Goodbye Barry - Welcome Home AMERICA!

Monday, March 30, 2009

Here's An Eye-Opener For The Sheep of The World

For those of you who think the United Nations is the savior of the world, the following was taken directly from the UN website ( under the heading of "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (UDHR).:

"Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to suchlimitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

The coloring and bold facing of the text was added by myself for emphasis - to make a point - but the words are theirs. That point being, the UN says we have rights and freedoms so long as they don't conflict with the interests of the UN (plans for world domination?). So, any freedom you may choose to exercise could be found to be "contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations" (even though "1984" is 25 years in the past, that phrase has a very Orwellian sound to it).

IF I believed all the lunatic "conspiracy theories" on the Internet, I would be in some totally uncontrollable maximum panic mode by now. I do, however, read and comprehend the English language... an ability which tells me that there is a very definite threat implied in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Perhaps everybody needs to pay closer attention to what's going on in the world around us...

I could be wrong about this... I could also be a space alien from the planet Urantia (somebody call Las Vegas and get the odds on that!).

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Are We Ready to Eat ... FRANKENFOOD?

Here's an item that doesn't get nearly the attention it should in our national media. Perhaps it's all about the money, like everything else in our lives.

Monsanto, our home-grown chemical giant has created genetically engineered (aka GE - remember that abbreviation) strains of seed that are pesticide resistant. Not a big deal, you say? The same GE has introduced pesticides into the genetic code of those same seeds, and pesticides are poison. About 10 percent of the 70,000 chemicals used in the United States are also carcinogenic. So your chances of being poisoned by farm products are pretty good, and your chances of developing a food-induced cancer are about 1 in 10. Worse yet, the public protector, our USDA leveraged our farmers into using GE crops - initially corn - through a strange arrangement between the Department of Agriculture and chemical giant Monsanto that was enthusiastically endorsed by Congress in 2000. The deal was made possible when Congress agreed to give farmers a break on federal crop insurance if they planted crops that resist pests and produce higher yields, making them less vulnerable to crop failures, and U.S. taxpayers less vulnerable to large insurance payouts. That, the seeds do. Do we stop eating corn? Keep in mind that much of our corn is used as silage, and fed to chickens, cattle, pigs, etc. Do we stop eating meat as well? That leaves us with fruit... for the time-being... until cross-contamination of the fruit crop sets in.

Additionally, new research from Austria shows that a commercial strain of Monsanto-made GE corn causes mice to have fewer and weaker babies. What is this doing to human fertility? Is the GE food also a means of GE the human population? Will those who aren't killed off as a direct result of ingesting GE foods, produce numerically smaller future generations of less robust, illness-ridden offspring?

There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of this situation. Personally, I believe we should always err on the side of caution! Until such time as GE foods can be proven, beyond any question, to be 100% safe and as healthy as any food product has ever been, there should be NO GE FOODS allowed in the United States, much less having GE foods being promoted by our own government watchdog agency, the USDA. Urge your elected officials to vote AGAINST HB875!

No way in HELL am I wrong about this one!

Taxes On Top Of Taxes!

Oregonians are about to receive a treat from our Governor, the less-than-Honorable Ted Kulongowski. Granted, this is just a specific group of Oregonians to be saddled with an additional tax, but if it can happen to one group, it can happen to us all! Effective 1 April 2009, cigarette taxes will be increased by 59¢ per pack for all vendors, including those cigarettes in existing inventory. That means that cigarettes upon which the prevailing, authorized tax has already been paid, will be taxed again at the new rate! Also, we have another $1.01 FEDERAL tax being added on the same date! Objectively, even non-smokers should see the inherent wrong in such double taxation. The issue is not smoking - it's inappropriate taxation. Also, bulk tobacco, for those who "roll their own", or pipe smokers, will see a tax increase from $2.50 per pound to $25.00 per pound! That's an increase of ten times - or 1,000 percent. There's an additional tax being levied on "smokeless" tobacco as well. Today's assault is on tobacco products... tomorrow's tax hikes may be on all paper products, rubber products, dairy products, or whatever else a mad-dog, tax-crazed Government dedcides. There's nothing to stop them but the outcry from "We the People"!

