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/

Originally posted at IBD Editorials (Funny)

O'Reilly was right, Barney Frank is to Blame!

While we’re not out of this mess yet, the investigative dust is starting to settle.  In the Wall Street Journal article “Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess”, Charles W. Calomiris and Peter J. Wallison do a great job outlining how we got into this mess.  It seems that back when we had a Republican controlled congress some fairly savvy congressmen saw this looming disaster and tried to enact legislation to stop it.  Well they were unable to pass the proposals due to staunch partisan Democrat opposition centering around their socialist attitude towards financial equality.  The Democrat scheme to increase sub-prime loans as a method to create “affordable housing” would have been stopped by this bill or at least would have added some sanity to the lending practice.  After the power swap as a result of the last election, the Republicans concern on this matter was squelched and the impending Democrat created train-wreck that we’re dealing with now is the result. 

As I said in my earlier post, there’s little we can do at out levels to make a difference in how we proceed.  The one thing we have, the one thing we should cherish is our vote.  You cannot imagine how important your one vote is.  We need to vote these idiots out of power so we can get some sanity back in our government.  Who voted to create this mess?  Who sat there in those hearings a few years ago and said there wasn’t a problem?  As the flashlight of blame focuses its beam who will be highlighted the most?  Those are the folks that we should be removing and the first one to leave should be Barney Frank.  I ask you right now Mr. Frank, resign your position and take responsibility for your action.  You should be in prison for the mess you have created for the rest of us in this country to clean up.

In the article they talk about folks on both sides of this fight.  Yes, both candidates are mentioned; John McCain tried to get the legislation passed, Barack Obama did his normal and sat on the sidelines doing nothing. There’s a few other names mentioned but I would assume that all of the current Democrat leadership is responsible as well as some Republicans.  I haven’t had time to research the names but when I find them I will post them so we can boot these folks so they don’t ruin our future any more.  Fiscal conservatism is bi-partisan and an attribute claimed by both sides of the fence.  We need that attitude back in Washington. 

Bailout Bill Voting Record

We all here about the votes in Washington but do you really know who voted which way? Recently we had a vote on the Wall Street bailout bill; something that I was against.  You might find it interesting who voted for or against the bill (I know I did).  Below are the results for Texas but you can check out the complete list at the Senate and House website.

Senate overall vote:  Yea - 74         Nay - 25          Not Voted - 1

• Cornyn (R-TX), Yea  
• Hutchison (R-TX), Yea

House overall vote: Yea - 263       Nay - 171

Yea:    Republican – 6         Democrat - 9

• Kevin Brady (R)
• Michael Conaway (R)
• Henry Cuellar (D)
• Chet Edwards (D)
• Charles Gonzalez (D)
• Kay Granger (R)
• Al Green (D)
• Ruben Hinojosa (D)
• Sheila Jackson-Lee (D)
• Eddie Johnson (D)
• Solomon Ortiz (D)
• Silvestre Reyes (D)
• Pete Sessions (R)
• Lamar Smith (R)
• Mac Thornberry (R)

Nay:    Republican – 13       Democrat – 4

• Joe Barton (R)
• Michael Burgess (R)
• John Carter (R)
• John Culberson (R)
• Lloyd Doggett (D)
• Louie Gohmert (R)
• Gene Green (D)
• Ralph Hall (R)
• Jeb Hensarling (R)
• Sam Johnson (R)
• Nicholas Lampson (D)
• Kenny Marchant (R)
• Michael McCaul (R)
• Randy Neugebauer (R)
• Ron Paul (R)
• Ted Poe (R)
• Ciro Rodriguez (D)

