is actually getting paid $158,000 per year.
Not bad for a group that pulls students from the lower end of the SAT scale to its profession. As the old saying goes: "Those who CAN ... DO! Those who CAN'T ... TEACH". A 2005 study of students graduating from college in the teaching profession had an average SAT score of 965 while the overall average for all college bound students was 1026. A NY Times article put it this way
BELOW-AVERAGE STUDENTS Teaching attracts a "disproportionately high number of candidates from the lower end of the distribution of academic ability," says a report last year from the National Council on Teacher Quality. In 2004, the average combined SAT score for college-bound seniors was 1,026; the average for those who intended to major in education was 965. (Only home economics, public affairs and technical and vocational scores were lower.))NOTE: remember this is an average... so half of the group most likely had SAT scores well below
the 965 level so they only got about HALF of the answers right on their test.
So unlike the rest of the world, being stupid pays!
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Political Restaurants
As many people do, I have friends who are Democrats. We do things together all the time. We fish. We hunt. We camp. We watch football. We talk about the weather, food, sports, friends, family, kids, school and work. But what we don't talk about is.... politics. Like many, politics has become the "third-rail" of social conversation. (For those who don't know, subways used to have a third-rail in the center that was electrified that power the train. It was something you just did not touch!)
I was thinking about this the other day and pondering why this was so? Is it impossible to have a casual, intellectual discussion of a topic that affects all of us and our children? I remember growing up in Illinois, my mom's side of the family got together on all the major holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, Easter and Fourth of July) and we as kids were privy to hearing our uncles argue the latest in political issues. We saw that you can disagree and still be nice to each other and love each other. These discussions still ring in my ears. For example, I can still hear my Uncle Charles argue against the 55 mph speed limit change saying "If I drive 65 I will get there faster and use less gas!". I think we are hurting our kids by not showing them how to debate and yet embrace each other.
So how can we reach across the aisle and engage our Democratic friends in a manor that enlightens but does not threaten? I think the answer is to look at political parties as "franchises". We often have a false impression that all parties are static and do not change. But that is just not the case. Parties and people BOTH change over time. I use the restaurant example to get my point across. Ask the person you are talking to to tell you what their favor restaurant is. Then ask them what they like about it. Now tell them, "What if you went there every week and over time you saw small changes occurring. First it was the decorations. Gone was the quaint paintings of farm scenes and replacing them was more modern art forms. Then later the simple china was replaced with more sophisticated dishes and glasses. Then the menu changed from simple American fare to a more European cuisine. Then one night you go in and the person at the front informs you that you are required to wear a tie to enter. You would finally say, 'No Thanks! I won't be dining here anymore'. Why? Because that place no longer represents your values and tastes. No one would reprimand you for leaving. That's your choice! You would never feel bad like you wasted your time going to the restaurant because for many years it WAS a nice restaurant and you had many good meals there over the years".
So it is with political parties. They, like restaurants, think that by changing their platforms and views they will attract a larger audience. But if for every person they bring in, they lose two they will in the end wake up and realize the mistake they made. But too often we view politics becomes like our eye color. It becomes WHO we are and not WHAT we are. Like pathetic Chicago Cubs fans who should have moved on to other teams a long ago, they stay connecting to a franchise that is not going anywhere and we often follow our parents footsteps and belong to same party without realizing that the party they loved no longer exists. The party that used to be for the hard-working factory worker, is now the party of the liberal college professor and the Hollywood elite who has nothing in common with guy laying brick or welding an I-beam. The Big-Tent party is now the Big-Government party.
And this is not limited to the Democratic Party either. The Republican Party that I fell in love with under Reagan is a mere shadow of its former self. People like the Bush's and the Gingrich's have warped the party into what I call: Democratic-Lite. Instead of espousing small government, they talk about a smaller-BIG-Government. Rather than cutting government programs that waste the taxpayers money, they say we just have to SLOW THEIR GROWTH and those who have Reagan's view on the Constitution and the freedoms its gives are denigrated as "simpletons".
I have told my on kids that if Mitt Romney wins and he does not get rid of Obama-care in all of its gory details, I will no longer belong to the Republican Party. I will become a Libertarian thru and thru. Because at that point the party no longer will reflect my values and ideals and we will have to part ways.