Is there any question why there will be a nation-wide tax protest on April 15th? Next will be what... alcohol tax? More gasoline taxes? Taxes per mile on your vehicle? If there is a convenience, vice, or pleasure that is not taxed today, perhaps that tax will come tomorrow - the fishing tax, the bicycle tax, the skiing tax, or the television ownership tax. Think about it - we are the ones who must pay those taxes, and we are already paying more than enough. Have you looked at your telephone bill or your cable or satellite TV bill lately? The are about 10 obscure taxes on that already!

Enough is ENOUGH! Stand with those who will protest against unnecessary taxes, and wasteful spending of our tax dollars on April 15th. If you don't there will be a tremendous price to pay in the near future!

There's a remote chance I could be wrong about this ... do you want to take the chance that I'm NOT?

Friday, March 27, 2009

Left-Wing Socialist Government Destroying America On All Fronts

I find the actions of your new government absolutely incomprehensible! Janet Napolitano, the "Director of Homeland Security" (with no security background) appears to be against immigration control. Immigration Control and Enforcement (ICE) is the investigative branch of Homeland Security... does that say anything to you about our chances of controlling illegal immigration? I only hear, "C'mon in, my door is always open to you!" What's coming in through that "open door"? Drugs, additional violence, illegal aliens, and now - Hezbollah and al Qaeda terrorists! Sure, just walk right in... and bring all your problems with you. Our taxpayers will be more than happy to support you and your extended family. We haven't had a good terrorist attack on American soil in almost 9 years now, so bring lots of those terrorists also. But, that's just Homeland Security - safety within our borders.

We still have our international security monitors, the CIA. The CIA is headed by Leon Panetta, who has no background in intelligence - or possibly just no intelligence, period. Are you familiar with the name Linda Panetta? Probably not, since she doesn't get media coverage in this country. Well, Linda Panetta is Leons' daughter, and she gets all her media coverage outside the United States, where she takes every opportunity to discredit our country and to side with anybody who is anti-American. Here we see Linda with her good friends, Hugo Chavez ("elected" dictator of Venezuela, and noted America hater), and Daniel Ortega ("ex-Marxist", "ex-"Sandanista leader) current El Presidente of Nicaragua, who says the United States has an obligation to add all of Central America to our financial bail-out plans (I'm not quite certain what his reasoning could be for that opinion, other than he's INSANE!). Doesn't Chavez look simply brilliant in this photo?

Then we have Timothy Geithner, Head Monkey of the Treasury Department - who, incidently, "forgot" to pay some $40,000 in taxes over the last few years... or, at least that's what he told Congress when he was nominated for this political plum! Don't you feel better now, knowing that our entire Treasury Department is now in the hands of a man who couldn't even figure his own income tax properly! Or could he... and simply tried to avoid paying those taxes? That would make him a "tax dodger"! Would you or I be similarly rewarded with a high-paying government position if we "forgot" to pay any amount of taxes owed to the government? God bless those thieving, lying, corrupt left-wing Democrats... and the horse they rode in on, too. I'm certain there are other, equally unqualified appointments, we just haven't heard about them yet!

What we have here is a government in which the (metaphorically speaking) blind are leading the visually incapable (no offense meant to those truly visually impaired)! Never in the history of this country have we had such gross and collective incompetence at the highest levels of government! Obama's appointments seem to be designed to destroy the foundation upon which this great nation was built.

I could be wrong about this - in fact, I hope I am! But the chances of that present about the same odds as Rosie O'Donnel becoming pregnant in the "natural way".

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

"Government of the Wealthy, By the Wealthy, and For the Wealthy"

Recently, I was moved to re-read some of the founding documents of our great Nation, among which were the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in those documents are the wealthy excluded from seeking the various offices of government - nor is government set aside as the exclusive milieu of the wealthy. Abraham Lincoln, during his oft-quoted Gettysburg Address said, "... That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. ..." (At this juncture Bill Clinton may have injected, "It depends on what your definition of 'people' is.") Granted, the wealthy are, by definition, (for the most part) "people".

How did the wealthy become that way? There are several roads leading to the streets of gold:

1. Some achieved wealth by the sweat of their brow, fulfilling "the American dream".
2. Some inherited their wealth, never having done an honest days' work in their life.
3. Some made their fortunes by creating misfortune for others, which qualifies them as either wealthy predators or wealthy carrion eaters ... or both.
4. Some married into wealth - and, possibly, a few even for love. The wealth was just a bonus.
5. Some were just astute businessmen and investors, who availed themselves of every opportunity to increase their portfolio, their holdings, and their market share.