Repeatedly in this blog I have urged you to be an educated voter.  While I do care which way you vote, when you vote I think you should be informed as to what your voting for.  Your vote is your decision but make that decision for the right reason.  Now in case you didn't figure it out I normally vote Republican but sometimes I vote outside of the party for various reasons.  This bill is one of those reasons.  I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who voted for this bill.  The bill pushes us closer to the precipice of socialism while I think we should be decreasing government involvement in our life.   We are a free market economy, we tout that philosophy around the world as the best way to be and punish those that disagree with us.  One of the prime tenets of a free market economy is that the value of the market is a direct reflection of the true value of it workers and businesses.  With us bailing out all these businesses we’re telling the world that our plan works “most” of the time but when it doesn't governments should step in.  Is this the message we want to tell the world?  Isn’t this what happens in a socialist society?  A strong government is an indicator of a strong economy but a government can’t create a strong economy, we do (the people).  I disagree with the doom and gloom forecasts that we were warned of.  I think we had some “chicken little” leaders who failed to correctly read the tea-leaves of markets.  Now we’re stuck with even more debt, even more government controls, and even more foreign influence in our country.  We should have let the market do what it was going to do and picked up the pieces when it was over.  That’s what we’ve done before and we were stronger because of it. 

If you agree with me then look at who voted for this socialist regulation and get them out of office.  Our country can recover but we need sound and strong leadership to do it, NOT the cowards who forced this crap onto us. 

Obama + Odinka + Ayers + Wright + ????

On my way home from work today I caught a snipit from Hannity regarding the ousting of writer Jerome Corsi from Kenya. Mr Corsi was in Kenya researching facts for his book "The Obama Nation" and apparently stepped on a few toes and was "asked" to leave. So what was the problem?  What was mr Corsi researching?  Well during the interview Mr Corsi went on to tell Sean that he was researching the connection between Senator Barack Obama and Mr Raila Odinga, the Prime Minister of Kenya.  Sounds legitimate enough right?  Well as usual once you peal the onion, things start getting a disconcerting.  Here is a Youtube video of a CNN broadcast regarding Mr Odinga:

The video explains fairly well that Mr Odinga reputation isn't the best in the world but that's the way things are in some parts of the world.  You have to ask yourself though, do we want that type of action here in the United States?  Check out Mr Odinga's own website: Don't worry to much with the rhetoric but look at what's written, doesn't this look eerily like Obama's campagn adds?  Change Change Change!  Mr Corsi told Sean Hannity that there where high level communications between Mr Odinga's 2007 campaign and Senator Obama's campaign.  I think it's probably so, the proof is all over both of their slogans and talking points.  So what else did Mr Obama learn from Odinga?  How about the aftermath when Odinga lost the election?  There's already talk of this possibility; after last nights debate James Carvel on CNN expressed this very concern.

Between the connection with ex-Weathermen Bill Ayers, wanna-be dictator Raila Odinga, and whacko preacher Jeremiah Wright; Barack Obama has some pretty radical friends. It makes me wonder who else is waiting in the wings.  What other radical group does Mr Obama have connections with?  In one of the debates Mr Obama told us that he would meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea with out preconditions.  Why would he do that when he knows these are self expressed enemy's of our country all of which seek the downfall of our country.  This country does not and should not conduct a foreign policy that legitimizes governments hellbent on our downfall.  But based on all these other associations Mr Obama has had in his life why wouldn't he also seek out the guidance of the rest of the worlds radicals. 

This is a track record that needs to be explored in Senator Obama.  His past actions and associations are indicators on how he will lead our country and with whom he will seek guidance on how to do it.  I've said this before and I will say it again.  Don't vote on passion, vote on facts.  Do the research on the person you want to vote for and let your conscience be your guide.

Is Posse Comitatus Dead?

I ran into a few articles today regarding an upcoming deployment of the 1st Infantry Division. Apparently their destination is the United States. This will be the first time since the Civil War that a military unit will be "deployed" within the U.S. borders with a mission other than training. Is this a conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878? I'm sure not the person to say one way or another; that will be left up to the smart folks in the Justice Department. However; I do have an opinion on it.

