Corruption in America - It's our own fault

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." (Lord Acton, 1887 )

I've used this quote before (see "Looking Forward to the 2010 Election" ) but in a different context.  In that post I used the quote to emphasis the need for term limits and a more active role of the populous in our government.  In today's news you'll find how true the wisdom of this quote really is.  Corruption in our government at almost all levels is rampant and entrenched in our political process.  I've outlined a few times how certain members of our government (Barney Frank and company) twist their own actions to focus the blame for our current financial mess to their opponents while their own pockets are lined with the ill-gotten-gains of the true backers who steer the votes of our representatives. I'm sure Mr. Frank isn't the only person doing this, after all, this is a proven political tactic legally pursued by lobbyists to promote the agenda of the organizations providing them money.  This is how things get done in Washington.  The bottom line is that money talks, unfortunately the ordinary citizens voice is lost in the process but I'm sure the congressmen and senators think their doing the right thing... right?

If we know that no matter where you look in Washington your going to find some level of corruption, why is it such a surprise when this mess about Senator Obama's senate seat hit the news?  Why should this be such a surprise that the seat doesn't got to the highest bidder?  After all, don't most politicians make decision based on the highest bidder?  When we vote a person into the government a process starts to temper their polly-anna views towards right and wrong.  This tempering makes the elected official realize that their constituents are morons who really don't know what good for them.  They mindset matures to the fact that only they (and the lobbyists who provide clarity on issues) know what is best. Since dollar amount's are indicators of correct decision making I'm sure Gov. Blagojevich was only trying to make the choice he felt was the best for his people, right?  

When is America going to pull their heads out and fix this problem?  This isn't going to go away until the people make it stop.  We as a people need to make our voices heard on how outraged we are about the corruption in our government.  We need to take back our voice and stop the insanity happening in Washington and around our country.  My suggestion is that more and more of us get involved with what is happening and when corruption is found, shout it to the world.  We need to clean the halls of Washington and then put the processes in place to prevent corruption from re-emerging.  Term limits, oversight, proper candidate vetting, and continual citizen involvement are the only true way of keeping everything above board.  Get out there and do your part folks and help clean up this mess.

Basis of Racial Slurs

     Where do racial slurs start?  We all know about the "N-word" and how derisive it has become, but how about all those other words used around the world that are race based?  While the  "N-Word" has basis in the Spanish, French, and Latin words for black, it was  transformed into a slang word to by slave traders in the 1600s to identify the goods they had to sell. Since then it has taken a life of it's own with meanings dependent upon the speaker or the receiver.  In other words; I can't use the word without it being derogatory, however a black person can use it to identify a comrade or friend.  Very few words in the English language hold this wide a spectrum of definition but this is a testament to it's dubious beginnings. Why do words like this come about though?  As with the slave trade these words created a dehumanized depiction of a race of people allowing the speaker to apply less than human status to the slave. Calling a slave a "negger" makes them less human and thus able to be sold as property the same as a farm animal or a pet. It's a form of social engineering that allow despicable acts to be done on other humans and has been going on for as long as humans have been on the planet.

     Another way these terms develop is due to military conflict.  Two examples of this are the terms Tojo and Kraut. These words were used by Allied GIs during World War II as derogatory slurs to identify enemy forces. I know that sounds like a fairly benign definition but rest assured when said during the WWII era, the tone was definitely with hatred. But what was the basis of the words?  During WWII, Hideki Tōjō was the Prime Minister of Japan and General of the Imperial Japanese Army.  His name was used to identify all Japanese combatants by the soldiers and was picked up by the civilian populous as a racial slur towards all Japanese.  Hideki Tōjō was thought to be the mastermind behind the attack on Pearl Harbor so a lot of hatred toward him boiled over to the rest of Japan as a result. Kraut was a term derived from the German food sauerkraut.  The common theme here is the use of nicknames and slurs that dehumanize our enemy.  Allied soldiers weren't sent into battle to kill people, they were sent to kill an sub-human nameless enemy.  All Japanese where Hideki Tōjō and all Germans where Himmler and Hitler.  These were serious motivating battle cries that were extremely effective at encouraging ferocity in battle and solace in the aftermath.  You can look at almost every conflict around the world and find similar slurs being used by both sides to dehumanize the enemy.  It makes killing easier.

     Even in todays "politically correct" world we still see these terms come around.  If you where to walk into a military camp in Iraq or Afghanistan and use the term "hajji " or "raghead" every GI would know exactly who you are talking about.  These words are rapidly becoming racial slurs even though they have benign beginnings.  The real definition of Hajji is a honorific title giving to a Muslim that has completed the Hajj and in that region is considered a good thing.  "Raghead" refers to the headdress worn by the locals.  When these are uttered by a GI however it's spoken with disgust and disdain and takes on a whole new meaning.  During one of my recent deployments a co-worker of mine said he was going to the "hajji-store", meaning he was going to the shop run by the locals.  One of our other co-workers happened to be of Indian heritage and took offense to him using the term.  Both of them knew the origins of the word but it was the way the word was used  to made it offensive.  It ended up getting pretty ugly and finally the commander had to get involved finally deciding that it was a racial slur, not in the definition but in it's contextual usage.