It makes no difference how the wealthy became wealthy, the difference is in perspective. I know that generalizations have a very good chance of being wrong, so I won't use the word "all", or even imply "all", but in general the wealthy tend to have a very different perspective on life, and a totally different set of values, than those of us who have worked for wages all our life. The wealthy drink Dom Perignon, and the "worker bees" see movies with Dom Deluise in them. The wealthy have their huge yachts, and the workers have their seventeen foot bass boats. Dinner out for the wealthy means a trendy high-end restaurant, and for the worker it may be Olive Garden or KFC. The wealthy have their Rolls Royce, and we have our "rolls downhill". Don't misunderstand though - I don't begrudge the wealthy any of their sensory pleasures.

The wealthy seem to live in a parallel universe - a universe of expensive excesses. Should we "redistribute the wealth"? Not on my watch! What's theirs is theirs - as long as it was acquired through legal means. Well, if that's not the point of this post, what is?

The wealthy have bought our government. Over 40% of our Congressmen and Senators are millionaires ... and the rest are very comfortable. Their personal and/or family wealth, and their wealthy connections, PACs, etc., have been buying elections for the past 60 years or more. Others, like the Kennedy's and the Dodd's have turned government into a family business. For me, the question that comes immediately to mind is, "How did they get that much money as servants of the people?" From a job that pays less than $175,000 per annum? And if they are "independently wealthy", they don't need the money, so why not refuse it and really DO a public service?

What happens when people of great wealth are put in a position where they actually make the laws of the country? The same thing that happens when they are permitted by law (which their predecessors created) to vote on their own pay raises - they will create laws that benefit themselves and their associates. It's not exactly an unnatural act! You've probably heard that variaton on the "Golden Rule" - "Those that have the gold, make the rules." Well, here you are - validation and proof-positive of that claim. And then there's "Birds of a feather flock together." Money supports money! People who have either never had to hold a work-a-day job for wages, or who have forgotten what it's like to have done so, are now making the laws by which the rest of us have to abide.

Is it possible to vote them out? Technically it certainly is ... but in a practical sense it can't be done under the present system. We can replace the incumbent, but only with another of the same kind offered by the wealthy leadership of either of the two major political parties. How do we create change? Petition our Congressmen and Senators to change the law? Not a snowballs chance ...

What needs to be done?

1. Reduce Congressional compensation by 50% - making it a reasonable living wage of $87,000 per year for rank and file, Majority and Minority leaders would get $96,700, and the Speaker of the House would receive $111,750 - and cap them all at that level with a fixed 2% COLA adjustment annually.
2. One term only. Eliminate the entrenchment of those whose who would dole out political favors - and NO "Grandfather" clauses!
3. Publicly funded campaigns with a set limit. Eliminate private donations, and demand accurate records be made available to the CBO for review.
5. In other words, make the process of government less attractive to the moneyed interests of our country, and return it to the status of "public service" so that good people, well-intentioned people, people with the best interests of our country in their hearts and minds stand a chance of winning an election.

There would be other necessary adjustments that would have to be made as well - the above is just a jumping off point.

Have you never asked yourself, "Why in the world would people spend $3,000,000 to capture a job that pays $174,000 a year??" Doesn't that raise a flag for you? If Congress is that bad at math, do you want really them deciding what to do with our tax dollars?

If you think there's something wrong with that approach, you're a bigger leftie than Obama. And, if you have a better idea, leave a comment.


Sunday, March 22, 2009

Tea Bags and (Tea) Tax Parties ... Be Heard On Taxation

We have a couple of important dates coming up ... April 1st (not my choice for a date) has been set as the date for all concerned American citizens to send one tea bag to Washington D.C. as a gentle reminder that the government serves at our pleasure. (I'm aware that I've mentioned this before, in passing, during another post. I simply feel it is worth mentioning at least once again - in case you missed it.) I would suggest addressing your envelope to:

Current Resident
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington D.C. 20500

It also wouldn't hurt to send one to both of your congressional and senatorial representatives. It's a cheap and convenient way to let those we elected to serve our country know that we are watching their performance, and that we are not particularly pleased. The whole package will only cost you about 50¢ each, and you don't even have to go out in the weather and carry a sign to make your displeasure known! So much for April 1st - let those fools know this is no joke!