So think about this the next time you go out to a restaurant with a family or friend that is a Democrat and you are looking for a way to discuss our countries political troubles.
I was thinking about this the other day and pondering why this was so? Is it impossible to have a casual, intellectual discussion of a topic that affects all of us and our children? I remember growing up in Illinois, my mom's side of the family got together on all the major holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, Easter and Fourth of July) and we as kids were privy to hearing our uncles argue the latest in political issues. We saw that you can disagree and still be nice to each other and love each other. These discussions still ring in my ears. For example, I can still hear my Uncle Charles argue against the 55 mph speed limit change saying "If I drive 65 I will get there faster and use less gas!". I think we are hurting our kids by not showing them how to debate and yet embrace each other.
So how can we reach across the aisle and engage our Democratic friends in a manor that enlightens but does not threaten? I think the answer is to look at political parties as "franchises". We often have a false impression that all parties are static and do not change. But that is just not the case. Parties and people BOTH change over time. I use the restaurant example to get my point across. Ask the person you are talking to to tell you what their favor restaurant is. Then ask them what they like about it. Now tell them, "What if you went there every week and over time you saw small changes occurring. First it was the decorations. Gone was the quaint paintings of farm scenes and replacing them was more modern art forms. Then later the simple china was replaced with more sophisticated dishes and glasses. Then the menu changed from simple American fare to a more European cuisine. Then one night you go in and the person at the front informs you that you are required to wear a tie to enter. You would finally say, 'No Thanks! I won't be dining here anymore'. Why? Because that place no longer represents your values and tastes. No one would reprimand you for leaving. That's your choice! You would never feel bad like you wasted your time going to the restaurant because for many years it WAS a nice restaurant and you had many good meals there over the years".
So it is with political parties. They, like restaurants, think that by changing their platforms and views they will attract a larger audience. But if for every person they bring in, they lose two they will in the end wake up and realize the mistake they made. But too often we view politics becomes like our eye color. It becomes WHO we are and not WHAT we are. Like pathetic Chicago Cubs fans who should have moved on to other teams a long ago, they stay connecting to a franchise that is not going anywhere and we often follow our parents footsteps and belong to same party without realizing that the party they loved no longer exists. The party that used to be for the hard-working factory worker, is now the party of the liberal college professor and the Hollywood elite who has nothing in common with guy laying brick or welding an I-beam. The Big-Tent party is now the Big-Government party.
And this is not limited to the Democratic Party either. The Republican Party that I fell in love with under Reagan is a mere shadow of its former self. People like the Bush's and the Gingrich's have warped the party into what I call: Democratic-Lite. Instead of espousing small government, they talk about a smaller-BIG-Government. Rather than cutting government programs that waste the taxpayers money, they say we just have to SLOW THEIR GROWTH and those who have Reagan's view on the Constitution and the freedoms its gives are denigrated as "simpletons".
I have told my on kids that if Mitt Romney wins and he does not get rid of Obama-care in all of its gory details, I will no longer belong to the Republican Party. I will become a Libertarian thru and thru. Because at that point the party no longer will reflect my values and ideals and we will have to part ways.
So think about this the next time you go out to a restaurant with a family or friend that is a Democrat and you are looking for a way to discuss our countries political troubles.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Human Cows
Ever wonder when you pass a herd of cows feeding at a farm if the cows only knew what awaited them? They live from one day to the next waiting for the farmer to poor out some more hay or feed in front them. Little do they know that the food they are given has a price. Their meat! Little do they know that some day the farmer is going to load them up into a truck and take them to be slaughtered.
So also it is with those human-cows you see lining up in front of the welfare office waiting for their next handout. They think that the government-farmer is so nice and so well meaning to give them these free handouts, little do they know that those handouts come with a price. Their FREEDOM! Because of those handouts, they can't move to a different location because they cannot afford a break in their payments so they must stay in their crappy-drug-and-crime-infested-no-job-neighborhoods. Because of their handouts, they must tow the government line and vote their masters back into office for FEAR that their handouts will stop. In fact, that is the ONLY purpose these human-cows serve on this earth. They are in effect "fenced in" on all sides and are stuck.