     This ability of humans to dehumanize our enemy will not go away.  If a superior race from another planet came and invade, we would come up with a derogatory term for them.  I'm sure if the Zaphoids from Zaphod landed today the term "Zap" will have a whole new meaning.  Our ability to dehumanize our enemy allows us to do things to them we can't do to other humans.  Sometimes we use this for good but, as in the case of slavery, it can become an evil thing.  If the slur is conflict based, we need to be able to turn it off once the conflict is over.  You will still hear people referring to Japanese and Germans as Tojos or Krauts and this is truly terrible.  Pick a racial slur and most likely it had a legitimate meaning at one time but it's relevance has long since passed and the only thing left only creates pain now.  No matter if you use these words as a positive or a negative we need stop using them so their derogatory definitions only exist in our history books.

American Fighting Words: Zawahiri refers to Obama as "abayd al bayt"

The term "abayd al bayt" translate to English as "house slave" or "house servant". Terms such as these have been removed from the average American vernacular by our civil rights movements deemed as unacceptable and demeaning language. It seems though that our enemy has not yet been enlightened to what is acceptable conversation and what is not. But who would ever imagine that it would? Al Qaeda's rhetoric show's their true side on this subject but not as you would imagine. No matter who we elected as our next president they would have attacked the person; I'm sure they had a litany of comments regarding John McCains POW status ready just in case. Comments like this are expected but what do they say about our enemy? Who frack'n cares? These people have attacked us outright and threatened to attack us again. They have threatened our way of life, attacked our religious beliefs, even gone so far as to call us the "Great Satan". They threaten our allies, and bolster our enemy's. Who really cares what they say about our present or future leaders. Well actually we all should. Every one of us should look at these comments for what they are; real and credible threats to our very existence.

As I said earlier; it wouldn't have mattered who we elected. Al Qaeda was waiting until we decided to make a statement on the newly elected. They are our enemy so a comment like this isn't any surprise. The surprise to me is the reaction of some of our media about concerning these comments. Some brilliant commentators act surprised by these comments stating how these racist remarks have undermined Al Qaeda's standing in the world. What the hell are they thinking? Are they thinking that Al Qaeda are these nice respectable mainstream people? Damn it folks, these people are THE scum of the earth. They want to kill you and your way of life; they have said so! Don't ever think they have the same morals we have, they don't. They're religious beliefs state that if you don't believe as they do then you should be put to death. How can anyone equate a belief system that allows these type of ideas as mainstream and thus apply mainstream reactions to them? We believe is equality and freedom of belief, to them this is a totally foreign and threatening attitude. They will kill you if you decide not to "believe". If Al Qaeda really was concerned with our election system (which they're weren't!) wouldn't you think they would have put up they're own candidate? Not really, they don't believe in a public voice so this is a totally unknown concept to them. They abhor what we hold dearest, our freedom. Our freedom of speech, our freedom of religion, and most importantly, our freedom of choice. They never cared who we chose, they wanted us to choose so they could attack our choice. So what do we do? Do we react to this lame attempt to make us react? No, it's a hollow threat, it's just a little more rhetoric to add to the steaming pile of rhetoric they've already spewed. Nope don't let them get our goat folks, however there is one aspect to this little attack that we shouldn't ignore. Never attack our leaders.

With the power of freedom of choice and our right to vote comes our responsibility to our leaders. Sometimes we don't get our person voted into power but that shouldn't mean we stop supporting those that are elected. As individuals we stand by our individual ideals but as a community we stand by the decisions of the majority. In other words, if you put this in family terms, parents may disagree about a decision regarding the kids but when they confront the a united front is always the most successful front. Al Qaeda looks at our pre-election divisions as a weakness and tries exploit this. What they don't realize is that as a nation we will defend to the death our right to have these disagreements. They can't fathom a world were difference of opinion flourish as they do in our world. They don't hold dear the right to dispute the decisions of the government. They also underestimate our ability to unite behind the defense of these beliefs. These are free choices we hold dear. Freedoms that we have defended in battle in the past and will in the future. These are beliefs that they do not, nor ever will agree with; these are basic human rights of free men and we should and will always defend them to the death.

I think we need to bring back the "Don't tread on me" flag but re-name it to "Don't threaten me." In other words; don't threaten my lifestyle, my beliefs, or my freedom. If you do, you define yourself as my enemy and I will kick your ass. Pass this on folks, this needs to become out mantra; this needs to become the words we live by. Always defend your freedom because their end may be only one defeat away.

