Monday, January 31, 2011

Hallelujah! Socialized medicine "void" for now

OK. The Florida federal court has just delivered a verdict regarding the suit brought by 26 states of the USA who argued the socialized medicine law, as written is unconstitutional.

THE FLORIDA COURT DECLARED THE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE BILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL BASED ON THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. The court said only the US Supreme Court can expand the power granted under the commerce clause... so apparently the congress can't??

Furthermore, and I'm crying I'm so happy --

THE SOCIALIZE MEDICINE LAW IS NOT SEVERABLE -- SO THE ENTIRE ACT IS DECLARED VOID. "Not severable" means if one clause -- like forcing people to buy insurance -- is unconstitutional, then the entire act is unconstitutional.

We're supposed to get two feet of snow. I don't care. I'll be dancing in the streets anyway. Barefoot. And strewing confetti.

Save the Republic.

Like an Egyptian

Well, the events in Egypt continue. Still masses of people in the streets, and a guy named El Baradei, who's a Nobel winner and apparently emblematic of political change, spoke to the crowds last night in one square. Nothing much else has changed. Just heard, too, that there have been reports that the radical, anti-US Muslim Brotherhood is trying to get close to El Baradei. Let's hope not.

It becomes apparent, however, that Mubarak isn't going to be able to maintain his control. Apparent to me, anyway. Not sure Mubarak is aware of it. And more power to the Egyptian people. It's their country. They should claim their human rights and work to establish a freer and more just government. But it seems one of the biggest problems is that Mubarak has been in control so long and so exclusively that not many other Egyptians have the experience and the skills to replace him -- to serve as a government. I don't even know if Egypt has any kind of legislature.

The US State Dept. has advised Americans in Egypt to leave and is arranging flights out. Their evacuation began today sometime.

And the price of oil and gasoline here will probably go up. The price of crude already has gone up.

Egypt doesn't produce any oil, but it's in the path of tankers and the pipeline.

And I've got to wonder, again, why the hell does the EPA and the rest of the current US regime keep this nation dependent on foreign oil? Why don't we use our own resources, which are extensive?

If we at least continued drilling in the Gulf, that would serve some of our needs while we drill in ANWR and other places within US boundaries.

We don't have to depend on the Arabs or on maniac Chavez in Venezuela for oil. But apparently we want to. We want to be emboiled in the domestic problems of other nations -- problems that really aren't our business. We like having our own lives disrupted by people like Hamas and Hizbollah or the lunatic marxists in South America -- or the rabid drug producers down there, too, for that matter.

I suppose our dependency on oil from undeveloped and unstable nations gives the State Dept. an added sense of purpose. I can't think of any other reason for extending it.

Save the Republic.

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Oh, the hypocrisy

Well, things in Egypt seem to have gotten even worse as yesterday wore on. And right now, it's just about dawn of a new day there.

Mubarek made a big announcement after midnight, Egypt time, saying he would fire his whole government and appoint a new one.

That really cracked me up. "Appoint" a new one. I think he put his finger right on the problem. Or actually, his failure to see the irony in that is the problem.

Meanwhile, the Comrade made a statement, advising that the Egyptian military and other security don't fire real bullets at anyone. He reminded everyone that there's a "universal" right to peacefully protest, to free speech and all. He urged Mubarek to turn the Internet and Twitter and all that back on. He urged Mubarek to listen to his people.

Not a bad statement, but coming from the Comrade, the hypocrisy is monumental. I mean about a million Americans in Washington a while back, unhappy about socialized medicine, and the Comrade does a fly-over and leaves town. And then shoves that piece-shit-legislation through congress by totally destroying any kind of ethical procedure.

Hey, Comrade, you listen. And get your slimy, and power-hungry over-reaching claws off the Internet here, off the radio, off TV. OK??? You listening, or too busy rehearsing your next campaign speech? You  don't really want another term, do you? Wasn't this one bad enough? Surely you can't be comfortable with people coming to you for answers you just don't have. Why not get on a plane and fly away. I mean far away. And stay there.

And frankly, if push comes to shove over here, I'm not convinced the police or the military would stand behind the Comrade. I really wouldn't count on it if I was him.

Just a few things to think about. I really despise hypocrisy, lying, corruption, lying, hypocrisy. LYING.

Save the Republic.

Friday, January 28, 2011

The individual vs. the state

Interesting news today. In Egypt, apparently a popular uprising has erupted. The dictator, Mubarek, has shut down all media and declared a curfew, while thousands of people are burning down the local TV station and Mubarek's office of some kind in Cairo. This is after about four days of rioting, the police gasing people, the military called in. One report says people are happy to see the military because the police are so brutal. Others say the police are breaking rank and joining the protesters.

Anyways, a mess.

Mubarek is a dictator. He has complete, autocratic control over Egypt. It seems the Egyptian economy has been hurting -- like everyone else's -- and that has been one source of discontent. Then they also get Al Jazeera and the like, urging them to trade Mubarek for a Imam of some kind, apparently, trading one type of autocratic rule for another. But I doubt you'd convince them of the folly of that.

Hillary Clinton has issued a statement asking Mubarek to meet with the protesters and find out what their problems are and try to offer some kind of solution. But I think the problem is what it always is -- a lack of personal freedom.

Of course, the USA is not without violence either. This morning in Takoma Park, Md., a guy walked into a Capital One bank with something he said was a bomb. (Turned out to be Styrofoam.) Anyway, someone called the cops, and they showed up in 20 seconds. Must be a doughnut shop across the street. At any rate, the guy apparently gave up on the robbery thing and grabbed a woman to use as a human shield so he could get his sorry butt out of the bank.

Outside, backing toward the parking lot, holding the woman in front of him, the robber stepped on a chunk of ice, slipped, and the hostage made a break for it. The cops shot and killed the robber.

So what are the parallels?

Well, I suppose the Maryland bank robber was dead broke, saw little hope in his life, and believed robbing the bank would solve all his problems. It didn't, but that's another thing.

While in Egypt, people are dead broke, see little hope in their lives, and believe they have to topple the government to solve their problems. While the revolt is still in play, I don't think this is going to end happily for anyone involved.

See the parallels between a free, capitalist system and a government-run dictatorship? I think the advantages and disadvantages are pretty clear. It comes down to a matter of scale, and how many people are unwillingly impacted.

And the Comrade wants us all to be more like Red China.

I just don't get it. Do you?

Save the Republic.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Yeah, right, "mourning" in America

Watching too much TV lately. On Megyn Kelly today -- though she wasn't there -- they had a story about how Time magazine is running a cover in an upcoming issue that features Ronald Reagan's profile side-by-side with the Comrade. I mean, is this funny or what? Maybe a case of some kind of "stolen valor" or what?

So this guy named Joe Trippi, a dem who worked for Howard Dean or John Kerry or someone, gets on TV to explain. Trippi says well, no, nobody's saying the Comrade is anything like Reagan policy-wise. The whole thrust of the story is the Comrade renewing public optimism, like Reagan's "Morning in America."

But, you know, somebody also did a video like an un-funny parody on "Morning in America." Called "Mourning in America," it showed photos and played music related to what's really going on with this administration -- unemployment, housing foreclosures, bankruptcies, etc etc. I'm sure you can still find it on YouTube.

And this cover makes me ask the question: Who the hell is editing Time magazine anymore? Geroge Stephanopoulos? Dan Rather?

Here's the central problem with the Comrade and his administration -- apart from blockhead, unworkable and actually ruinous policies. This White House is unable to discern propaganda from reality, and it assumes that we all out here in the hinterland make the same mistake.

The recent State of the Union address was the very first time I've ever heard the Comrade say one good word about America. The very first time. And he called this our "sputnik moment," meaning time for us all to rise up to his challenge.

The thing is, while we'd all like to return the USA to peace and prosperity, rising up the Comrade's challenge will only turn the USA into Red China. Not many people outside the Beltway are up for that. But I suppose this is what the Comrade calls "leadership." More like "cheerleadership," but that's just my own opinion.