Next item: As you are all aware, April 15th is tax day. There is an organized nationwide movement (in 40 states at last count). We have just witnessed how "responsibly" the Government is handling our tax dollars. That's right, OUR TAX DOLLARS
! The Government has no money of its own - only that which we provide via taxation. Do you think Obama has a paper route? Or that Pelosi is a "nail technician" on the side? Those few supposedly revenue producing functions the government does have, like the Government Printing Office, operate at a loss. The Government just gave $165 BILLION of our tax dollars to AIG ... without placing any restrictions on its use! How stupid is that?? Go to your local lender and ask for $50,000 on just your signature. Then, when they ask how you plan to use the money tell them, "Any way I damn well please!". How successful do you think your request for funds would be? You would probably be thrown out of the building - from an upper-level window! The tax protest is not "anti-tax", it's anti-waste, anti-fraud and anti-pork. It's our way of saying ENOUGH!! Stop the bailouts, stop the stimulus, stop the borrowing, stop the spending, we have more than enough government, and too many taxes! To see if your state is among those participating go to (copy-n-paste):

If you have an opportunity to be heard, and fail to take advantage of it, you deserve whatever the outcome.

I could be ... Nah ... NO WAY!

Saturday, March 21, 2009

CIA - Communists Infiltrate America?

Seen at a gathering of Anti-American forces - foreground from L to R: Daniel Ortega, President (Dictator) of Nicaragua; Hugo Chavez, President (Dictator) of Venezuela; and Linda Panetta, virulent, foaming-at-the-mouth, blame America first anti-American ... oh, and daughter of Obama appointed CIA Director Leon Panetta! Is her attitude simply a reflection of the values she learned at home, or is she a graduate of Jane Fonda University? Touted on "School of the Americas Watch" website ( as a "photojournalist", there are links to another website proudly displaying the masthead "International Socialist Review". If you're surprised, go take another stupid pill

There was vetting of the Obama appointees, wasn't there? What do we have so far ... 4 tax dodgers, 4 appointment refusals (so Obama does know 4 people with integrity), and the head monkey of the CIA has a daughter who believes there's nothing good about the USA - except possibly her Constitutionally protected right to hate the country. Way to go Obama!

Here's an excerpt from our Declaration of Independence - "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Would a reasonable and impartial individual be concerned if any of her activities are not duly probed and questioned during her father's confirmation hearings, would the Senate "advise" or just consent and rubber stamp ... reciprocation for Obama's rubber stamp on their ludicrous Omnibus Spending Bill?

is the time to become concerned America. NOW is the time to say "NO MORE!" Our Government - whose role is to "serve the people" - is self-serving, and has been unresponsive to the expressed desires of the majority of Americans for decades. Our Congressmen and Senators stand for re-election in two years - remember the names of those elected representatives who fail to recognize our voices - and replace them! Call it "withdrawal of consent to continue to screw us over".

I could be wrong about this ... but there's only a slim chance of that - and Slim left town!

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Here's A Crazy Idea ...

If company-provided cars are taxed as additional "income", our government should tax Nazi Pelosi on an additional $3,000,000+ annually for the use of that government-provided Boeing 757. It takes her home to California, and back to Washington D.C., every weekend at $120,000 per round trip in fuel alone, not including the aircrews pay and maintenance costs. How's that for a waste of our tax dollars? Those trips are NOT required to fulfill the duties of her office, they are for her convenience. When the Senate is in session for those 110 days, Pelosi should be required to be in the Washington D.C. area, within one hour commuting time of the Senate Office Building - as should they ALL. If they choose to leave that area, they should do so at personal expense!

Do our military members serving overseas get to come home at government expense every weekend? No. They get to return when their tour of duty is over. That's their job ... just as the job of the House and Senate is to be where they work when in session. Why do we continue to treat our servants as if they are royalty?

I could be wrong about this ... and the Moon really could be made of "green cheese"!

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Obama Desires to Bill Military Members for War and Service Related Injuries!"

The following are quoted excerpts from "Our Voice" the American Legions' online e-zine - "WASHINGTON, DC (March 16, 2009) – The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization says he is “deeply disappointed and concerned” after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases."

The article goes on to say,
“It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,” said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. “He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it. There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran’s personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable.”