Bailout Bill 2 - "Operation Rescue Detroit"

     Wow, another round of bail-outs.  I am so glad we have all this money to bailout our largest corporations. Wall Street, Detroit, what's next?  Now I know they are planning to take this money from the $700B of the original bailout bill but what are they actually planning to do?  The bill is very long but here are the highlights : 

-- $25 billion in 10-year low-interest loans, charging 5 percent interest for the first five years and 9 percent for the remainder of the loan terms.

-- Parts-makers as well as the Big Three would be eligible.

-- The money would come from the $700 billion rescue/bailout plan.

-- A prohibition on bonuses for automaker employees making more than $250,000 per year.

-- Fast processing: Eligibility for loans will be determined within 15 days of application.

-- Fast turnaround: The loans would be distributed within seven days of approval.

-- "Clawback" provision: Bonuses can be taken back by the government if executive statements are found to be inaccurate.

-- No golden parachutes of any sort.

-- Companies receiving these loans cannot pay dividends for the duration of the loan. 

     Do you notice what's missing out of this bill?  How about a reliable, marketable car?  Something that can compete with the imports?  No, there's nothing like that here but what else would we expect from the "Big Three".  All three of the US auto makers have been making cars based on a warranty life span.  It's been a scam they've been pulling on the American populous for many years.  They build a car that will make it just until the warranty is up then small things will start failing.  It starts with little things first then progresses to larger things until you're in a no-win situation and decide to buy another vehicle.  This process makes sure there's a constant market for cars and a constant demand without the car makers having to make any real progression in fuel economy, technology, or safety.  There are two reasons people buy cars; need and desire.  Car maker's recognized early on that desire is too unpredictable so they have forced need on us.  Hmm, here's a coincidence; factory warranties are three years and the normal car loan is four years.   How convenient.

    Ok, back to the bailout; back in 1979 the government did bailout Chrysler.  I know a lot of you weren't around to remember this event but I do.  Do you know what we average citizens got out of that bailout?  The K-Car.  One of the biggest piece of crap vehicle ever created by Detroit. This line of vehicles was created by Chrysler as a cheap vehicle who's mass sales generated the cash flow to get Chrysler back on it's feet.  One aspect of that bailout was the government was supposed to buy their fleet vehicles from Chrysler so what did they buy? That's right, K-cars;  which, due to their low quality had to be replaced within a few years.  So we gave Chrysler the money they needed, they produced a cheap piece of crap so they could become solvent again, then we all had to buy new cars within a few years.  Do you notice a problem with this scenario?  It's a repeated fleecing of the American people to fund a failing business model.  What is the reason Detroit is in the place their in today?  They produce crappy cars that are low quality, over priced, and get poor fuel economy.  Wow, it's history repeating itself.  

      There's a lot of talk about how Chrysler paid back their bailout early and that we actually made money on the deal but in reality did we?  If Detroit had really learned their lesson they wouldn't be in the world-of-hurt they are now.  We as American need to ask ourselves if we want to go down this road again.  Do we want to bailout yet another company just so they can continue to fleece us by providing us crap.  When are we going to stand up for ourselves and say NO to this type of treatment?  One of the best advice that has come out of all these bailouts is to "not throw good money after bad".  The Detroit big three bases their business on bad practices and we should not be supporting them. I'm all for "buy American" but I'm no fool.  If buying American means we're wasting money then it's un-American. You know the old adage "fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you"?  Well Detroit is trying to make fools out of us again and we all need to say NO.  Just say NO Washington, do us all a favor and just say NO! 

Don't take things too serious

When you think life is getting a little too tough check this  out. :)

Scam? - Investor Protection Association for America

     I got a letter the other day soliciting me to fill out a survey and mail it back.  The survey had a cover letter outlining this groups idea to use my inputs and many others to lobby congress  on our part regarding our responses to questions surrounding tax cuts, energy, and the economy.  Sounds good right?  Well it sounded a little too good too be true for me so I did a little research.  I found this website called STATLISTICS.COM  which had a very nice outline of who intended target audience is for this letter.  What the hell!  This letter may be a legitimate request for information but then they turn all your information into a commodity for junk mailers and spam artists.  What a SHAM! 

     Folks, if you want Congress to know your opinion tell them.  It's very easy; all Senators, Representatives, the President, and even the 1st Lady have e-mail addresses, web sites, and snail-mail addresses.  They also have phone numbers that are in the public record so if you want to let your opinion known, take advantage of those venues, not an unsolicited request that comes in the mail.  This is a perfect example of something being too good to be true; it's nothing more than a con-artists scheme to mine for your information.  The unfortunate thing is that many people will fall for this and millions of dollars will be made at their expense.

     So what do we do?  A bi-product of my research may have found a suggestion; a blog called "Nerd on a Plane " has a great suggestion that you use the pre-paid envelope to send back an anonymous letter outlining your rage at this fishing scam.  This is a great idea, but I like the less time consuming approach; throw the crap away.  Oh, and since it has your address all over it I'd make sure and shred it first though.

American Thinker: Old Habits Die Hard

This appeared at the American Thinker website.  Some things will never "change"...

cartoon by Sean Sullivan

Red State? Blues State? How about Purple State?