Furthermore, I don't think the Comrade has one single concrete idea about turning around the economy or inspiring the public. He has absolutely no experience with this kind of thing (capitalism) on this kind of scale (beyond the barrio.)

He does know how to campaign. That's about it.

And comparing the Comrade to Reagan is really kind of an insult to human intelligence.

Save the Republic.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Medicare Chief admits socialized medicine won't deliver, or toldya so

Interesting. Watched Megyn Kelly today on Fox, and she reported on a story that's up on Fox's Web site:
....Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.
The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/26/medicare-actuary-doubts-health-care-law-hold-costs/#ixzz1CAgwgyA3

Gee, really? I'm shocked, shocked!

So Megyn had a Repbulican and a democrat on to discuss the issue. The democrat started out saying how the Republicans had complete input into the bill, hearings for the bill, and they didn't raise any of these objections before it was passed. [Careful, Dude, your nose is gonna grow.]

He also noted that the CBO said the bill would actually save money. -- BULLSHIT. Everybody knows about this. The CBO simply adds and subtracts whatever bogus numbers congress puts in front of it. Apparently Pazzo Pelosi and the merry marxists submitted figures like -- "a tonsillectomy will now cost 43 cents. Comprehensive health insurance for a family of four will cost $2.80 per annum." So I don't blame the CBO for coming up with really bizarre and unrealistic numbers that the CBO itself doesn't even believe.

So on Megyn Kelly, the dem says, "Well, it's up to the Republicans now to fix it and make it work."

Laughed so hard coffee was shooting out my nose. I refer you to my blog of 1/3/11, which talked about the Evil and the Stupid Parties. The Evil party passes all kinds of crap legislation designed to enslave and destroy the USA, and the Stupid Party makes it work.

Only, as I said in that blog -- I don't think these particular Republicans are about to play the traditional role of the Stupid Party.

And I must say, that's not because of the traditional Republicans, but because of the Tea Party. Really, seems like a lot of those freshmen congresscritters really do understand who voted for them and why.

Also, and think this must have been at the same Budget Committee Hearings, Fox earlier ran a clip of a couple guy from Taco Bell or someplace saying that they absolutely cannot insure their employees as they would be mandated to under the socialized medicine bill. One guy said, and I paraphrase, "I think the whole idea behind this was to make it impossible for us to provide insurance from a private carrier."

Meanwhile, the Comrade is in Wisconsin, apparently hoping to stir up some support for his 2012 campaign for re-election.

My God, if anyone votes for this bozo again, I'll know the USA has outlived its usefulness -- and the "last great hope for man on earth" will be gone forever.

Save the Republic.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Obama's "ogenda" still intact

Well, listened to the Comrade's speech, Paul Ryan's speech, and Michelle Bachman is on right now.

Listened to the commentary about the Comrade on Fox, and surprised no one seemed to quite get what the Comrade was saying.

He's going to continue to spend money. If congress won't give him any money -- and he himself promises to "freeze" spending -- he's just going to rearrange the government and apparently reallocate whatever he does get to spend to continue to "invest" in his pet projects to promote his unchanging ogenda.

I mean, this is what "redistribution" really means, isn't it?

The Comrade talked a lot about indoctrination. I mean education for America's youth. I'm sure he's interested in that. The only people who'll vote for him will be the 19-year-olds who still believe in the Tooth Fairy -- the same people who voted for him in 2008. Only those 2008 voters now, after two years of being without a job, may not appreciate him quite so much anymore. So raise a new crop, huh?

Then he talked about a company owned by the Allen brothers. They took some old factory, and with a government loan, began producing some kind of "green" shingles. Nice. They created themselves a job. Find it interesting that only a paragraph or so later, the Comrade did note that the only thing green technology needs anymore is a market.

Make it and they will buy? We'll see. But it seems Spain -- the government of -- invested very heavily in green technology and Europe even had cap-n-trade. And Spain is going broke. I mean, exactly where is that elusive market?

You can tell the Comrade has been talking to Jeffrey Immelt, whose company is heavily invested in technology that should be obsolete before it's installed -- that is "green" stuff -- so the Comrade owes him one. Crony capitalism? You decide.

High-speed rail all across the country as a brand new idea. No offense. but the Transcontinental Railroad was complete in 1869 and not a lot of people use it anymore. They'd rather drive cars or fly. Cars get you from doorstep to doorstep with as many stops (for as long as you want) in between. And planes get you there within hours. Trains take forever -- even high-speed across the face of the North American continent -- and neither do they offer the convenience of landing you exactly where you want to go. You still have to hassle with cabs, tickets -- all that crap. Just like flying, only much slower.

And I've asked before: What is the fixation politicians have with high-speed rail? I have never, ever, ever in my life heard any person say, "Gee, I wish we had a monorail or something like that." Only politicians like this idea. And why? Well, the Comrade says the USA is one of few countries without high-speed rail.

Is this an argument in favor? That is, if your friends all went and jumped in the lake, does that mean you have to, too?

I mean, the largest nation in Europe is maybe the size of Pennsylvania. Entirely different geographical considerations. And Europeans, as their incomes increase, if and when they do, abandon the high-speed rail for the private auto.

Maybe some pol during his college years had a real blast Hamburg to Paris on high-speed rail. So I suppose next we'll all have to give up hotels and stay at youth hostels, too.

And I'm sorry, but did no one catch the backhand at John Boehner. The Comrade plays up Boehner's rise to Speaker, then deftly notes, "He's sitting behind me here." Yeah, the Comrade said that everyone who didn't agree with his socialist agenda can just behind him.. "back-of-the-bus," wasn't it? I'm sorry, but I don't think that was accidental. The Comrade loves to insult. He just can't resist trying to belittle people whenever he can. He has a kind of profound meanness and bitterness about him disguised by the practiced smile.

But the big threat was the Comrade's promise to redesign the Executive Branch. No doubt it will come out as streamlined and efficient as the Poltiburo, and the only outlets for allocated funds will be the SEIU, GE and other kiss-ass dinosaur corporations that play socialist soccer, and whatever else crap will promote the ideal of rebuilding the USA on the model of Red China.

Hey... the federal government has published a book about remaking America into Red China. I am not making this up.

Paul Ryan just reaffirmed his commitment to the Constitution and American exceptionalism. Good enough for me. I preferred that.

Enough for now.

Save the Republic.

China as a model

I suspect I'll be writing a lot more tonight after the Comrade does his rally.

Just wanted to make a note before I forget. Happened to look up per capita incomes around the world. Per capita income is average annual income for every citizen.

Let's not forget that the feds, led by the Comrade, regard Red China as a grand economic model, and want the USA to follow Red China's example.

For the USA, per capita income is somewhere around $45,000 to $47,000 per year.

Per capita income in Red China is roughly $7,400 to $7,500 per year.

You wanna be like Red China? You think that's a good consumer market for American-made goods?

Or is it rather more like certain US presidents simply have their heads up their butts? You decide.

Save the Republic.

Monday, January 24, 2011

"Investment" in govt = socialism

Well, tomorrow is the Comrade's big day. He gets to lead a pep rally that the whole congress and representatives from all other branches of are compelled to attend. No doubt all the TV networks, including cable TV, and the radio stations will carry the address. He's probably brushing up his letter sweater as we write.

A few things to consider: the government-created jobs will not and cannot help the economy. Every job the government creates, like someone to sit in the window of the Labor Dept. and make sure no homeless are sleeping on the lawn, paying $125,00 annually, with lifetime benefits, represents only an additional expenditure from the public treasury. That means the private economy will pay for it. Such a job also would supplant probably three jobs at lesser pay in the private sector.

If the Comrade talks about "investment" in education, you must ask: So if I get a Ph.D. in MIS or anything else -- where will I work? Will I ever be able to apply my skills and knowledge anywhere. Plus the fact the federal government now completely controls all student loans... any "investment" in education just beefs up government coffers. In other words, the feds invest more in itself. Does that help the economy?