What is the problem with deploying forces within the U.S.? Well there's the obvious reason that initiated the Act after the Civil War but those reasons aren't in existence in today's world. We have a standing police force that is well equipped to handle any civil disturbance if it was to rear it's ugly head. But what of the real mission of the Army defending the U.S.? Yes, folks that's why this is coming around. In today's world of terrorist imposed micro-conflicts, it's a smart idea to have a force ready to go in a moments notice to defend us if a terrorist was to try something here at home. Suitcase nukes, dirty bombs, and chemical and biological weapons can devastate our homeland while our Army is focused overseas. Wouldn't it be smart to have someone providing defense at home for these threats? The time of large standing forces threatening our country is pretty much over but that doesn't mean we're not threatened. We need to adapt our force to handle these new threats; threats that do exist, threats that we live with every day.

Police forces are there to enforce the law but are being asked to do more and more defense type of missions. Terrorists don't normally break laws until they blow something up so the pursuit of this enemy by the Police could be construed as a conflict. Yes, I know we have laws about planning terrorist acts but they're pretty broad and hard to enforce. Although these people have declared war on us, we still treat them as criminals and they're not, they are enemy forces in our country to bring down us. The ultimate goal of terrorist forces is the same as if we had an enemy countries army within our borders; the downfall of our way of life. Defending us against this type of threat IS the mission of the Army folks.

Posse Comitatus isn't dead folks. The law has evolved just is our country has evolved and does still have some relevance however the law does have two sides. While it does limit the involvement of the Army in criminal enforcement it also somewhat defines the role of the Police. So let's do what Posse Comitatus intended and let the Police do their job of enforcing our laws, and let the Army do it's job of defending the country.

There's a ton of new pictures at my Picassa site.  Check them out.

What's my Palin name?

Yes, the Palins have a strange way of naming their children.  If I was named by the Palins my name would be:

Falter Locust Palin

If you want to find out what the Palins would have named you check out the blog. :)

Book Banning! Holy Crap it's Fahrenheit 451 all over!

So what is the temperature at which liberals burn?  Well it seems that it's pretty much whatever they want it to be.  In their latest attempt to bring down Sarah Palin, they've resulted to creationism. Creating lies that is; read on...

As I watched FOXnews this afternoon they had a few talking heads on to discuss the election. And, as usual, the discussion turns to how bad Gov Palin will be for the country and how her track record supports their point.  This time the brought up an event early on in the Governor's Mayoral stint in Wasilla when she asked a question of the city librarian concerning some books people had had "issues" with.  This story originally ran in the Anchorage Daily News on Sept 4th, 2008 and outlined events that had happened 12 years earlier.  The story tries to repeatedly find a connection between a discussion at a city council meeting between then Mayor Palin and the librarian and a supposed request from the Mayors office for the librarians resignation.  Well as I've said many times there's a lot more to this than what this left wing rag wants you to think.

After more research I found an article from a more conservative Blog regarding the incident. Michelle Malkin wrote an opposing article concerning the incident and it seems did a better job of putting the events in a more balanced light.  She even went so far as to post the list of the supposed planned books to be banned.  Here's the problem; some of the books on the list weren't even published at the time the events happened. Wow, how could that be?  I'm sure that ADN.com couldn't have been that gullible to be taken in like this.  Well they never actually posted the list, this was found out later on when some of the original sources where pressed a little harder. It seems the lists is from a group at the Florida Institute of Technology and has nothing what so ever to do with Governor Palin.  Yes it's a group against banning book but I don't think there's a FIT-Wasilla, AK connection.  

So what is the bottom line here?  I suspect that this all started because someone got their feelings hurt because she was asked to resign.  Then, the anti-McCain/Palin crowd latched onto it trying to twist it somehow to make the Republican candidate look like a jack-booted Nazi thug.  This is a tired tactic that doesn't work on the educated voter.  The writers use fear mongering to create a disingenuous account of events and their actions are downright despicable.  Shame on them.

No, Ray Bradbury's vision of the future isn't coming.  No, we don't have a new Hitler running in the election.  No Mrs. Palin isn't the anti-christ.  And no, the apocalypse isn't going to happen if the Republicans get elected.  So don't let the chicken-little liberal get away with this smear campaign; be an educated voter, do some research and make up your own mind.