      We've all seen the red-state/blue-state electoral maps but do those images really portray how America really voted?  Check out this map which depicts the 2008 elections results at a county level:

 

This image really intrigues me.  As you can see there are pockets of people voting one way and it transitions into area's voting another way.  Most of the solid blue area's center around highly populated urban area's and the more red around the more rural area's. If you think about the contrasts between the parties this makes sense.  Liberal voters tend to congregate around area's that support their ideals and conservative voters towards areas that reflect theirs.  This goes right along with a normal human tendency of wanting to be around people that think like you do.  Pundits like to talk about transitioning the voter base towards their candidate but compare the image above with this one:

This is county level results for the 2004 election. Other than being a tad more red it's almost identical.  So where is this transitioning of the voter base? The two maps clearly indicate the same deep blue and red areas but its the change in the purple areas that reflect this transition.

     One thing I noticed was a blue area in southern Texas and central New Mexico.  These area's aren't normal liberal hangouts, they're not urban, their not tree-hugger hang-outs, so they had me wondering why these area's fell so heavily Democrat.  When I was discussing this phenomenon with my wife she reminded me that this area is mostly inhabited with lower income hispanics who normally vote for the Democrats.  This year the Republicans thought they would be able to swing this group thinking that their stance towards abortion would swing the Catholic vote.  As you can see they where not only wrong, the area actually increased for the Democrats.  This is just one example on how the Republicans misled themselves on what people though was important.  As with almost every election this is an indicator of why people vote one way versus the other, and the number one reason is their pocketbook.  If Republicans learned anything after this election I hope it's that we need to have a platform that attracts this type of voter.  Learn the lessons of Reagan and hold true to fiscal conservatism, this will do it every time.

      So what do these maps tell us?  First off you can tell that no matter who is the candidate and what is happening in the world you will not be able to swing the hard core Democrat or Republican.   Second, you must have a platform that appeals to the moderate but holds true to your own values.  Fiscal conservatism does this; it puts money into the workers pocket as well as protect corporations and small businesses; this in turn expands our economy thus generating more revenue. We are the most powerful nation in the world and it's about time we re-adopted the values that got us there. This is how we move the map more red, put the money back into the people pocket.  Not by giving it to them (such as with a stimulus package) but by real tangible prosperity that people can rely on.  In other words; don't give a hand-out, give a hand up. That's how you win elections.

Looking Forward to the 2010 Election

     I was checking on Wikipedia on the next general election and ran into an interesting list.  Here are the Senate seats up for grabs in 2010:

• 
  
  • 
    
  • Democratic Incumbent Race 
  • Blanche Lincoln, Democrat Arkansas
  • Barbara Boxer, Democrat California
  • Ken Salazar, Democrat Colorado
  • Daniel Inouye, Democrat Hawaii
  • Evan Bayh, Democrat Indiana
  • Barbara Mikulski, Democrat Maryland
  • Harry Reid, Democrat Nevada
  • Chuck Schumer, Democrat New York
  • Byron Dorgan, Democrat North Dakota
  • Ron Wyden, Democrat Oregon
  • Patrick Leahy, Democrat Vermont
  • Patty Murray, Democrat Washington
  • Russ Feingold, Democrat Wisconsin
  • 
    
  • Republican Incumbent Races
  • Richard Shelby, Republican Alabama
  • Lisa Murkowski, Republican Alaska
  • John McCain, Republican Arizona
  • Mel Martinez, Republican Florida
  • Johnny Isakson, Republican Georgia
  • Mike Crapo, Republican Idaho
  • Chuck Grassley, Republican Iowa
  • Jim Bunning, Republican Kentucky
  • David Vitter, Republican Louisiana
  • Kit Bond, Republican Missouri
  • Judd Gregg, Republican New Hampshire
  • Richard Burr, Republican North Carolina
  • George Voinovich, Republican Ohio
  • Tom Coburn, Republican Oklahoma
  • Arlen Specter, Republican Pennsylvania
  • Jim DeMint, Republican South Carolina
  • John Thune, Republican South Dakota
  • Bob Bennett, Republican Utah

     
     If your a follower of my blog you should know how I feel about certain things, one of which was the Wall Street bailout bill.   The highlighted names above are Senators that voted for this bill.  Prior to the election I posted the names of the Texas congressmen that voted for it and specifically left out the rest of them because then I would have had to include senator McCain.  At that time I felt that it was more important to look at the short term goal of electing Senator McCain to the presidency and dealing with this issue on a smaller scale.  Especially since both Obama and McCain voted for this useless, pork-laden, government inflating bill. Now however, we need to look at the long term and the next election.  We need to look at everyone that voted for this bill and get them out of office.  We need to make the people that created this problem and then tried to line their own pockets at our expense to pay the ultimate political price; VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE.  