If the Comrade talks about "investment" in infrastructure, please someone ask: With TARP and the Stimulus, it should have been possible to pave every inch of the USA and rebuild every damn bridge in the nation. So where did all that money go? Or are we going to rip up the highways around O'Hare Airport again, snarl up traffic, redirect everyone to remote parking lots, etc etc., and claim this is all for creating jobs? Again.

The biggest trouble with the US economy is that the feds are skimming too much off the top already -- off the top of what the private sector produces.

The government doesn't produce a goddamn thing, except paper work and inconvenience and more expense for the private sector. The Comrade can't change that. No one can.

I also find it laughable that the Comrade hires Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE, and one of the Daley brothers and claims he's gotten "business-friendly." Neither Immelt nor the Daley kid are exactly "business-friendly." Immelt is a perfect example of a failed executive in the private sector. GE stock has decreased in value while he's headed up the company, no doubt because he seems to spend most of his time in Washington, sucking up to legislators and trying to promote "green" technology -- in which GE has made rather unwise investments.

Daley is... one of the Daleys. What can I say? Three generations of this family have done nothing but "partner" with government when they aren't actively government functionaries. What business? What?

So I expect another load of crap from the Comrade. Maybe he'll toss a few sops to the US Chamber of Commerce or someone, counting on its being too polite to tell him to go jump in the lake.

But my honey, Paul Ryan, is giving the Republican response to the Comrade's speech, and I'm looking forward to that. So maybe we'll hear some real ideas and real solutions from him.

Save the Republic.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

It's Chinatown, Jake

Just briefly, because I have a lot of work to do...

A guy named Hu, president or something of Red China, is in Washington DC this week with the Comrade fawning all over him.

Probably not coincidentally, Glenn Beck has had shows about China for the last couple days.

Both of the above, I believe, have overblown China's significance -- or the power it's supposed to have over the USA. And both seem to be overlooking a couple key features about Red China.

OK, for starters, both Donald Trump and apprently Stuart Varney claim that China needs the USA more than we need China because we are such a huge market for Chinese-made goods. I agree with this. I mean, let's look at China.

It's basically sort of a slavery-based economy. I mean, really, China has a huge population -- 1.2 BILLION or so -- and apparently most of them gainfully employed somehow. Glenn Beck is fond of the idea that much of the population lives in a type of slave laber/company store/Pullman Village kind of situation. If this is true, what kind of discretionary funds do these folks have to spend as consumers?

I mean, they might produce 12 trillion tricycles. How many of these are bought by Chinese consumers? How many are sold overseas?

The fact that slave laborers are almost never consumers, except at a rather microcosmic level, was also a feature of the American South under slavery. Similarly, nearly everything the Old South produced was exported to England and France, and a pretty good portion to the Yankee spinning mills. None of the cotton, tobacco, hemp, indigo, etc. produced in the Old South was purchased by slaves. Therefore, the South was hardly an independent economic region. It couldn't stand on its own. It had to be actively involved in trade outside the region or it couldn't survive.

China is in almost exactly the same situation, except that Chinese labor does, perhaps, buy some of what is produced there. But I would guess Chinese consumption represents only a very small part of Chinese production.

And, OK, we owe China tons of money. Being Yankees, with that inerasible Puritan streak, I think we tend to blow this out of proportion. We can't stand the idea of being in debt to a brutal dictatorship. We're horrified by that. It looms very large and terrifying in the American psyche. Actually, it doesn't make any difference if we owe China or owe England or Argentina. We owe. We're a debtor nation. No special reason to kiss Hu's ass anymore than anyone else's. China owns about 11% of our debt. We owe others more.

When Nixon went to China in the early 1970s -- with lots of hoopla about opening up relations and all that -- it made me sick. It makes me even sicker to see the Comrade pandering to Hu when he's blown off England and hardly has time for France or Germany.

China is a predator nation and it almost has to be. It's totally dependent upon foreign trade, and the USA is among its biggest market, if not the biggest market. And American consumers enable China to continue as it is by buying Chinese goods. Though I know it's almost impossible to buy certain things that AREN'T "Made in China." I'm not pointing fingers here.

However, I do suggest we begin turning away from China and rebuilding our own domestic manufacturing capacity. That would require lightening up on stupid EPA regulations, letting the polar bears tend to their own business, and reducing taxes -- especially the corporate tax rate. Then let's see what happens.

As for China itself, with such a huge population, management must be a nightmare for the relative handful of those who retain political power there, floating like little bubbles of fat on a sea of proletariat water. And they face the same thing the slave owners in the Old South faced. For example, in most states, it was illegal to teach slaves to read and write. The thinking was, as slaves became better educated and more aware of the world around them and their place within it, they became less and less content with their condition as slaves. They began to recognize the possibilities that life presents and developed a greater capacity to rebel against the authority that kept a boot on their necks.

Would you like to confront 1.2 BILLION people in rebellion?

On the other hand, as the Chinese population evolves culturally, its leadership may find it necessary to lighten up on political control to maintain the civic peace. This would be a good thing. But history tells us that those in power anywhere are extremely reluctant to ever give it up. So... the outcome of China's development is up for grabs. Just have to wait and see.

But this spectacle of the Comrade falling all over Hu is just disgusting and makes me rather ashamed to be an American. The Comrade appears to be all impressed at Hu's status. Imagine being the Grand Puppeteer pulling the strings of 1.2 BILLION people. Probably the Comrade's fondest dream. Like that silly woman with the silly hair who claimed Mao and Mother Theresa were her "idols," I suspect the Comrade prays at the feet of those who hold the actually very specious and tentative reins of power. The Comrade is just far too impressionable when it comes to pomp and circumstance. He seems to confuse pageantry with governance.

Save the Republic.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

So what part of socialized medicine do you like?

Well, the House of Representatives is supposed to undertake the repeal of the socialized medicine bill this week. Good. Not soon enough as far as I'm concerned. What Republicans seem to want is a total repeal of the entire bill, and then go back and pass individual pieces of legislation to help cure the ills of the US health care system. Fair enough. Sounds like a plan.

But polls show that some people like some provisions of the bill, like filling the so-called doughnut hole in prescription drugs for seniors, keeping your kids -- or rather, grown adult offspring -- on your family health insurance until they're just about ready for Medicare... stuff like that.

So naturally the dems and others who want socialized medicine seize on these relatively small features of the larger bill and try to use them as a wedge to salvage the whole big pile of legislative manure.

They say, "We should keep pieces of the bill."

The only trouble with that is that the socialized medicine bill that passed was just shy of about 3,000 pages long. So are you going to keep Paragraph 6 under Title 17, Section 4, pages 1721-23?

I mean -- no one ever knew what-all this stupid piece of legislation contained. No one who passed the bill  actually read it. So what are they going to salvage? They don't even know what's in it. Yet. I'm sure they were shocked to find out about the doughnut hole thing and the provision to keep your adult children dependent forever.

Additonally, who's going to comb through this pile of drek to pick out the "good parts"? Any volunteers? If you decide to spare the aforementioned Paragraph 6 under Title 17, Section 4, pages 1721-23, do you know whether or not it's built on a foundation provided in Pargraph 14 under Title 6, Section 2, page 1341, which will be repealed along with all the rest?

No. Just pull the whole damn thing and start over.

In fact, I didn't see any evidence of any actual legislators writing the socialized medicine bill in the first place. Didn't it just arrive on Pazzo Pelosi's doorstep, UPS overnight from the Tides Foundation, like the Stimulus Bill? No wonder no one knows what's in it, except a pack of rabid socialists.

Just dump the whole thing and start over. AND READ THE DAMN BILLS BEFORE YOU VOTE ON THEM THIS TIME. No earmarks. No exemptions. All members of congress, all union members, all government employees will be subject to all the same crap congress lays on the rest of us, too.

Save the Republic.