"Unconscionable"? That word doesn't begin to describe my feelings toward the actions of your liberal, lying, left-wing, cowardly "leader". A man who, without any military experience whatsoever, is suddenly the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces. A man who has so little respect, consideration, or compassion for those who have been placed in harm's way - by the government - that he would even consider such an outrageous plan. Despicable is the word that comes immediately to mind ... followed by unconscionable, and a few other words that I won't post here.

Want to save the taxpayers some money? It could easily begin with an across-the-board 50% pay cut for the members of Congress. That would save the taxpayers $46,477,250 per annum! Congressional office, mail, and staff allowances could also be halved.

In 2003 the total amount of allowance provided to Members of the House ranged from $701,136 to $1,636,750. Members do not have to use all of the money allotted to them in their allowances. (Each Member is allotted $748,312 to hire up to 18 staff and four additional temporary, part-time, of shared staff. Staff cannot be paid more than $151,974 per year.) That's a mean average of roughly $1,169,000 per representative. (Source: Congressional Research Service, January 26, 2004)

In 2003 the total amount of all three allowances provided to Senators ranged from $2,264,345 to $3,751,995 for a mean average of $3,008,170. Senators do not have a limit on the amount staff they can hire! (Source: Congressional Research Service, January 26, 2004) I think most people could run an office on $1.5 million per year - everybody I know could! The only thing you couldn't do would be to throw lavish parties for your supporters.

So, what would be the result of forcing military members to pay for their own health care? The immediate and most noticeable result, would be a sharp decline in enlistments and re-enlistments in our armed forces - especially those most likely to find themselves in the midst of armed combat, the Army and Marines. Our military would be reduced to the point where national defense would fall, once again, squarely on the shoulders of the "citizen soldier" ... shades of 1776! My assumption here is that your liberal, left-wing government would actually desire national defense. They believe that insufficient numbers of trained military will make the handover of our country that much easier - especially if they can pull off a nationwide gun grab.

A less obvious result of forcing our military members to pay for their own health care would be putting the government one step closer to realizing the control they can exert over the citizenry with a "National Health Plan". Old? Handicapped? Reached those non-productive years of retirement? Report to the nearest Soylent Corporation office - the year 2022 isn't that far off.

Obama has shown his true color ever since his inauguration. He's neither black nor white - his true color is communist red! This unqualified and unprepared usurper was elected to the most powerful position in the free world, by the sheep of our nation - the entitlement whores! God save us from ourselves ...

I could be wrong about this ... and Obama could care about the future of our country. FAT CHANCE!

Sunday, March 15, 2009

AIG Receives $173 BILLION Bailout, Pays $165 MILLION in Executive Bonusues

But the government is unclear what, if anything, they can do to cut the bonuses since the contracts seem legally binding. Contracts? Was there a contract with the people of the United States that said "We will bail you out if you fail?" No, there was not! The standard, but unwritten contract that exists between the people, or the government, and any "for profit" business, is: "If you fail, you go under. Tough noogies! You didn't share your profits with us, dont expect us to share your losses."

Can anybody tell me of one time in history when financial failure was rewarded with public money? The difference between today's bailout of numerous organizations, and the Chrysler bailout of 1980, is that the Chrysler bailout of 1980 was a government loan which, under Lee Iacocca's leadership, was repaid in 1983.

Is this current bailout a loan? I have yet to hear the word "loan" used in any sentence containing the word "bailout" thusfar. Let's assume it is a loan ... has anybody ever seen a lender that doesn't set the conditions of the loan being made? Is our government so incompetent, that with the legal minds of the entire Department Of Justice at their disposal, they failed to set those conditions? Conditions such as: "No company funded vacations or retreats for so long as the loan is in force and carries an outstanding balance."; "No expenditures for transportation beyond the cost of a business class seat, on a regularly scheduled commercial airline flight to the destination, or beyond the cost of an economy rental car while at the destination."; "Per diem will be reimbursed at the prevailing military rate of $70 for lodging and $39 for meals and incidentals and accommodations at the destination city will not exceed those rated as 3-star."; "Any and all contractual references to bonuses, scheduled pay increases, and severance pay (Golden Parachutes) are, effective this date, null and void, and without continuing effect."; "Effective immediately and throughout the active life of this loan agreement, the salaries of the CEO and CFO are to be no more than 1% of the net profit shown by the company. Other executive salaries are not to exceed $75,000 per annum, and all union employees will take an immediate 25% cut in pay. Non-union employees will be paid no more than 90% of the new union wage for similar jobs and years of service.", and so on! Where does it say that recipients of a public bailout must be allowed to continue amassing business, operating, and labor expenses as usual? That's what got them into financial distress in the first place! Where is it written that once they receive bailout funds, they can spend them in any manner they desire? It is only "written" when reasonable conditions are unwritten! Our government, by failing to specify conditions for use of the bailout money, thereby failed to protect our investment in the future of these - now (technically) "publicly owned" - corporate entities.