What is sad to me is that unlike cows, which have limited mental capacity to think, these human-cows have fully developed brains capable of thought. They can, if they try, get themselves to a better place. They don't have to live in those crappy neighborhoods, because we have cars, trains, buses that can take you anywhere in the country you want to go to find work. No one is told "You must live here!". You have a choice! The fences that keep you there are of your own making and are in your own mind. You are a free person! You can live anywhere you want and be anything you want to be!
So also it is with those human-cows you see lining up in front of the welfare office waiting for their next handout. They think that the government-farmer is so nice and so well meaning to give them these free handouts, little do they know that those handouts come with a price. Their FREEDOM! Because of those handouts, they can't move to a different location because they cannot afford a break in their payments so they must stay in their crappy-drug-and-crime-infested-no-job-neighborhoods. Because of their handouts, they must tow the government line and vote their masters back into office for FEAR that their handouts will stop. In fact, that is the ONLY purpose these human-cows serve on this earth. They are in effect "fenced in" on all sides and are stuck.
What is sad to me is that unlike cows, which have limited mental capacity to think, these human-cows have fully developed brains capable of thought. They can, if they try, get themselves to a better place. They don't have to live in those crappy neighborhoods, because we have cars, trains, buses that can take you anywhere in the country you want to go to find work. No one is told "You must live here!". You have a choice! The fences that keep you there are of your own making and are in your own mind. You are a free person! You can live anywhere you want and be anything you want to be!
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
A new rendezvous with destiny!
Thanks to the invention of YouTube, I and many others can see and hear great speeches like the one below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3MiBI9ZRBo&feature=related
I know that when Reagan wrote the speech we were in the midst of the Cold-War with Russia, but today I think this applies to what we see happening in our own country as we look towards our upcoming election.
We are told by media elites and politicians that we need to "accommodate" a certain amount socialism in our country. We are told we cannot touch certain aspects of our federal government, often called "third-rails", such as Social Security and Medicare. But accommodation is what got us into the mess we are in today as they are bankrupting us as a nation. We have for too long retreated and backed down under the pressure of liberalism and progressive-ism and now we must face "the final demand, the ultimatum" as Reagan mentioned in his speech. And true to his prophecy, "our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we would have been weakened from within, spiritually (can't mention God in government any more), morally (there are no more absolutes) and economically (our dollar is trashed and we are indebted to our enemies)".
We must stop accommodating socialism and communism in our country. It's time for us to say to our enemies, "there is a price we will not pay, there is a point at which they must not advance". I believe that come this November, we as Americans will rise up and tell the socialists with a loud and resounding voice that we will not go quietly into "a thousand years of darkness" and "we will preserve for our children this the best hope yet for mankind on earth".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3MiBI9ZRBo&feature=related
I know that when Reagan wrote the speech we were in the midst of the Cold-War with Russia, but today I think this applies to what we see happening in our own country as we look towards our upcoming election.
We are told by media elites and politicians that we need to "accommodate" a certain amount socialism in our country. We are told we cannot touch certain aspects of our federal government, often called "third-rails", such as Social Security and Medicare. But accommodation is what got us into the mess we are in today as they are bankrupting us as a nation. We have for too long retreated and backed down under the pressure of liberalism and progressive-ism and now we must face "the final demand, the ultimatum" as Reagan mentioned in his speech. And true to his prophecy, "our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we would have been weakened from within, spiritually (can't mention God in government any more), morally (there are no more absolutes) and economically (our dollar is trashed and we are indebted to our enemies)".
We must stop accommodating socialism and communism in our country. It's time for us to say to our enemies, "there is a price we will not pay, there is a point at which they must not advance". I believe that come this November, we as Americans will rise up and tell the socialists with a loud and resounding voice that we will not go quietly into "a thousand years of darkness" and "we will preserve for our children this the best hope yet for mankind on earth".
Monday, August 27, 2012
Cowards hide behind children
Attila the Hun was one of the most terrifying individuals during the dark ages. His tactics were brutal and often gruesome to watch. One of his most favorite methods was to take men he had captured from a city he was about to invade and strap them to the front of his wagons. As they invaded, the men guarding the city were unable to fire back as they were afraid of killing their own people. This gave Attila the advantage in laying siege to the city.