Looking back at the 21st century

Imagine if you will that you're a history student in year 2250, and you're supposed to do a term paper on the decline and fall of the United States of America. Can you put your finger on exactly what went wrong? You may have several key concepts to choose from.

"At the dawn of the 21st century," you write, "the geographical USA included some of the largest deposits of fossil fuels to be found anywhere in the world. Yet use of these resources remained either untapped or severely limited because many in the population at the time believed that consuming these fuels would somehow bring about the death of the planet."

A more interesting term paper might be exploring the mania of "Global Warming." For example:

"Global Warming was a belief system that mimicked cultist religious faith and was even widely taught to school children. Initially claimed to be grounded in scientific fact, Global Warming was revealed to be nothing more than a hoax perpetrated by several leading 'scientists' at the time -- and many of these accredited not in geographic sciences, but in social sciences -- and unquestioning cadres of grad students and general 'ride-along' political rabble.

"This odd but noisy and even violent mixture of 'fellow travelers' used the Global Warming argument as political leverage to establish draconian regulations designed to limit and/or terminate the use of fossil fuels everywhere, but particularly in the USA and other highly industrialized nations. The apparent long-range aim of these groups was to eventually establish a global political dictatorship dedicated to protecting polar bears and yet-unidentified plant life that may or may not be lurking under the canopy of the Amazon rainforest -- which were hailed as potential sources of miracle medicines.

"This tiny but increasingly dangerous minority of people protected themselves by bolstering their Global Warming theories with unintelligible gibberish disguised as the 'measurable negative impacts' of the presence of the human race on the earth.  And their anti-science, anti-technology preachments gained such virulence that dismantling or otherwise neutralizing this knot of half-fact, fiction, and public hysteria was a challenge all by itself.

"For example, although the USA of the 21st century relied heavily upon oil, coal, and natural gas to fuel every aspect of human life, the political leadership at the time chose to pinch off and/or shut down development and use of those domestic resources. Instead, the nation decided to purchase these resources from non-USA producers -- apparently turning a blind eye to the fact that foreign producers also were violating the articles of faith behind Global Warming.

"At any rate, the USA's decision to buy these resources from other, largely undeveloped nations, regularly triggered fire storms of hostility and war-like threats and activities from the seller nations, who by and large regarded the USA as a threat to their own peculiar cultures and superstitions. In short, although the economic life of these nations depended upon the USA's purchase of oil and other raw materials, these seller nations profoundly resented the USA's influence upon their own societies and cultures. They regarded the USA in some cases as 'The Great Satan' and took any number of measures to destroy the USA and its allies wherever they existed around the world.

"And yet, the USA still refused to develop its own resources.

"This positively bizarre phenomenon can only be interpreted now -- with the luxury of hindsight -- as an irresponsible and even self-destructive flight of fancy on the part of the USA's leadership at the time."

Footnotes to come.

I'd give you an "A."

Do we really need the EPA or has it become a hindrance to human life in the USA?

Save the Republic

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Progressive group-think

I'm very curious about UFOs. Not sure what it means to "believe" in them. Many people have seen them, photographed them, suffered some ill effects from proximity with them. In many cases, UFOs have left burnt fields, scorched highways and other types of physical evidence. They've blinded and burned people. Some people claim they've been abducted -- and these aren't irrrational people, either. I don't know quite what to make of that.

But about 95% or even more of what people label as UFOs turn out to be bizarre cloud formations and other weather phenomena, space junk, "black projects" from the military, even your average plastic grocery bag aloft on the wind. But there are some pretty unusual events involving UFOs that are inexplicable. Are they extraterrestrials? I don't know. And I don't even know if I accept that theory. But there is something out there, and because it's an unknown, it kinda fascinates me.

So I visit UFO reporting sites and sometimes even look at the mailing lists and exchanges to see if anyone's figured out what this or that particular point of light could possibly be. And about five years ago, some guy who called himself Chad sent a radio station several photos of some strange thing that he claimed to have photographed hovering in California somewhere. The thing looked like what would happen if a table fan and an egg-beater mated and had children. I mean, it was ridiculous. It had something like Klingon writing on its extended arms. Then other people supposedly saw and photographed a similar "flying" thing zooming over telephone poles and various mountain meadows and forests.

But none of the photographers would come forward and discuss what they'd seen. There was just the photos. "Oh, well, they'll be questioned. People will make fun of them. You can't blame them." Yes I can.

With every photo, the thing got more complicated with more arms and sparkly things dangling from it. After the release of one of the later photos, I went to a UFO list to see what the buzz was. It was becoming more and more apparent to me with every new photo that this was just a rather ridiculous hoax. I left a message: "It really IS a chandelier!!!" Referring vaguely to the mother ship in the movie "E.T."

Not the right thing to say. I was reviled as a "debunker," God forbid, and the "believers" ignored and/or sneered at any more of my remarks and comments. Like other debunkers, I was only spoiling the party. No, much worse, trampling on their faith.

And the UFO photos and "documentation" that eventually accompanied it got even more and more complicated, more and more tangled and confusing. I stopped paying attention, and in the end, the whole incident proved itself to be nothing more than a hoax. And I must say, to their credit, all the really serious UFO investigators recognized early on that someone was just pulling their leg and didn't give it too much of their attention. One guy duplicated the photos of the alleged UFO using computer graphics, and I do believe he started getting hate mail. For the believers, it was just getting all too real.

I recall one believer on the list used the name "IWanttoBelieve" and others went by similar. The sillier the photos became, the taller the tales attached to them, the more "IWanttoBelieve" and others in that camp dug in their heels, insisting that, sure 'nuff, the ET's were preparing to land on the White House lawn any day now.... and the chandelier-egg-beater thing provided absolute proof of that. It was signaling to these anointed, the True Believers, that it was on its way and was giving them advance notice that only they, this particular elite, could appreciate. And furthermore, several of them claimed to have been abducted by aliens periodically all their lives, so were the debunkers prepared to call them liars? And break their hearts? And they sincerely hoped we debunkers would someday suffer the same kind of ostracizaton and everything that.....

In short, this list got to be something like a psyche ward with no attendants. Kinda like the Illinois State Assembly? Or Pelosi's House of Reps?

So now we have the shootings in Tucson, and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik making unfounded claims about perpetrator Jared Loughner that have been completely disproven by the facts. And a bunch of crazy I-Want-To-Believe progressives just digging in their heels and screaming, "Well it COULD happen!" You can't convince them otherwise. They want to believe. They don't care about the facts. They just need this kind of thing to plug up the gaping holes in their world-view, and you'll never convince them that they're just crazy. In a couple weeks, this will gain some kind of legendary status among them, become some kind of amorphous Unquestionable Truth, another article of faith in the progressive canon.

A key feature of this particular kind of cultism is the way these people cling together to support each other, even though they must know -- in the under-used intelligent part of their brains -- that they are flat-out lying and making things up. Some new, even bigger piece of fiction is announced by someone (possibly someone in the White House), and they all lock arms, braying "Right!!" in some kind of mad and insistent hysteria. As though their co-dependent consensus will make it all true.

And if you don't believe? You demand that they produce facts and hard evidence? Well, you're ruining their party. You're shaking the pillars of their faith. They can't tolerate that. If one small glimmer of incontrovertible truth penetrates, their whole belief system is likely to collapse, and they really can't tolerate that. They'll only scream louder -- and with a kind of ridiculous bathos, tears streaming down their cheeks -- that you're victimizing them somehow. And in the case of the progressives, if you're not a sanctified victim, then you're actively begging the victimized to cleanse you of your guilt. They all hold hands and cry for each other, console each other, and blame everyone else... for everything.

It's very strange. It's a phenomenon I've seen over and over again in various groups. I don't care who they are. They develop a certain dogma, a set of principles that become assumed, knee-jerk. They begin twisting and spinning the actual fact of everything they perceive around them to fit their dogma. And if you knock or question the dogma... heaven help you.