When did it become incumbent upon the taxpayers to reward corporate mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility?

I must have not seen that memo ... did you?

The Great "Can't Afford It Giveaway" of the Obama Administration

The Palestinian Prime Minister is seeking $2.8 BILLION to rebuild Palestine after Israel retaliated for continued shelling of Israeli settlements from Palestine. In what parallel universe does this make sense? Rewarding the aggressor for creating an unwinnable situation for themselves makes absolutely no sense at any level, yet - according to Time Magazine - the cash-strapped U.S. is expected to provide approximately $900,000,000 (roughly 1/3) of that money. Where are the oil-rich Arab nations, who have gouged the entire world for years on the price of oil? Why are they not providing ALL the money to repair the damage done to Palestine?

I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who provoke a confrontation of any kind, and then come out on the short end. They, by their direct actions, have earned whatever fate befalls them, be it victory or defeat. Had Palestine been victorious, and crushed Israel, there would be rejoicing and celebrations throughout the Muslim world. As things stand, the Palestinians have just provided one more embarrassment to the Arab nations since the Six-Day War of 1967. In that war tiny Israel defeated the armies of the neighboring states of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, even with the nations of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria contributing troops and arms to the other Arab forces. At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The results of that war still affect the geopolitics of the region to this day, although Israel has released control of most of those lands.

There is no reward for "Second Place" in a war. There are only victors and the vanquished. The U.S. has been among the recipients of victory in most conflicts/confrontations in which it participated, with two notable exceptions - North Korea, which was more or less called a "draw", and Vietnam, where American politicians lack of support lost the war for us.

Until this year, there had been no incident in the history of the world, where those captured in combat were given civil trials, provided with civilian attorneys, and allowed all the Constitutional rights of a citizen. The Military Tribunal has always tried captured enemy forces (as military if in uniform, and as spies if not in uniform). Spies have always been the recipients of swifter and more severe (i.e. - firing squad) punishment, perhaps just for lacking the courage to don a uniform.

"Assassins" go back to the beginning of recorded history, although the classification of a crime intentionally resulting in the loss of one human life as an "assassination" has, until recently, been restricted to political leaders. John Lennon wasn't "assassinated" - he was murdered. Assassins generally work alone and have only one particular target to deal with at a time. Julius Caesar was assassinated - oddly enough by multiple assassins.

Obama has chosen to disuse the term "enemy combatant" also - perhaps he plans to replace it with "misdirected ally" or "misunderstood friend". Euphemisms change nothing! A spade is still a spade, a shovel is a shovel, and one whom you engage in combat is still an ENEMY COMBATANT!

It follows that the next terms to become politically incorrect are "terrorist" and "terrorism". Granted, one mans' terrorist is another mans' freedom fighter, but when you are on the receiving end of an attack by one or more persons dressed to blend in with the local population, and wearing explosive underwear, parking a bomb-laden vehicle, or firing full-automatic weapons, you often fail to see the "freedom fighter". If commandeering airplanes and flying them into heavily-populated buildings, or setting off bombs in crowded civilian areas, or beheading other human beings are not designed to induce terror within a specific population, by definition becoming terrorism, and making those who comited those acts de facto terrorists, then I do not understand the term at all!

Have I digressed from my topic? No - not really. Palestine has a relatively high concentration of non-uniformed spies, paramilitary combatants, and civilian sympathizers/supporters. Why is our government providing them with $900 million - which we can ill-afford, and which could very easily be redirected from "humanitarian aid" to "insurgent support"? Where does our money come from? Primarily we borrow it from CHINA of all places! So we're borrowing money, to give away to people who at the very least dislike us (and who, if given the opportunity, would probably kill us all as we slept in our beds). Why does an idea like this seem so intellectually foreign to me?