In today's political landscape, these methods have not gone away (only the medium has changed). Many political ads (starting as early as 1960 with the use of the girl picking daisies) have used children as political messengers. They go on TV and read scripts handed to them saying:
- Why do you want to destroy my school?
- Why do you want to fire my teacher?
- Don't take my home away.
- We want clean air to breath and clean water to drink
- Why do you want to take my Dad's job away!
- If my mom doesn't have healthcare she will die!
Using them as political messengers it prevents the other side from debating the actual merits of what is being proposed.
To me, ONLY COWARDS USE CHILDREN!!
These issues are ADULT ISSUES and need to be DISCUSSED BY ADULTS!
Next time you see an ad using children (Democrat or Republican) call the people who made the ad and tell them that they are COWARDS and are exploiting children for their own enjoyment.
In today's political landscape, these methods have not gone away (only the medium has changed). Many political ads (starting as early as 1960 with the use of the girl picking daisies) have used children as political messengers. They go on TV and read scripts handed to them saying:
- Why do you want to destroy my school?
- Why do you want to fire my teacher?
- Don't take my home away.
- We want clean air to breath and clean water to drink
- Why do you want to take my Dad's job away!
- If my mom doesn't have healthcare she will die!
Using them as political messengers it prevents the other side from debating the actual merits of what is being proposed.
To me, ONLY COWARDS USE CHILDREN!!
These issues are ADULT ISSUES and need to be DISCUSSED BY ADULTS!
Next time you see an ad using children (Democrat or Republican) call the people who made the ad and tell them that they are COWARDS and are exploiting children for their own enjoyment.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Can Solar replace all other energy sources?
I spent some time calculating how many solar panels we would need to produce to replace all of Americas electrical energy with solar energy.
Here area the results
On average we use 5 trillion kWH of energy every year. That works out to 570,000,000,000 watts of power needed every hour. Your average 16 square-foot panel produces on average 100 watts of power. This means we would need 570,000,000,000 / 100 panels = 5,700,000,000. Each panel is 16 sq-ft so they would cover 9827 sq-mi. or a roughly a 100 mi x 100-mi area.
Now that seems fairly small and do-able. So what's stopping us?
Let's look at the costs.
First each panel today costs about $1000 to produce, takes up about 16 square-feet and generates about 100 Watts of energy.
Second, we will need to generate enough electricity during the daylight hours to have enough stored up energy for the nighttime. Given approximately 8 hours of good daylight to work from we will need about 3 times (24/8) the size of grid to do this. (I will not be adding in the cost of the storage facility)
Therefore the overall cost (not including support, assembly, wiring, control) is almost 17 TRILLION DOLLARS. This is 1 TRILLION more than our current US debt. And that is just for 1 GRID. If we needed more than 1 for redundancy or for bad weather, the cost would double or triple.
There are other hidden dangers and costs of solar energy as well.
1) Solar panels will have an effect on plants and animals
Light energy used for generating electricity cannot be used for anything else. Wherever we put
these panels, the plants that need the light and the animals that feed off the plants in that region
will disappear for good. That 100x100 mile square area will become a total desolate wasteland in
which no living thing would exist.
2) Solar panels will change the climate too.
Light reflected off of these panels will get reflected back up into the atmosphere and will change
the weather patterns (imagine a 100 mile x 100 mile mirror reflecting light.. you don't think that
will have some effect on our weather?)
NOTE: There are 9 states SMALLER than 10,000 sq-miles. The closest to this size is New Hampshire or Maryland and Vermont with sizes of 9775 and 9249 respectively. Just to give you
some scale as to how large this area is.
Unlike most solar power enthusiasts and environmentalists would tell you, solar power energy is NOT FREE! It is VERY expensive which is why our power companies have not adopted it as a good energy source. In my opinion the cost of solar energy needs to drop by 100X so that a solar panel costs $10 and not $1000. Then and only then will solar energy become a cost effective source of energy. We will also have to live with the fact that our new method of "clean energy" will have effects on land, animals and maybe even our climate.
Is this possible?
Probably not.