Pork Invaders

Check out this McCain game:

And who says he's out of touch with America? Using an '80s video game to make a point! Brilliant!

Have fun with it but please go to his website and get the truth about the campaign.

Saw this on the internet today: July 11 2008 JONES, EUGENE Eugene (Gene) Jones of Westminster, 86, husband of Frances (Fran), father of Pamela (Pam) Jones-Gonzales, grandfather of Andrew Jones-Gonzales. Visitation Friday 4:00P-7:00P at Horan and McConaty Mortuary, 9998 Grant St., Thornton. Memorial Mass Monday 11:00AM at Spirit of Christ Catholic Community, 7400 W. 80th Ave., Arvada. Inurnment Ft. Logan National Cemetery. Gene was a damn good man; he'll be missed by all that knew him. I wish I would have known about this earlier. :(

Political Hay or a Real Problem?

As I was watching Fox news today they ran a story regarding how much the Political Action Committee (PAC) representing Fannie May and Freddy Mac had contributed to certain Democratic members. They're stance was the top recipients of this money was all Democrat specifically the number 2 person, Senator Barak Obama. Well folks, this isn't my first rodeo so the news wasn't any surprise to me; however I thought it was interesting so I did a little checking myself.  Yes it was as it was reported, the top 6 folks are Democrat but guess what; there are over 350 names on the list. I found the website they had cited as their source (OpenSecrets.Com) and found the entire list and it became very obvious to me that while they had reported correctly they hadn't told they whole story. Here's some data I thought you'd want to see:

Place	Name	Office	Party	Grand Total
1	Dodd, Christopher J	S	D	$165,400
2	Obama, Barack	S	D	$126,349
3	Kerry, John	S	D	$111,000
4	Bennett, Robert F	S	R	$107,999
5	Bachus, Spencer	H	R	$103,300
6	Blunt, Roy	H	R	$96,950
7	Kanjorski, Paul E	H	D	$96,000
8	Bond, Christopher S 'Kit'	S	R	$95,400
9	Shelby, Richard C	S	R	$80,000
10	Reed, Jack	S	D	$78,250
62	McCain, John	S	R	$21,550
217	Biden, Joseph R Jr	S	D	$3,300

 

Now I only put in the top 10 and then McCain and Biden but do you notice something interesting here? The game is tied folks! 6 Dems, 6 GOPs! So what does this tell us? Well since I downloaded the entire list I did some number crunching to see what other truths I could gleam from the data.

If you broke of the money by party it comes out to 42% GOP, 57% Democrat, and 1% Independent. If you changed it around and looked to see if there was a difference between the House and Senate; House 55% and Senate 45%. Hmmm, it looks like the PAC knows how to do math too; remember, Democrats are the Majority right now and, as we all know, the House has more people than the Senate. So do the Democrats have a larger problem, does the house? Nope, they're all equal opportunity leaches.

Now I do have to say it is rather troubling to me to see Senator Obama's name so high on the list considering his time in the Senate but that's not really the point to all of this. So what is the point… None of us should take what we hear on the news as gospel. If we want to know the real truth we need to look for ourselves especially if it's particularly damning towards one person. Don't follow the hype folks, become free thinkers, take responsibility for your own knowledge.

Upcoming Election

Just in case ya'll are wondering, I'm voting for McCain this November. Why? Well for one I've been a Republican for a long time now but mostly because of his track record and some things he's done recently. McCain's track record speaks for itself; his service in the military, his service in the House, and his service in the Senate has all portrayed this fine American as the true leader he is. While Obama talks about needing "change" McCain exudes leadership in way Obama can only dream of. McCains TV add on the day of Obama's nomination congratulating him on reaching this point was profound. It shows McCains ability to put politics aside and do what's right. Was there any response like that from Obama on McCains nomination? No, only more tired democratic rhetoric. When it came to selecting a running mate Obama thought it was correct to choose an entrenched liberal Senator, McCain selected a fresh face. Look at Bidens stance and track record on the important issues of our times ad you'll see the same failed Democrat positions of the past. Granted Palin is a much more conservative Republican than McCain is but she has been fixing the problems in Alaska that mirror our nations problems. She brings to the plate new solutions to old problems, not the tried and failed Democrat solutions of Biden and Obama. So who is the better candidate? Who is showing leadership and not just talk? Who is really demonstrating an ability to facilitate change? You know my answer; do the research and make up your own mind. I welcome your responses.