I could be wrong about this ... and the Supreme Leader of Iran , Grand Ayatollah Ali Hoseyni Khamenei, could be a closet Catholic ... but I seriously doubt it!

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Obama's Lack of Cojones Shows As He Hides to Sign Omnibus Spending Bill

Your left-wing President was so embarrassed by the pork laden Omnibus Spending Bill, submitted for his approval today, that he chose to sign it in private! No media, no photographers, no anything that would record him in his moment of shame. He did NOT have to sign the bill. He chose to do so, in spite of his campaign promise to "eliminate earmarks" (earmarks is politspeak for PORK). He could have simply said, "No. I'm not signing this as it is. I promised the citizens of this country to eliminate earmarks, and this has almost 9,000 of them." Fini - end of discussion.

Instead, he now vacillates, and restructures his campaign promise as "I will eliminate unnecessary earmarks." Pork is pork! All good Muslims know that. It therefore follows that ANY pork is too much pork. How do we define political pork? If there is little or no return for the citizenry of that region or state against the cost of the project itself, it is PORK! A study of the Entertainment Preferences of the Toe-Sucking Swamp Rat of California is pork ... a verifiable improvement of a state- or county-run hospital is not pork. Bridges to nowhere are pork, as are $120,000 per week fuel expenditures to fly Nazi Pelosi round-trip to California - and that doesn't include the salaries of the flight crew, or wear-and-tear on the Boeing 757 we are paying for!

I was sent an original idea today, for which, unfortunately, I cannot claim credit. It goes like this: on April the first send a tea bag in an envelope to "Current Occupant", 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington D.C. 20500, as a subtle reminder that the government is the servant of the people, not the master, and that they serve at our pleasure even though we may be somewhat less than pleased. Displease us too much, and we have a Constitutional right and obligation to remove and replace that government ... assuming "we the people" have more cojones than your President has shown. A few million tea bags may just get somebody's attention ... assuming anybody is paying attention to what the people want.

I could be wrong about this ... (and Barack Obama could act like a leader instead of the puppet of Nazi Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al) but I'm NOT!

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Motive For Ill. Church Killing Suspect Elusive

It's their job, I'm sure we all realize that. After the commission of a crime, it's the function of law enforcement to look for an understandable explanation of why the crime occurred in the first place. However, the more heinous the crime, the less likely there is to be any explanation. In the case cited in my title for this post, and any other case where people kill other people that they don't even know, and who presented no perceived threat to them, there are only two possible motivations:

1. Mental illness, or

2. the doer is the personification of evil

Mental illness - as a concept - is understood by most lay persons. What is not totally understood is the root causes of many kinds of mental illness. Most mental distress isn't the result of some physical illness or bacterial infection. It stems from a series of perceived wrongs or inequities, and their accumulation and storage. Frequently that is the result of chemical imbalances in the brain. The inability to discard such perceptions, after objectively evaluating and processing them, eventually creates more psychological "weight" than the individual can bear, resulting in mental collapse.

"Objectivity" is skewed in the mentally ill, and therefore perceptions are distorted, which results in skewed objectivity, which distorts perceptions, ad infinitum. We could easily get hung up on the "chicken-egg" argument here, but it really makes no difference in the outcome. We must also understand that perception creates our "personal reality." When several people witness the same event, they each process it in their own fashion and may perceive it as totally different events. Some processing is intellectual, but all processing is colored by cultural, emotional, political and spiritual influences. Thus is our personal reality formed.

An example of this would be the so-called "Extreme Fighting" matches. To most people from civilized backgrounds these physical confrontations - for the sake of feeding egos - are seen as barbarism. Two people enter a cage and proceed to beat one another senseless (my assumption here is that they had some sense to begin with). These matches always result in the victor injuring, sometimes in maiming, and, on rare occasions, killing their opponent. There are those others who see the same event as entertainment, fun, a test of skills, heroic personal combat, etc..

The key words in the preceding two paragraphs are "perceived" and "accumulation and storage". Most people are capable of observing, processing, evaluating, and then compartmentalizing events. Some compartments are for the purpose of recall at a later time, while others are for discards - things that the person has witnessed that are either neutral influences, or negative influences. These are events that have little or no positive influence on their life, and are otherwise just burdensome.