Unlike computer transistor technology where the reducing of the size of transistors allows more capability at lower cost, photo-cells used in solar cells to convert light into electricity, do not have that same luxury. The main factor in solar cells is not the transistor-size, but instead the effectiveness of the cell itself in converting light to energy. Over the past 30 years solar cells have gained in efficiency, going from 10% efficient to now up over 45% efficient. Therefore even if we could achieve 100% efficiency, that would only gain us about a 2X improvement in cost (not 100X that we need). The only other lever to pull is the COST lever. Here in lies the problem. To improve efficiency, photo-cells need to employ either the use of more rare elements (which are more expensive) or more elaborate production technology. Either of which drives UP the cost of development. Other technologies using "thin film" which are cheaper in development have plateaued at 15% efficiency (and little sign of improving). This means that they require 3 times the areas to achieve the same amount of wattage as silicon-based photo-cells, so our grid would have to be the size of Vermont, New Hampshire Massachusetts and Connecticut put together ( or 1/4 of New Mexico ). To reach our 100X cost improvement, they would have to be 300-400X cheaper than silicon-based photo-cells and currently they are only about the same price.
I don't want to be one of those people that say "We will never ...." because often they are proven wrong over enough time. But I think that in the very near future (< 20 years), we need to be realistic and see that there are major hurdles to replacing our fossil fuel energy usage with solar energy.
Here area the results
On average we use 5 trillion kWH of energy every year. That works out to 570,000,000,000 watts of power needed every hour. Your average 16 square-foot panel produces on average 100 watts of power. This means we would need 570,000,000,000 / 100 panels = 5,700,000,000. Each panel is 16 sq-ft so they would cover 9827 sq-mi. or a roughly a 100 mi x 100-mi area.
Now that seems fairly small and do-able. So what's stopping us?
Let's look at the costs.
First each panel today costs about $1000 to produce, takes up about 16 square-feet and generates about 100 Watts of energy.
Second, we will need to generate enough electricity during the daylight hours to have enough stored up energy for the nighttime. Given approximately 8 hours of good daylight to work from we will need about 3 times (24/8) the size of grid to do this. (I will not be adding in the cost of the storage facility)
Therefore the overall cost (not including support, assembly, wiring, control) is almost 17 TRILLION DOLLARS. This is 1 TRILLION more than our current US debt. And that is just for 1 GRID. If we needed more than 1 for redundancy or for bad weather, the cost would double or triple.
There are other hidden dangers and costs of solar energy as well.
1) Solar panels will have an effect on plants and animals
Light energy used for generating electricity cannot be used for anything else. Wherever we put
these panels, the plants that need the light and the animals that feed off the plants in that region
will disappear for good. That 100x100 mile square area will become a total desolate wasteland in
which no living thing would exist.
2) Solar panels will change the climate too.
Light reflected off of these panels will get reflected back up into the atmosphere and will change
the weather patterns (imagine a 100 mile x 100 mile mirror reflecting light.. you don't think that
will have some effect on our weather?)
NOTE: There are 9 states SMALLER than 10,000 sq-miles. The closest to this size is New Hampshire or Maryland and Vermont with sizes of 9775 and 9249 respectively. Just to give you
some scale as to how large this area is.
Unlike most solar power enthusiasts and environmentalists would tell you, solar power energy is NOT FREE! It is VERY expensive which is why our power companies have not adopted it as a good energy source. In my opinion the cost of solar energy needs to drop by 100X so that a solar panel costs $10 and not $1000. Then and only then will solar energy become a cost effective source of energy. We will also have to live with the fact that our new method of "clean energy" will have effects on land, animals and maybe even our climate.
Is this possible?
Probably not.
Unlike computer transistor technology where the reducing of the size of transistors allows more capability at lower cost, photo-cells used in solar cells to convert light into electricity, do not have that same luxury. The main factor in solar cells is not the transistor-size, but instead the effectiveness of the cell itself in converting light to energy. Over the past 30 years solar cells have gained in efficiency, going from 10% efficient to now up over 45% efficient. Therefore even if we could achieve 100% efficiency, that would only gain us about a 2X improvement in cost (not 100X that we need). The only other lever to pull is the COST lever. Here in lies the problem. To improve efficiency, photo-cells need to employ either the use of more rare elements (which are more expensive) or more elaborate production technology. Either of which drives UP the cost of development. Other technologies using "thin film" which are cheaper in development have plateaued at 15% efficiency (and little sign of improving). This means that they require 3 times the areas to achieve the same amount of wattage as silicon-based photo-cells, so our grid would have to be the size of Vermont, New Hampshire Massachusetts and Connecticut put together ( or 1/4 of New Mexico ). To reach our 100X cost improvement, they would have to be 300-400X cheaper than silicon-based photo-cells and currently they are only about the same price.