Drunks and junkies are the same way. They interpret everything from the drunk/junkie perspective and it all takes on a different meaning and drives them to take even more drugs. Drugs, by the way, are a very handy way of keeping "the faith." I mean, on drugs, you're totally tuned into the shadows that lurk in the dark recesses of your own unconscious. Makes it easier to ignore real life and an objective reality.

So now someone in congress doesn't want the Republicans and the democrats to sit on different sides of the aisle for the Comrade's upcoming State of the Union Address. He wants everyone to intermingle. No doubt so when the Comrade tells us blue is yellow and the sky is falling and we've got to spend a couple billion dollars to fix this mess, and the liberal crazies stand up and applaud -- it'll look bipartisan support. Yeah, right. Either that, or with the Republicans and democrats segregated, the shift in the majority numbers will become too embarrassing for the dems to accept.

Or maybe they should just find a nice big hilltop, join hands, and sing "Imagine" at the top of their lungs.

Anyway, I've got to go do some work. I have so many people after me for money it's impossible to ignore reality. My creditors won't let me.

Save the Republic.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

One-eyed jacks

Marlon Brando was in this movie called "One-Eyed Jacks" with co-star Karl Malden. When the story starts, Brando and Malden are partners in crime in a typical Old West way. They rob a bank or something, and Brando gets shot up, and Karl Malden leaves him bleeding and all, says he'll go get a doctor. What Malden really does is make off with their stash and leave Brando alone to die.

So Brando recovers somehow and decides to try to find Karl Malden. Brando tracks Malden to a dusty Mexican -- or maybe on the border -- town, where Karl Malden now has a nice wife and family and serves as the local sheriff. Brando hasn't forgiven him, so you can imagine the tension as the conflict ratchets up. Malden shows Brando his wonderful, upright, decent, God-fearing life and all, and can't imagine that Brando -- who's still pretty much an embittered saddle-tramp -- would destroy such a wonderful life.

I suggest you rent the movie or watch for it on cable to see what happens.

The one thing I want to mention about it is that at one point, Brando says to Malden, "People around these parts think you're a one-eyed jack, but I seen the other side of your face."

It's all about hypocrisy, you know. Mainly about the lies people tell themselves. Like, from another western -- and one of my favorite movies, "Unforgiven," we have the character of "Little Bill." Little Bill is a former gunslinger, now sheriff of this micro-town on the frontier. As sheriff, Little Bill is remarkably cruel and even sadistic, but he's building a house. That's his badge of respectability somehow. His passport to middle class status. I was so happy when Clint Eastwood shot him anyway.

At any rate, so we have this spectacle on tonight -- and I didn't see the whole thing. But we have this person occupying the highest office in the United States, and for the last three or even four years, if you include his very lengthy presidential campaign -- he's done nothing but demean and insult every segment of the US population, except for Ivy League professors, welfare cases, and the SEIU. He despises Wall Street, doesn't acknowledge the existence of Repulicans, doesn't mind corrupting the legislative process in order to destroy the capitalist system and "tramsform" us all into good little suck-up marxists.

Tonight he goes on TV and talks about "speech that heals," and things like that. All of a sudden, after three or four years of working his fingers to the bone to cripple his opposition, humiliate the USA to the rest of the world, kiss the asses of our sworn enemies, and work his Saul Alinsky sleight-of-hand, stirring up conflicts where none exist, fan hatred and envy, and sneer at traditional American values and the people who live by them.

But now he's Mr.Peacemaker.

No, I think now he's still the Comrade, but it's finally dawned on him that he's lost the support of the House of Representatives and all the voters who caused that shift to happen.

So now he's all, "Aw, gee, can't we all just along?"

You know, I've said it before. Talk is cheap. You have to judge people by what they do. You think this one-eyed jack is going to sign the bill that will repeal socialized medicine? Is he going to keep the ruthless terrorists down in Guantanamo, where they will remain neutralized, and where their cohorts won't attack? Is he going to promote the use of our domestic resources? Cut back all the silly and burdensome regulations he's using to hamstring business and industry?

I mean, do you really think the Comrade is going to do any of this? Or is he just trying to convince everyone that he's not quite the vicious asshole we've all seen for the last two years. No, instead we should vote for him again in 2012. He's betrayed his base of lunatic fringe liberals, so now he needs the independents and moderates to support him. Besides, he must be aware that he ain't gettin' nothing' through this congress. No more socialism, Comrade.

Let's see what Comrade One-Eyed Jack actually does instead of just listening to him blow a lot of hot air. We all know he's good at that. But let's see what he actually does -- and un-does. .

After the all the lies, posturing, game-playing, bluster, outrage and insult that's come out of the White House so far in the Comrade's term, I just don't believe a damn thing he says. My first response is: What the hell does he want now?

Don't trust until you verify.

Save the Republic.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Exactly who perpetrates Krugman's "Climate of Hate"?

On Saturday, Jan. 9, 2011, while the corpses resulting from the Tucson shooting were still warm, delusional economist Paul Krugman, a prof at Princeton and columnist in the New York Times, published a column called "Climate of Hate." In that, he blames conservative TV and radio for wannabe terrorist (using his own words) Jared Loughner going on a shooting spree. With absolutely no facts at hand, Mr. Krugman wrote:
It’s important to be clear here about the nature of our sickness. It’s not a general lack of “civility,” the favorite term of pundits who want to wish away fundamental policy disagreements. Politeness may be a virtue, but there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.
The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

Mr. Krugman is apparently so submerged in his own personal "progressive" fiction that he can't differentiate his ass from his elbow.

First of all, exactly which party is it that, historically, deliberately, and methodically, tries to pit their concept of an "under-class" against their concept of "fat cats." I mean, who does that? Republicans or the other guys? And for what purpose? To CREATE all kinds of social problems that they can then rush in and "cure" with more government controls, more regulations, higher taxes. LESS INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.

Second, I've lived an awful long time -- I wager a longer time than Mr. Krugman -- and never in my life, not even during the upheavals of the 1960s, heard the kind of vitriol and name-calling that was directed against George W. Bush, particularly during the last two years he was in office, as the dems tried their god-damnedest (and I mean that literally) to lay the groundwork for a political victory in 2008. You want demonization, Mr. Krugman? How about a feature-length movie about assassinating President Bush? Does that work for you? But that was OK, because it was issued by some shit-for-brains progressive and fulfilled the fondest fantasies of you and others of your particular not-quite-human species.

Third, ALL -- and I mean every speck of it -- of the hateful and accusatory speculation and commentary surrounding this shooting in Tucson over the weekend has come from "progressives." And there's really no need to fabricate some bizarre conspiracy theory about why the "progressives" do this kind of thing. Jonathan Alter from Newsweek explains:
Conservatives like to argue that these are isolated incidents carried out by lunatics and therefore carry no big lessons (unless the perpetrator is Muslim, in which case it’s terrorism); liberals view them as opportunities to address various social ills. Obama is in the latter category and should act accordingly. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman. Congress won’t enact gun control, as it did in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, but perhaps something positive can come from this.

I even tried to listen to Keith Overtbum on MSNBC for a time tonight, but that was just too much like cleaning up shitty diapers.

I can understand Paul Krugman's personal difficulties. I mean, here he espouses an economic theory all his life, even wins big awards for it, lands himself a big job at an Ivy League university... and then finally, finally -- O Happy Day!! -- here comes a major national economic crisis. His opportunity to apply his theories and save the nation.

So the Comrade and the marxists apply the theory... and the economy continues to circle the drain. Hero, or just nailing down the lid on the coffin of the USA? You decide. Are you better off now than you were three years ago?

Poor Mr. Krugman, to live so long and see his life's work proven nothing more than a load of crap. I'd sympathize, but he's ruining my life. So tough titties, Mr. Krugman. We've all got to just suck it up and move on as well as we can -- burdened with your bullshit and trying desperately to undo the damage you've done while we still have some assets left to try to rebuild.