     While I know a lot of you out there may be caught up in the Obama-Mania syndrome please try to remember one key thing; fiscal conservatism is a bi-partisan concept.  No matter which side of the aisle you fall remember this list, remember who did the right thing and who screwed the public sector for their own gain. There are some pretty long term and famous names on this list, some folks have been in the senate for some  30+ years.  That is most likely the very problem.  The 1770 quote by William Pitt , "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it", is a perfect example of why we need to limit the time people can hold office. These senators are out of touch with the desires of the voter and are voting not for their constituents but for their own gain. They have become corrupted by their own little bubble of greed.  We need to remove those that are camping out in Washington lining their own pockets with our tax dollars.  We need to remove them before their corruption can create more problems for us.  They are not doing the business of the people, they are doing business for themselves and need to GO. 

I'm working on a House list and will post it when I can.

Congrats are in order for Obama, but...

      Our country has a new president; congratulations Mr. Obama.  As many of you know I am not a Obama supporter, however this doesn't mean that I will not support our future president.  As with all good citizens out there I will continue to support our country and it's leaders.  Support is one thing but that does not mean that I'm not going to voice my opposition when I see something going wrong.  I ask all of you that read this to support our new government but be vocal when you see something going awry.  This is what true Americans do, we support our government by using our right to free speech to voice our opinions. One of the best ways to support our new president is to tell him which way to guide us.  I encourage all of you to follow me in the next two years to assist Mr Obama, Mrs. Palosi, and Mr Reed in guiding this country down the road in the direction we want it to go.  Voice your opinion loud and often to help these three misguided souls lead our country.  We all know they have agenda's we disagree with so it's our responsibility as good citizens to correct they're errors in judgement before they happen.  Use any possible means to make sure your voice is heard; e-mail, call, write letters, or even create a blog.  Whichever you choose, rest assured your voice will be amongst the millions that can not be ignored.  Congratulations President Elect Obama, and trust me, we'll be keeping in touch.

On-Line Gaming Fanatics

     Well this is the first post in a while that have nothing to do with politics. If you're not aware I enjoy playing some on-line games on Facebook.  These small applications are fun, have a huge global following, and a nice distraction in the evening.  As with everything in life, some people get way too wrapped up in these worlds they create for themselves and end up ruining it for the others.  If you've seen the commercials about World of Warcraft you can see how people can get very involved to a point of becoming fanatics and this isn't necessarily a healthy position. 

     When I was younger many of my friends played Dungeons and Dragons. In case you're not aware this is a fantasy based game with wizards, clerics, fighters, dragons and monsters.  It's a game that allows the players to create a imaginary character and go on adventures with other friends all being guided by a dungeon master (the person controlling the adventure).  The rules of the game are extensive and come is many books but are mainly just guides since everything is in people imagination.  Some people became so wrapped up in the game that they tried to actually live the game using it as an escape from reality to a point that they couldn't differentiate the game from reality.  These incidences became well knows in the news media which was then picked up by some fundamentalist religious type who tried to tie the game to satanism and demonic worship.  The makers of the game and the players who enjoyed it where ridiculed and many parents become concerned of their children descending into deviancy because of it.  It got to a point that people even tried to ban the game, forgetting that it was just a silly game being played in the imaginations of the players. All this fantastic reaction because a few unstable people took the game too serious and the other end of this spectrum reacted in kind.  Today D&D is accepted by most but not played that often by people since now we have the internet to stimulate our imagination.

     So last night as I was playing one of my favorite games (Homeworld) I had an encounter with an individual that is taking this game way too serious.  Homeworld is a space based game which you build your character through training and attacking others, making yourself stronger and smarter.  Early on in the game people realized that if you attack others too often all you do is upset people.  No one wanted this but they also didn't want to put an official limit on it so they adopted an un-written rule to not kill each other more than twice in a period of time.  As new players started to play they quickly found out about this un-written agreement and for the most part adhered to it.  As with any rule there are those out there that don't adhere to it and those folks develop reputations for nasty play and are ostracized by the other players until they change their way.  This works well with the majority of players but some folks just don't get it that it's just a silly game.  They take things personal when they;re attacked and retaliate with scathing e-mails telling the attacker how much of a low-life they are for attacking them.  This is what I ran into last night. 

     While we put out warnings to parents about these games concerning age I don't think age has a lot to do with it; I think it's mostly a maturity issue.  No matter how old someone is they'll never gain the level of maturity to be able to allow their imagination to take over for a while and then turn it off when they're done playing.  As with D&D some folks just can't let go.  Last night this guy killed me 6 times and when I asked him why he stated that I'd killed him repeatedly over the past few months and he couldn't retaliate due a limitation in the game.  Now he was just giving me a little payback.  So he had saved up a load of funds and was repeatedly attacked everyone who had attacked him.  Obviously this person is holding a grudge and unable to accept the fact that this is just a silly game.  I've ran into many folks like this on-line and I have to say it's a little scary knowing they're out there.  What trigger would it take for this guy to start taking it out on people for real?  This is thinking of a serial killer not a mature stable individual.  He looses the ability to have fun in a game and takes game-play as a personal attack rather than just a little fun.  Most likely this type of person is reclusive with few friends because if they show these traits in a fantasy world most likely it shows in the real world as well.  If you where a friend of this person would you allow him to treat you this way?  It's an abusive personality and not tolerated by many people.  