I don't want to be one of those people that say "We will never ...." because often they are proven wrong over enough time. But I think that in the very near future (< 20 years), we need to be realistic and see that there are major hurdles to replacing our fossil fuel energy usage with solar energy.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Romney needs to ridicule the attack ads.. not answer them
One of my favorite movies is "The Hunt for Red October" ( I watch it any time I get a chance ). In the movie there is a scene where the Captain of the submarine orders that the ship turn around and head straight into the path of an oncoming torpedo. This made no sense to the other people on board (or even to the US navy personnel watching the events on sonar). He is able destroy the torpedo by ramming it before it has a chance to arm (torpedoes have safety settings to only arm after a period of time in case it is faulty).
You can watch the clip here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWU9g1Fce3U&feature=related
Now, what does this have to do with the election and attack ads you ask. To answer this question I ask you to view another video called "Attack Watch" which is a snarky video that makes fun of political attack ads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XYKRokgX00
To me this video is to "Political Attack Ads" as the "Hunt for Red October" is to torpedoes. By making an attack ad that is SO off the wall it shows how utterly ridiculous they are and you will never watch another attack ad the same way again. This goes counter to the current thought (like turning a submarine around) which is to issue statements in response to these attacks. For example, the latest Biden speech where he tells a black audience that Romney will "put you back in chains". Even though this is absolutely ridiculous and no one for a second believes Biden's hyperbole, current political wisdom would require Romney to issue a statement to counter Biden's remark. But this only substantiates Biden's statement and gives it credence, further fueling future bombastic remarks and keeping Obama from talking about what's really important: jobs and the economy.
Romney should employ people like the makers of Attack-Watch to destroy all future attack ads or speeches. By ridiculing them you disarm them and make them nonsensical. (I, for one, do not look at any political attack ads any more without hearing the irritating voice of "Attach Watch" ringing in my ears and reminding me of how silly they really are).
You can watch the clip here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWU9g1Fce3U&feature=related
Now, what does this have to do with the election and attack ads you ask. To answer this question I ask you to view another video called "Attack Watch" which is a snarky video that makes fun of political attack ads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XYKRokgX00
To me this video is to "Political Attack Ads" as the "Hunt for Red October" is to torpedoes. By making an attack ad that is SO off the wall it shows how utterly ridiculous they are and you will never watch another attack ad the same way again. This goes counter to the current thought (like turning a submarine around) which is to issue statements in response to these attacks. For example, the latest Biden speech where he tells a black audience that Romney will "put you back in chains". Even though this is absolutely ridiculous and no one for a second believes Biden's hyperbole, current political wisdom would require Romney to issue a statement to counter Biden's remark. But this only substantiates Biden's statement and gives it credence, further fueling future bombastic remarks and keeping Obama from talking about what's really important: jobs and the economy.
Romney should employ people like the makers of Attack-Watch to destroy all future attack ads or speeches. By ridiculing them you disarm them and make them nonsensical. (I, for one, do not look at any political attack ads any more without hearing the irritating voice of "Attach Watch" ringing in my ears and reminding me of how silly they really are).
Monday, August 13, 2012
TRYING is not good enough!
Here is a link to a portion of Obama's speech in which he makes the case for a "new direction" in which prosperity is "shared".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HzgWOXzMJ1Q
Obama says that EVERYONE no matter who they are are should be able to come to this country and make it if the "TRY". To me this like saying "Every child that shows up to school and tries should be given an A on their report card and a diploma at the end of 12 years of school". The fatal word in Obama's political view is TRY. We all use this word.
- I will TRY to make your party on Saturday
- I will TRY to get the report done by Monday
- I will TRY to be a better parent
- I will TRY to be a better spouse
- I will TRY to get to work on time.
- I will TRY to be late next time
And the list goes on and on and on..