So two big questions: The first in the title -- Exactly who perpetrates Krugman's "Climate of Hate"? The poor bugger in Tucson who did the shooting seems to have been following orders from the gremlins in his disturbed mind. It's doubtful that he could even identify Sara Palin or Michelle Bachman. No one in the Arizona Tea Parties ever heard of him. By all accounts, Loughner wasn't interested in politics. He's just crazy. It's that simple.

Second question: Are the Comrade and the political buffoons around him -- Dick(head) Durbin springs to mind -- actually going to try to push through even more socialist legislation and regulation in response to this? Are they actually going to use the dead and wounded to promote some half-assed agenda that has been tried and tried and tried all over the world -- and has only EVER brought destruction? Are they actually going to try it again?

Remember that guy named Brady who stepped between Ronald Reagan and his wannabe assassin? Remember his wife wheeling him around, displaying the big wound in his forehead, trying to promote gun control? Is this what "adult political discourse" has come down to in America? Or is it just a moral disgrace?

Save the Republic.

Blockheads on Parade

Was going to write something else today, but I was listening to the Don & Roma Wade morning show on WLS-AM and got a real insight on the lunatics who are running this particular asylum, that is, Illinois.

Illinois is facing a shortfall in paying current bills, and has a long-term unfunded debt of more than $30 BILLION. I guarantee a lot of that is in pensions for state employees, because the state of Illinois doesn't really do much else but re-build the highways around O'Hare every couple years and hire everyone's moron grandson for the State Police. (Had friend once who was busted for speeding in California. As he told me the story, he kinda laughed apprehensively and said, "They don't take pay-offs out there.You can even get in trouble for offering.")

Anyway, currently the state income tax is 3%. It was originally 2%, but has gone up 1% since the tax was instituted around 1970 or so. At any rate, our illustrious (and clueless) governor, Pat Quinn, has proposed raising income taxes to 5.25%. That's individual tax. Corporate tax rate, currently 4.8% would go up to 8.4%. That's a 75% increase for both. I guess they were too chicken shit to make it a flat out 100% and double the tax.

Oh, and the really fun part? No serious cuts in spending planned at all. None. In fact, apparently they were going to give state employees a raise and increase funding to education.

Well, it seems it's not working. They talked about it last week, and over the weekend, apparently many legislators have been bombarded non-stop with protests. Of course, the will of the people has very little influence on legislators in Illinois. They seem to go by the Chicago model. In Chicago, if you work for the city, you have to live in the city. Therefore, the whole Chicago economy is a weird kind of churn: the city pays money out, and it comes right back from the citizen-employees. Sort of like a commune.

And Chicago is no longer "the city that works," either. I'll guess safely that quite a bit of the state's debt is due to money that goes to Chicago. Somehow the city found money to create broad medians in all the nicer boulevards and plant them with things that wilt and die from exhaust fumes, but they never have money to fill the potholes or to build additional highways. And traffic in Chicago is a nightmare. I don't go into the city unless I get paid to.

Interesting about Chicago, too.... I grew up in a Chicago suburb. A very old Chicago suburb. The town actually has been ont he map nearly as long has Chicago has. Chicago has just grown to meet the border of the suburb where I grew up. And up until I was in my teens, there wasn't any major suburban sprawl. I remember driving with friends about 15 miles from the Chicago border, and you were in farmland.

But then something interesting happened. Mayor Daley I, that is Richard the First, as opposed to "Little Richie," who's only been mayor for about 20 years -- anyway, Richard the First had this brainstorm about taxes. Like, he didn't want to lay a new tax on ordinary citizens, that wouldn't be nice. So he laid a new tax on employers. Businesses in Chicago have to pay a poll tax on each employee.

Net result -- the suburbs mushroomed almost overnight. I currently live almost 50 miles north of Chicago, and many people who live here work in the city.

And not only bedroom communities. In fact, not bedroom communities at all. On the West side, towns like Oak Brook, where McDonald's is headquartered, one of many large corporations out there, flourished. Suddenly, everyone had to move out by O'Hare, which is connected to Chicago like a balloon on a stick -- it's all surrounded by non-Chicago suburbs.

Chicago gets none of that revenue.

So anyway, on Don & Roma on the radio this morning, they talked about the proposed tax. Said they'd been trying to contact state assembly people all weekend and they were all in hiding. They wouldn't talk to the media at all about the tax. But they did get one guy, who represents a district on the West Side of Chicago. They asked him what he thought about the tax.

He said, and I paraphrase, "We're all excited about it. It gives us a lot more money to spend."

Followed by an odd -- or stunned -- silence, when Roma, who's the kinder of the duo, said, "Good for you, maybe, but what about taxpayers?"

The legislator blew that off and just kept on talking about "helping his people." He said the state isn't getting as much from the feds as it used to, and the money's got to come from somewhere.

Newt Gingrich was a phone guest on the show about an hour later. Gingrich noted, "They won't have more more money to spend. Revenues will go down. People and corporations will move out of the state."

Yeah. True. I personally saw the exodus of businesses and people from Chicago during my lifetime. Now apparently we'll have to leave the state. I wouldn't mind. Illinois holds no charm for me. And this state has probably the most boring highways in the country. Nothing but corn in every direction. You see an overpass miles ahead and want to jump for joy for the break in the landscape.

Just wanted to share this, though. When I call politicians "blockheads," that's not an insult. It's as accurate a description I can come up with.

Save the Republic.

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Ratcheting up the vitriol of political debate

The shooting in Tucson, Arizona, yesterday, of Gabrielle Giffords and others at a "Congress on the Corner" event she held is a terrible and indefensible act. The man who did the shooting, Jared Loughner, is apparently some kind of a nut. I haven't seen anything he's written -- and he did have MySpace page -- but many commentators have reported a kind of rambling gibberish about the government trying to control us all through grammar or whatever. (And I'm sure there are a few in Washington who wish it was that easy.)

I hope Rep. Giffords comes out of this all right. If you know anything about brain geography, it seems that while the injury didn't affect any areas of the brain that control motor functions -- like breathing or muscular activity -- she might lose a lot of her memories, maybe some verbal skills, things like that. According to news reports, the doctor-surgeon who attended her is, coincidentally, one of the best of in the world. So here's hoping he will do whatever is possible to minimize the damage.

And Giffords wasn't the only one assaulted. Others were killed, including a nine-year-old girl who went with a neighbor to the event to see how our government works. The accompanying neighbor was shot four times. A federal judge was killed. Two elderly ladies were killed. This isn't how our government is supposed to work.

In a totally irresponsible statement, Sheriff Dupnik of Tucson came on TV shortly after the shooting and noted that this tragic event was all the fault of the "political vitriol" broadcast by certain radio personalities and TV channels. Sheriff Dupnik's remarks are a better example of ratcheting up the vitriol than anything people like Rush Limbaugh or commentators on Fox could come up with.

Dupnik claims that what he calls "radical" political speech drives unstable individuals to do crazy and violent things -- overlooking his own quite apparent knee-jerk bias in assuming that anyone who owns a gun is a right-wing nut-job on the prowl for democrat politicians. His unfounded leap to this conclusion indicates more than a little instability on Dupnik's part, and perhaps an inclination to be unduly influenced by the vitriolic rhetoric spewed by Huffington Post and the New York Times. He seems to be fanning the flames of violent political confrontation more than the radio personalities he's accusing.

Don't want to focus on Dupnik and the other looney-toons who latch onto unfounded conclusions based on unfounded stereotypes. I'll take that up in more detail later.

I just hope Rep Giffords recovers, and that the dems don't exploit this truly horrible event to promote things like gun control, or to further insulate legislators with layers of security. After all, there are reps and senators who would appear to be much more attractive targets for political violence than Giffords, and no one from the Tea Party or even the militias have assaulted them. We've had shouting matches at Town Halls, a lot of truly passionate rhetoric from both sides, and the result was -- a big political shift in the last election.

That's how American government is supposed to work.

Save the Republic.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Where is Mitt Romney?

Watching Fox on an early Saturday morning, and they had Mike Huckabee on. Naturally, start pestering him about running for president. Then they showed a poll taken just this week that shows Mitt Romney remains a frontrunner for Republican candidate for president next year.