     So next time you play a game on-line and run into this type of person don't tolerate the behavior.  Tolerating this type of behavior only encourages them to continue.  What we should be doing is telling them repeatedly that it's just a silly game, let it go. Just let it go...

More on redistribution

     Here's a very interesting article that tie's into what I discussed in my last post.  Please take a gander and let me know what you think.

Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution 

     One question asked in the article is whether Senator Obama could say an oath stating he would "support and defend the constitution of the United States".  What a powerful question which indicates a profound doubt cast on this person.  What other person in the race could this be asked of?  Mr Obama's reputation and actions have brought about this question not political election-year wrangling.  The relationships or Mr Obama that I have outlined in previous posts, and several other that have come up recently, really makes this question a huge concern.  Can a "President Obama" take actions that would defend those very things that he's stated he disagrees with?  We're all wondering. Without knowing what that answer is, how can anyone truly support this person? 

Wealth Re-Distribution? Here's what to expect

     Wealth distribution; sounds like a good plan right?  What would it take to make everyone in America equal? We all want equality right, and we sure want to "stick-it" to those dirty rich people right? So what are we going to have to do to make that happen? And what can you look forward to if it does?

     According to Wikipedia the average (mean) income in the United States is $60,528.  This is a pretty good income level for many people in fact I'm very close to this level right now.  In my past, my wife and I strived to make it on a lot less and we were happy but we always strived to make a little more so our life would be a little better.  But $60K a year is pretty good right? To some that would be a huge income increase but for other that would be a huge income decrease it's all checks and balances right? If we take that $60K and expand it to a window of $50K to $70K it would be reasonable to assume that this would still keep everyone across the country fairly equal; taking into consideration differences in cost of living due to shipping costs this would be a very fair window for a mean point. So where does this put every one? How many people would get a pay raise and how many a decrease? Well, using the same Wikipedia site, 22.54% of American households are in this bracket so there would be any change for these folks.  24.88% of American households are below this bracket so they would get in increase with 6.76% almost doubling their household income.  That's pretty good right, I mean, we all want people to increase their income; we all want to help people "get a leg up", right?  But did you notice the missing figure?  That's right, 52.58% of American households will take a pay cut in order to make this happen.  The number don't lie, over half of American households will have to give up a portion of their hard earned money to make true wealth distribution.  Is this where we want to go?

     In all societies there are a group of folks that call themselves the "have-nots".  Those folks that look at people more wealthy than them as evil just because they have more.  They look at the wealthy and wonder why they don't give some of their money to them so they can get ahead.  The problem is they don't look very far ahead, they look at all income levels and feel that everyone "owes" them something since they are the "have-nots". Before I get too far I have to say that there are a lot of very hard workers in those lower income lever that don't have their hand out and are trying to work out of that level but they are a very quiet majority.  The screaming minority in those lower levels are the ones creating this societal class war.  But what if they get what they want?  Would they be happy with $60K a year?

     One of the fallacies of wealth equality is that it creates a cap in income.  Once people get to the average level than every above that goes to some one else.  If people know that once they get to a certain income level what incentive do they have to get there?  Why should they work hard to that point when they know that they're not going to get any farther.  In reality they won't even have to worry about that, they will already be there since the government made sure of that by giving them someone else money?  Do you see a problem here?  Lack of incentive, a salary cap; how does this promote growth?  

     Here's another side of this problem; to get this started the government will have to take away money from 52.58% of the households.  So 52.58% of the people are going to loose money.  Do you think they're going to roll-over and say "ok, no problem, here you go mister president".  Really, do you think so?  It may be tough at first but I'm sure Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, and Bill Gates are true patriots and won't any problems giving up 99% of their money.

     Let's look at military pay scales; you all know I'm a military guy so what would this do to them?  When someone starts in the military their income level is relatively low. As people become more proficient in their job they get promoted which always means more income but also means more responsibility.  I recruit with a few weeks in sure doesn't have the same experience level as a general with years and years of service so we pay those generals more as a way of recognizing that fact.  Under wealth equality that recruit would make the same amount of money as the general with a whole lot less responsibility, so why should he try to move up? Wouldn't human nature and common sense take over to tell the recruit there no reason to move up?  At some point in time pride in wanting to advance is stripped  by wealth re-distribution.  One would ask why someone would even join the military, why not just stay home and collect our $60K.  No one said you had to work to get it.