Try is one of those nebulous words which lacks any level of clarity. It can mean anything from, "I will think about it", to "I will give it my 110% to make it happen". It gives us enough wiggle room such that if we do not live up to expectation we have an "out" (Hey! I said I would TRY!). Is TRY good enough? Is that the American Dream? Did our ancestors come to this country to "TRY" to make it? I don't think so. Many came here with all of their worldly possessions put into a small suitcase and the clothes on their back and no return ticket home. They did not come here to TRY but instead came here to SUCCEED. Some did and others did not. The American Dream is that only the best get the trophy and we all have the opportunity to prove ourselves worthy. (As one person put it, "If everyone gets a trophy then trophies become meaningless").
President Obama has spent too much time in academia where "showing up" is the new C, "trying" is the new B and "sucking up" is the new A. This is what is wrong in our schools and Obama wants to make it the standard for our nation as well. He wants it to be where we can make it if we "try". If we show up most of the time, don't create any new problems, don't get into any fights, don't upset the boss, don't show up drunk or intoxicated, give a minimal amount of effort to perform our duties and above all have an excuse for our failures.
Seems to me President Obama just wants the same standard for us that he uses for himself. Like a student begging the teacher for "just a little more time" because they procrastinated and under-estimated their abilities to deliver on the assignment, Obama is begging the American public for 4 more years to, as in his words, "Get this done!". He tried to fix the economy, but there were "head winds from Europe and natural disasters he could not foresee". He tried to close Guantanamo but "no countries would help out in taking them". He tried to cut the deficit in half after 4 years but it proved too hard so he claims he needs an extra term to get that accomplished. He would try to bring the troops home in a year but he did not anticipate all "Islamic Spring" and how daunting of a task it was. He tried to work with Congress, but they would not take his proposals without any changes.
You see Mr. President, our country does not reward TRYING. We only reward SUCCESS which is why you will not be re-elected come this November.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HzgWOXzMJ1Q
Obama says that EVERYONE no matter who they are are should be able to come to this country and make it if the "TRY". To me this like saying "Every child that shows up to school and tries should be given an A on their report card and a diploma at the end of 12 years of school". The fatal word in Obama's political view is TRY. We all use this word.
- I will TRY to make your party on Saturday
- I will TRY to get the report done by Monday
- I will TRY to be a better parent
- I will TRY to be a better spouse
- I will TRY to get to work on time.
- I will TRY to be late next time
And the list goes on and on and on..
Try is one of those nebulous words which lacks any level of clarity. It can mean anything from, "I will think about it", to "I will give it my 110% to make it happen". It gives us enough wiggle room such that if we do not live up to expectation we have an "out" (Hey! I said I would TRY!). Is TRY good enough? Is that the American Dream? Did our ancestors come to this country to "TRY" to make it? I don't think so. Many came here with all of their worldly possessions put into a small suitcase and the clothes on their back and no return ticket home. They did not come here to TRY but instead came here to SUCCEED. Some did and others did not. The American Dream is that only the best get the trophy and we all have the opportunity to prove ourselves worthy. (As one person put it, "If everyone gets a trophy then trophies become meaningless").
President Obama has spent too much time in academia where "showing up" is the new C, "trying" is the new B and "sucking up" is the new A. This is what is wrong in our schools and Obama wants to make it the standard for our nation as well. He wants it to be where we can make it if we "try". If we show up most of the time, don't create any new problems, don't get into any fights, don't upset the boss, don't show up drunk or intoxicated, give a minimal amount of effort to perform our duties and above all have an excuse for our failures.
Seems to me President Obama just wants the same standard for us that he uses for himself. Like a student begging the teacher for "just a little more time" because they procrastinated and under-estimated their abilities to deliver on the assignment, Obama is begging the American public for 4 more years to, as in his words, "Get this done!". He tried to fix the economy, but there were "head winds from Europe and natural disasters he could not foresee". He tried to close Guantanamo but "no countries would help out in taking them". He tried to cut the deficit in half after 4 years but it proved too hard so he claims he needs an extra term to get that accomplished. He would try to bring the troops home in a year but he did not anticipate all "Islamic Spring" and how daunting of a task it was. He tried to work with Congress, but they would not take his proposals without any changes.
You see Mr. President, our country does not reward TRYING. We only reward SUCCESS which is why you will not be re-elected come this November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)