No offense, but why?

Where is Mitt Romney? What has he been doing while the nation muddles through a socialist catastrophe, deep recession, collapse of the housing market, etc etc. Where is Mitt Romney? Where does he stand on these issues? I haven't seen him out front anywhere urging anyone on, including Scott Thompson, who's also from Taxachusetts. Didn't see him at any Tea Parties.

Here's what I know about Mitt Romney: His father was governor of Michigan when I was a little kid. The only reason I know that is because my mom was from Michigan and noted who he was during the pageantry of political conventions and whatnot on TV.

Mitt Romney himself was governor of Taxachusetts when that state launched its own socialized medicine plan.

I'm afraid to me, that's not a recommendation.

I don't know Mitt Romney, but he strikes me as a kinda too-slick and polished 8"x10" kind of politician. That is, just sort of a "typical" Republican under the pre-Tea Party rules. That is, a "stupid" Republican. The dems go wild and wreak havoc, and people like Mitt Romney come along and help clean up. Without really making any big, unsettling changes. Without really fixing anything. They just do what they can to make things work -- even bad and destructive things that should be done away with entirely.

I can't imagine Mitt Romney embroiled in a fight to repeal national socialism. I mean socialized medicine.

I'm not saying he's a bad guy. He just wouldn't be my first choice for president. Honest to Buddha, I think the congressional dems would eat him for lunch.

I guess he's just too Ivy League for me. I'd be more inclined to support the people who have been willing to fill the trenches through all the current crises, who kept writing bills and submitting them, even when Pazzo Pelosi crapped all over them and the Comrade pretended they didn't exist.

And where has Mitt Romney been through all this? I just don't know.

To me, he just kinda looks like some kind of johnny-come-lately, sitting down to a feast after everyone else has set the table. And if Romney's not willing to tarnish whatever reputation he believes he has by associating with all those stump-toothed hillbillies and ignorant crackers who just swept the House and, for God's sake, read the Constitution out loud in front of everybody and on TV, I don't think I'd want to associate with him.

Don't really mean to lambaste the man, but this country has needed all the help it could get for the last couple years and ... where is Mitt Romney?

Save the Republic.

Friday, January 7, 2011

Is the Constitution a threat?

Been listening to the news on and off all day. I guess they did read the Constitution in the House of Reps today -- but cut out reference to the 3/5ths and other clauses regarding "persons held to service or labor." I don't know. Slavery was part of our history and it was repealed (that magic word!). It's kinda like censoring Mark Twain.

I'm really kind of surprised that so many liberal-socialists were so incensed about reading the Constitution. Some were positively furious about it. I suppose like holding up a crucifix in front of a vampire, or brandishing silver bullets with a werewolf in the room. Ezra Klein, who works for the Washington Post, seemed to see the whole thing as absurd. After all, who gives a shit about the Constitution? Apparently Mr. Klein is a graduate of the Pazzo Pelosi Academy of jurisprudence.

What's even worse is the self-proclaimed liberal "scholars," who look at the Constitution as a nice document that was meant to be superseded. After all, the Founding Fathers didn't really know much about government, did they? Why, the Constitution is standing in the way of "progress."

Progress to what, you know? A forward motion by itself doesn't imply a worthwhile destination. That is to say, you can "progress" into a brick wall or a pile of manure. Just because you're busy-busy-busy and doing things doesn't mean you're doing worthwhile things. And I must say, I've been rather appalled at how stupid and just plain ignorant the liberals are as they try to argue against conservative principles. I mean, really, I hope they keep on talking, because the more the more the say, the more obvious becomes their addle-brained, knee-jerk, pig-headed stupidity.

By the way, Reps Anthony Weiner (the weiner) and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (also a weiner) have been all over TV whining and yelping and exposing their lack of rationality. All they say is, "We need...." I need a couple million myself. But it's rather silly to actually believe that "I should have...." and/or "Other people should give me....." I think Weiner and Wasserman-Schultz are breathing examples of the failure of public education in the USA.

Let's see, we already have the Twit Sisters (Maine senators), so perhaps Weiner and Wasserman-Schultz should become the Doubletalk Twins. How's that? They both talk A LOT, and very fast, and the more they talk, the less sense they make.

Heard from Paul Ryan no less than three times today talking about how the CBO's report on socialized medicine is "smoke and mirrors." Steve King, another Rep, noted that the bill could only work if doctors accepted a 21% cut in the pay they get for Medicare patients. Won't happen. Doctors would probably find something else to do. And Paul Ryan has come up with a sort of total deficit of $701 BILLION to pay for socialized medicine over 10 years, I believe. Over 20 years, it's more than a trillion.

But go ahead, Weiner, Wasserman-Schultz, McGovern, Hastings, Slaughter, Pelosi, Comrade, keep on insisting that socialized medicine will cut costs overall.

Nobody believes them anymore, or ever really did. Which is why they had to bribe so many senators to get that bill through. It just goes to show you, when you exclude your circle of friends to other people who only agree with you -- or worse, who only suck up to you in hopes of gaining favors -- you tend to lose all sense of perspective and the general "narrative thread" about real life on the planet.

Somehow, I think the 112th congress is going to be just a whole lot of fun.

Save the Republic.

Thursday, January 6, 2011

Pathetic clowns

Turned on C-Span this morning, thinking I might the reading ot the Constitution on the House floor. Instead, I get a Rules Committee hearing on repealing socialized medicine.

Some guy who looks like a pig, named McGovern, from Taxachusetts, talked for 10 minutes about the doughnut hole. Then Alcee Hastings, from Florida, and really reminiscent of Colonel Sanders, or some stereotypical Col. Huffnpuff from the deep south... all he needed was a white suit and string tie. Anyway, he gets on reads a list of millions and millions of dollars that's already been spent via socialized medicine.

Ol' Alcee then looks up and says, "I'm glad you had cameras installed. I want the public to hear this."

I heard it, Alcee, and nearly threw up trying to keep track of those millions of my tax dollars going for pretty much bullshit. I kinda like those cameras, too. I thought I was pretty jaded about political fraud and corruption, but you've blown my friggin' mind on this one.

Alcee also thinks it's entirely laughable that the Republicans want to make it a rule that any proposed legislation has to cite the power granted to them by the Constitution to do it. He doesn't seem to recognize any limitations on government at all. So quite obviously he subscribes to the Santa Claus theory of government all the way around.

Saw just the end of Louise Slaughter -- yes, the one who hired the comic to "testify in character" about the border laws -- was complaining about not having hearings on the repeal. Then a Republican legislator -- can't think of her name, but she's from North Carolina -- presented a detailed list of the ONE SINGLE hearing given to the socialized medicine bill that was passed -- with no amendments. That was interesting.

Piggy McGovern from Taxachusetts kept talking about "process." How hypocritical the Republicans are for not having hearings and allowing amendments on the repeal. Rep. King (R cmte member) asked, "What kind of amendments would you want on a repeal?" Good question, no? I mean, are you going to amend it before you nullify it? Too little too late or what?

And the Dems just keep fist-thumping on the CBO report that supposedly "proved" that socialized medicine would cut expenses in the USA. That report is already an obsolete roll of toilet paper. Much of the calculations and future projections were based on an annual economic growth rate in the USA of 4.5% to 5%. That's already blown to hell. Didn't come close to that last year, and probably won't this year. So the CBO report only indicates that it was based on pie-in-the-sky assumptions in the first place.

So a couple interesting approaches. The Dems whining and pewling and playing pathetic -- and at the same time listing millions and millions and millions of dollars already expended on their behalf. And this before socialized medicine is fully implemented.

Anyway, I may write more, but I've got one or two other things to do.

Save the Republic!

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Hey, and slam the door behind you....

Well it's only about 8:00 am and I've already had a good laugh. Good day anyway because today the 112th Congress -- the Republicans -- are being sworn in.