On-Line Life

So what is your on-line life? With the advent of on-line gaming, social networks, chat rooms, and surfing there's so much on-line now that we use to define ourselves. Currently I've got a Facebook account, MySpace account (that was on the wane though), and a couple of blogs. While I've created all these things I do realize that there's a lot of information out there that people can read or see about me. If you're a frequenter to those site you know that I'm married, have kids and even know my dogs name. I've made friends all over the world, and yes, some enemy's but have never actually met any of them. So what did I do before all this? What has access to the internet created in me that I didn't have before? Not much actually, read on... When I was younger I always had a hard time making casual friends. I always had one or two that I felt close to and their still friends of mine today. Folks like JC Tallman, David Day, Dave Stock, Jay Fox, and Tim Strickland are some of the ones that have been my closest friends and I still keep in contact with many of them. The level of friends that I'm talking about is the casual friends, the ones you had because you where a member of a group, or organization. Those are the ones that I've always had issues with. There's probably a few reasons for this, first tend to shy aways from groups because I don't feel I need them to identify myself, and secondly me devotion to the people I felt where close to me. That's a little vague but let me explain using a different type of relationship. Being that I'm a guy I have real problems having girls as friends without wanting the relationship to turn sexual. Whenever I have a girls as a friend, there always reaches a point in the relationship where I want more than mere friendship. Even as a teenager I wanted girls as girlfriends not casual friends. Those that I did have as girlfriends I wanted to become even more; in other words I fell in love with every girl. This inability of mine to see what the relationship potential actually was caused me to drive a lot of very nice girls away. For guys however I have this same desire to be the best friend possible but since love isn't in the equation there's no desire to make it any more than that. So what does that have to do with my on-line life? I now have more casual friends than I know what to do with but it's been difficult to realize what type of friend they really are. Lately Facebook has been occupying a lot of my on-line time. I really like the game applications like Homeworld, Mob Wars, and Knighthood. I never got involved with other on-line gaming schemes like World of Warcraft, so this is rather new to me. What I've found though is a whole world of casual friends. Maybe one or two might turn into the close friend category but chances are thin. I'm liking things the way they are though, here's a group of people whom I have something in common with but there's no responsibility to any of them for anything other than playing a game. I know that last sentence seems shallow on my part but this type of relationship is the norm on the internet. When I was younger (before the internet) friends where made be meeting people. Normally this was by working with them, going to school or church together, or living next to someone. We also used to have "pen-pals" that could have been anywhere in the world but only the most outgoing people put the time in to write the letters. Now we have a world wide web of users that have replaced the "pen-pal". social networks like Facebook and MySpace have created an easy way for anyone to meet folks from all around the world. I now have friends in Australia, Great Briton, Hong Kong, Japan, and elsewhere. You name it and I've probably have talked with someone from that country. 30 years ago when I was in high school, to have this level of world wide contact was unfathomable. Even if you had a few pen-pals it wouldn't be anything close to the variety on-line social network give us. Yes there's some whack-O's out there but for the most part people are what-you-see-is-what-you-get. I know that most of these people I'll never actually meet but I sure do enjoy their company. I also know that if I travel around the world that I at least know someone. So what's in the future for us? In 20 years are we going to have virtual relationships that are taken to the next level? Will we have virtual marriages between folks that never really meet? I don't think it'll get that bad but I will say your on-line life will probably play a bigger part in your social life as the internet matures. Who knows maybe you will meet the love of your life half a world away. Not me however, my best friend and the love of my life is living with me now. we didn't meet on-line we met in person, shooting pool in a bar, like normal people do.