     Wealth re-distribution is a scheme that will destroy America as we know it.  It will kill worker incentive, stifle growth, and ruin our economy.  In the onset, anarchy would ensue as over 50% of Americans would have their money stripped from them which would probably create massive immigration to other countries.  Total decimation of our military forces would be experienced which would eventually lead to the destruction of the United States as we know it.  Those of us that would try to fight it would most likely be left with nothing.  Our country we are so proud of, the country we fought and died for would be gone just because a few people were too lazy to get ahead on their own.
     I know these ideas are pretty far fetched but they could become reality if they're not stopped.  How do we stop them though once they start?  I don't know how they will stop but I know where they will stop.  They will still in the ballot box.  People don't want this type of America and will stop it by voting in people who will stop this slippery slope.  We'd better stop it quick though before things get too bad; after all, who wants to be President when it only pay's $60K a year?

Barney Frank - Typical Liberal Democrat

Check out this article: They Said It! Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) On Increasing Taxes And Cutting Defense Spending

Just another example of why Mr. Frank needs to resign in shame. The tried and failed Democrat practices of tax and spend would be a little more palatable if they spent it where we need it. Nope, these idiots would rather put it in some welfare project thus encouraging people to rely more and more on them. Their power is based on their constituents laziness.

Who's more ready, Palin or Biden?

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you, not financially to help him, we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right. Because all these decisions, all these decisions, once they're made if they work, then they weren't viewed as a crisis. If they don't work, it's viewed as you didn't make the right decision, a little bit like how we hesitated so long dealing with Bosnia and dealing with Kosovo, and consequently 200,000 people lost their lives that maybe didn't have to lose lives. It's how we made a mistake in Iraq. We made a mistake in Somalia. So there's gonna be some tough decisions..."

"But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going 'oh my God, why are they there in the polls, why is the polling so down, why is this thing so tough? We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us.” Joe Biden, October 19, 2008

And they talk about Sara Palin not being ready… Wow where do I start?  I know that many folks have tried to read into this comment as some kind of prophecy by Senator Biden on what will happen if Obama is elected.  In reality almost every newly elected President faces some kind of international crisis early in their administration, so I’m not going to go there.  What I do find troubling is the numerous references to people not seeing the decisions they plan to make as valid. “Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right.” Ok, so we already had concerns that they don’t know what they’re doing and the VP candidate says it’s not going to be apparent that they’re right?  After the events of 9-11-2001 President Bush put into place several reactions to the attacks and with very few exceptions people looked at those reactions as correct.  Who didn’t?  The most left of the flaming liberals!  So what would a President Obama done different?  Would he “turn the other cheek”?  Would he tell the country and Al Qaeda to show “restraint” as he did with Georgia and Russia?  Had that happened your damn right I would has questions what they were doing.  Is this the type of reaction Senator Biden was warning his supporters of?  Thanks God we had decisive and clear leadership during that crisis that rallied the country; a leadership whose decisions were not questioned and seemed sound by the majority of Americans.

Another point I had problems with is that he used some examples as failures in our foreign policy as examples of what we should not do. Folks: Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia all where Clinton issues!  Is he saying that his party mishandled those crisis’s?  That’s pretty ballsy to bring up your own sides failures as examples of how NOT to be.  Failures that were directly affected by the Senators own inputs to the administration.  So I guess by his own admission the failures in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia are all a direct reflection of his own decisions and influences.  And they say that Sara Palin isn’t qualified!  Joe Biden has proved numerous times his own level of incompetency and, of the four candidates, should be the LAST person to say he’s qualified to be president.  The way I see it, if Obama is elected we can look forward to 4 years of questionable decisions and international failures. In this day and time with all the other looming issues we’re dealing with do you really think this is the way the country should go? I don’t.

Scared of Sara Palin? Are you or are you just scared of what she brings to the table?

This is a repost of something I’d written a few days ago.  I had pulled it when a friend of mine pointed out that the website I used had some rather extreme views towards conservatism; things that I don’t agree with.  While I’m still using my original cite, this does not in any way mean that I support the rest of the information on the website.  The only reason I’m linking it is because I didn’t write it.  So as you read it don’t try to tie anything in except what is written here.

Recently I received an e-mail from one of my nieces regarding the upcoming election. Now my niece is a staunch Democrat who loves to have spirited conversations regarding politics.  Since her and my political ideas differ... well lets just say we agree to disagree on many topics. However; in this e-mail she made a statement I found intriguing; she said "McCain really isn't that bad. It certainly wouldn't be the end of the world if he won. It's Gov Palin I have the problem with". It made me think about how many times I had heard this and thing similar regarding our Alaskan Governor, some folks even gone so far to state that they are scared of Gov. Palin becoming the VP; how interesting. 

Why someone would be scared of the VP choice but not with the President? Could it be that it's not the individual they're scared of but the ideas they’ve publicly stood for? It's no shock to anyone that Senator McCain isn't the most conservative of Republicans but Sara Palin is a strong conservative. This made me wonder if maybe what people are really expressing fear of is the adoption of conservatism and conservative values.  Most likely this is the case since these values go against many of the liberal ideas the Democrat party has adopted even though conservatism isn't limited to any single party.  What are these enigmatic values people are scared of? When someone says they are conservative, what are they saying about themselves? The answers to these questions are the reason people are scared of Sara Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and the late Ronald Reagan. Not because enacting these values will cause doom and gloom for the country more that they will end the lifestyle they have so lazily adopted. Let’s take a look at what conservative values are and then I will explain more what I'm talking about.