Anyway, on TV they showed clips of Pazzo Pelosi's last press conference as Speaker of the House, and it was a doozy. She said something like, "Our watch-word has always been deficit reduction. We had pay-as-you-go. Now let's see what the Republicans will do."

God, my sides hurt. I'm shooting coffee out my nose. "Our watch-word has always been deficit reduction." She lives in an alternate universe, kinda like the world of 1984, the novel, where everything means the opposite of what you say. Or like 'Arbeit mach frei." That was a slogan hanging over the gateway to Auschwitz. It means "Work makes you free." Yeah, so does poison gas.

Anyway, it seems that at the end of 2006, the budget deficit was already a whopping $8 TRILLION due to the Republicans patting each other on the back -- and 9/11 and Katrina. And it took 222 years to pile up that much debt. However, since Pazzo took the gavel in 2007, the deficit has grown to $14 TRILLION. That's about -- what? -- an 80% increase?

If Pazzo and the merry marxists have been "paying as they go," exactly where the hell did they go that cost such an inconceivable amount of money? They should be halfway to Zeta Reticuli by now. The only results I see is that they sucked the very life out of the United States. Ripped us all off. Left us with nothing.

God, I  hate those vile wretches. It's just too bad we didn't get to vote for another president in November.

More positively, we'll probably all get to see John Boehner cry again. David Letterman made some tasteless joke about that. I'm sure David Letterman never cries. He doesn't care enough about anything to cry about it. The best he can do is snide. I'm pretty sure he hates himself. Stopped watching him a long time ago, while he still had the late, late show or whatever. He was just more bitter than funny anymore.

At any rate, I remember a few days after 9/11, they had this Day of Mourning event at the National Cathedral. Bunch of speakers, hymns, etc. etc. Very sad. The cameras occasionally panned the audience -- all of congress just about, the Clintons, the Bushes. Denny Hastert, who was then Speaker of the House, had an aisle seat. Can't remember who was speaking, but the camera swung over Denny Hastert, who was absolutely blubbering in grief and sorrow. Kinda made me think he was something more than an anonymity.

I like John Boehner, and I like it that he cares so much about "The American Dream." He'll probably do all he can to take care of it.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a president who did?

Save the Republic.

Monday, January 3, 2011

No one is indispensable

Watching TV news and apparently a big problem with cleaning up after the blizzard in New York City was an informal "slowdown" among unionized sanitation workers. It seems the mayor had planned to lay off 100 supervisors, but since the slowdown, he's reduced that number to 50.

One of the realy major problems with unions is that they don't know when to quit. They sometimes have this very overblown vision of themselves as absolutely indispensable. No. I don't think so. Not with unemployment rates hovering around 10%.

Anyone remember the air traffic controllers strike under Reagan? They threatened to go on strike. Reagan suggested they go ahead. They did. Thy thought they'd shut down air traffic all across the country. After all, they were highly-trained and experienced in a very stressful and critical job. But they were replaced without too much trouble or disruption.

From my personal experience, I knew of a third-generation, family-owned custom manufacturing company that had been unionized for several decades. Most employees were long-term. Everyone got along.

Then the industry changed. The company was forced to switch over to digital systems, but retrained staff rather than laying people off. The owner felt a commitment to his employees, who had been loyal to him. Should add that the digital equipment was absolutely necessary for this company to remain competitive, and its migration to digital was actually relatively late in the industry. The thing is, for this type of manufacturing, the company had to be compatible with its customers, who were doing everything digital as well. If the company couldn't handle the digital link-up, customers went somewhere else.

So the next time the union contract came up for negotiation, the union demanded big raises across the board. They reasoned, the owner had just spent at least $250,000.00 for the digital equipment. So he could afford pay increases, too.

The owner shut down. He had no choice and simply didn't want the headache. He didn't sell the company -- which had been struggling, particularly under the burden of trying to make some return on investment on the digital equipment. He shut the doors, sold the assets, and moved on. I don't know what happened to his 60 employees.

The thing is, no one is indispensable, not even quarterbacks. And I've been in New York during garbage strikes. It isn't pretty, but the option isn't to get the trash picked up or not. The option is exactly who's going to pick up the trash, union members or somebody else.

No matter what your bosses tell you, union members, this ain't the time to start kicking up dust. Believe me, for every one of you, there's probably a couple hundred unemployed who'd love your job -- even with less pay and benefits than you have right now.

Save the Republic... and your jobs.

Evil or stupid party?

When I was in a third party, we had a joke about the evil party and the stupid party, which apparently Alan Simpson had also heard. It went something like the evil party enacts all kinds of vile legislation and the stupid party somehow makes it work.

I'm hoping the stupid party -- the Republicans -- have wised up. And I think they have. How far they can actually get with true reform is another matter.

Take, for example, the issue of the debt ceiling, which really isn't an issue right now. It's just the evil party trying to scare the pants off people.

At any rate, on one of the network Sunday morning political shows, Austan Goolsby (my gosh, what were his parents thinking when they stuck him with than moniker? I couldn't make up anything sillier) said it would be "catastrophic" for the Republicans to take away the evil party's credit card by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. Apparently debt is the only thing the evil party is capable of producing in volume. So Goolsby is saying, in effect, if the Republicans refuse to spend even more money, the nation will go down in flames.

"Hey, Dad! Look! We made this gigantic mess. Ha ha! Try to clean that up! I even broke all the neighbor kid's toys! Boy did I screw up things for you! Now you fix it. Just try!"

Is that about the gist of it, Mr. Ghoulsby?

I just hope the Republicans refuse to play the game. I hope the Republicans simply deduct whatever funds are necessary to pay interest rates from other areas. Like:

* Whatever dividends the USA earns on its holdings in Government Motors

* Revenues drawn from oil leases (oh heck! I forgot. The Comrade canceled all that.)

* Funds channeled from the EPA, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Commerce, IRS, and the 40,000 other useless and wasteful boondoggle agencies in the executive branch

* Direct Medicare to refuse to pay for Scooters and Jazzies and apply the funds more appropriately

* Donate no money whatsoever to socialized medicine

* Demand return of the TARP money to the USA; whatever funds have been returned are apparently resting comfortably in a slush fund in the Federal Reserve Bank. But since the Fed doesn't have to account for what money it does or doesn't have, that's only conjecture. Actually, the money's probably in somebody's private account in the Cayman Islands.

* Keep whatever has not yet been allocated from the 2009 "Stimulus Package."

* Cut Madame Comrade's staff of 30 or 40 people -- those who track her social activities. No other First Lady has required so many ladies-in-waiting. It's like the joke about how many people does it take to screw in a light bulb?

* Apparently some savings already have been realized with John Boehner refusing Pelosi's two Air Stream jets.

* De-fund the counting of cow farts

* Stop building parkways for turtles and salamanders

* My personal opinion is that Eric Holder's salary has been a complete waste so far. What has this man done since he's been in the Dept. of Justice?

* What the hell is Janet Napolitano doing in Afghanistan? One comedian highlighted the irony that she might be showing Afghanis how to control their border. Bring her home. Save the money.

* Stop sending money to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

* Cancel the green projects aimed at reducing carbon emissions and Global Warming. Seems fair to say that that was never anything more than a load of crap.

* Restructure and privatize Social Security and Medicare. "Reform" won't work. They need to be completely rebuilt from the ground up. Social Security is basically a Ponzi scheme that can't work, given current demographics.

* Rein in the FCC. They, like everyone else in the executive branch, is messing in things that are just none of their business.

I could go on. The main idea is -- CUT! Clearly about 85% of all federal government operations are nothing more than a waste of time and taxpayer money. It would seem a lot simpler to pick out the functions that the nation really needs and just tell everyone else's useless brothers-in-law and college pals to find real jobs.

But I hope the Republicans don't buy into Ghoulsby's silly crap.

As a matter of fact, it might be a good thing to default on our loans. No one will ever lend to the USA again. OMG!! Then what would the evil party do?

Enough for now.

Save the Republic.