 According to the “Conservpedia”, conservative values are defined as follows:

 1. Placing ideas and principles above personal desire, weaknesses, fears and regrets

This is called personal responsibility.

 2. A never-ending quest for the truth, despite obstacles based on emotion and personal experience, and spreading such truths for the benefit of all

Sometimes the truth hurts, especially when the truth is that your lazy

 3. Recognizing and utilizing the benefits of competition and hard work

Hard work is not defined as a handout, welfare, or government entitlement.

 4. Emphasizing charity, with its unexpected benefits, rather than compulsory tax-and-spend programs

Charity begins at home, NOT in Washington

 5. Teaching self-help rather than dependence on government and others

While conservatives don't like handouts we do know that sometimes people need help. What better way to promote conservatism brings to the table than to teach someone to be self sufficient?

 6. Supporting self-defense

On a grand scale; promoting a strong military, on a small scale; supporting the right to bear arms.

 7. Recognizing the media for its bias, bullying, deception.

This goes back to something I've said many many times.  Be an informed voter!

 8. Frugality and efficiency

This is pure fiscal conservatism. Can you say "blue dog" democrats! 

 9. Rejecting the deification of government officials

We're all humans folks, no one is any better than anyone else.

 10. Downplaying significance of wealth, disparities in wealth, and materialism in general

This is a hard pill for liberals to buy into but some people are going to be more well off than others, don't make people pay publicly for their private success.

 11. Emphasizing self-reliance and being able to keep the fruits of one's labor.

Work hard for what you have so that you can make yourself better, not to share with someone who isn't working as hard.

 12. Emphasizing self-restraint against hurtful activities

Stop the politics of personal destruction and recognize people for who they are.

 13. Recognizing the power of the free market

Don't confuse Wall street with this concept. Free market in regards to promoting competition and ingenuity to promote growth.

 14. Understanding that a rising tide lifts all boats, e.g. tax cuts benefit all.

This is a tried and true philosophy that Reagan called "trickle-down economics".  Taxes burden everyone no matter how you slice them.  Fewer taxes promote more growth which ends in higher revenue.  Too many times people confuse revenue with taxes, we want maximum revenue with minimal taxes.

 15. Self-control as opposed to a self-indulgent search for instant gratification of desires.

Basically this is greed.  Too many times people let greed and instant cash guide their decision making and loose they're long term vision.  It's a slippery slope that only discipline and clear headiness can forestall.

Have you noted folks that I've not mentioned the differences in the parties when I explained what these values mean?  That is because they transcend political parties.  Sure there are conservative Republicans but there are also conservative Democrats.  So the next time someone says they are scared of Gov. Palin ask them why.  Most likely their going to spout out some tripe about being against one of these conservative values thus proving themselves nothing more than liberal mouthpieces.  Democrats don't need to be scared of Sara but I would say that liberals should be shaking in their shoes.

I not raising hogs...

I got this e-mail from a friend and I know it's fiction but if our more liberal officials get their way, some savvy farmer may take advantage.  Read on...  :)

Dear Sir; 

My friend, Ed Peterson, over at Wells Iowa, received a check for $1,000 from the government for not raising hogs. So, I want to go into the "not raising hogs" business next year.

What I want to know is, in your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to raise hogs on, and what is the best breed of hogs not to raise? I want to be sure that I approach this endeavor in keeping with all governmental policies. I would prefer not to raise razorbacks, but if that is not a good breed not to raise, then I will just as gladly not raise Yorkshires or Durocs.

As I see it, the hardest part of this program will be in keeping an accurate inventory of how many hogs I haven't raised.

My friend, Peterson, is very joyful about the future of the business. He has been raising hogs for twenty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was $422 in 1968, until this year when he got your check for $1000 for not raising hogs.

If I get $1000 for not raising 50 hogs, will I get $2000 for not raising 100 hogs? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4000 hogs not raised, which will mean about $80,000 the first year. Then I can afford an airplane.

Now another thing, these hogs I will not raise will not eat 100,000 bushels of corn. I understand that you also pay farmers for not raising corn and wheat. Will I qualify for payments for not raising wheat and corn not to feed the 4000 hogs I am not going to raise?

Also, I am considering the "not milking cows" business, so send me any information you have on that too.

In view of these circumstances, you understand that I will be totally unemployed and plan to file for unemployment and food stamps. Be assured you will have my vote in the coming election.

Patriotically Yours,

P.S. Would you please notify me when you plan to distribute more free cheese.

Predator Pilot Video

I saw this on Chairforce.  Hilarious!

Palin for President?

We all need to sit back and laugh at ourselves sometimes.  Check this out and remember to click on all the little things. :)

http://www.palinaspresident.com/