There is disagreement within the medical and psychological communities over the possibility of somebody being evil by nature. Arguments against an "evil nature" would fall short of explaining the "motives" of people like Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin, Papa Doc Duvalier, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacey, Richard Speck, the 9-11 terrorists, et al.

The motives behind the actions of others are not always visible to others, simply because others do not share the actors' personal reality - it's as foreign to them as Egyptian hieroglyphics would be to the vast majority of the worlds' people. Searching for motives created by a deranged mind, beyond the elimination of what the "normal mind" might see as motive, is generally a waste of time, effort and resources.

The willful taking of a human life, one that is otherwise unknown to you and presents no apparent threat to your life, is either an act of severe mental illness ... or evil personified.

I could be wrong about this, I suppose ... but you'd have to be insane to think so!

Monday, March 9, 2009

Living Large on Taxpayer-Supplied Easy Street

Want a raise? Don't beg to your boss. Just vote yourself one. That's what the United States Congress did in 2004. "For the fifth year in a row, lawmakers voted not to reject their automatic "cost of living" raise that will increase the annual salary of members by $3,400 to a total of $158,103 per year."

During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.

From 1789 to 1815, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1815, when they were paid $1,500 per year - a significant amount of money in 1815, considering that those who were working for "wages" (as opposed to farmers and tradesmen) were knocking down a whopping 50¢ per day! Members began receiving a larger annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year. The current salary (2009) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year. The Majority and Minority Leaders of the House and Senate are paid $193,400 each. And the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is paid $223,500. Are we getting our moneys worth? Oh, and let's not forget the $120,000 in jet fuel that Pelosi burns up every weekend in that 200 seat Boeing 757 aircraft for a round-trip from D.C. to California at taxpayer expense! If the private sector (Big 3 Auto CEOs) flies in private jets to meetings called by the ruling party in Congress, it's a big waste of taxpayers money. If a Democrat flies in a taxpayer funded private jet on government business, it's OK. If the country is having hard economic times, you certainly couldn't tell it by looking at how our government is managing our tax dollars!

Here's what I see as a few problems in our system:
1. Our laws are made by lawyers rather than people with common sense. This is the equivalent of having the fox guard the hen house. Does anybody still wonder why our laws have become so complex and bifurcated? Special interest groups, PACs, Labor Unions, and essentially anybody else with lobbyists on Capitol Hill goes to the head of the line, while the majority of the citizenry suffers in silence. We have the best politicians money can buy.

2. Those who make our laws are overcompensated for what little they do for us - they're too busy doing for themselves. And they get to approve their own pay raises! Wouldn't we all like to have a job like that? "Public service" means serving the public, not servicing them!

3. Members of Congress are entitled to a retirement after only 5 years of participation (I refuse to use the word "service" to describe what they do). There are about a half-dozen different retirement schemes for them, so they can milk us for as much as possible (source: 2007 Congressional Research Service Report). They also have full medical coverage, and a staff and office plus other expenses for which we pay.

4. The worst part is that "we the people" keep re-electing the same lazy, corrupt, lying bastards over and over again!

What's the solution? There is no solution so long as #4, above, continues unchecked. Should that ever be corrected then things like term limits, a salary cap at around $50,000 with a very modest local housing allowance become more possible (or, better yet, government supplied quarters on a military installation such as Bolling AFB, Andrews AFB, or Fort George Mead, all within reasonable commuting distance of downtown D.C.). Lawyers should have minimal representation in Congress, comprising no more than 1/3 of the total makeup of Congress, thus insuring that our laws are less likely to be intellectualized to the point of ineffectiveness in the real world.

I just think "we the people" are getting ripped off to the maximum extent possible by professional politicians, and thought I'd share these "tip of the iceberg" thoughts with you.

I could be ... nah, no way!

Sunday, March 8, 2009

All Things In Moderation ... Except For Truth And Love Of Freedom!

Were you aware that cyberspace is awash in conspiracy theories? Yep ... every nut-job in the world has a theory about some cabal or another preparing to eliminate or enslave the rest of us. Unfortunately, there are also some well-founded theories out here too. What's unfortunate about that, you ask? It makes the job for those of us who are actually seeking "the truth" of the matter, overwhelmingly difficult. Especially since "truth" is a well-defined - but personal concept. Our "truth" is also highly adaptable to existing conditions.

Our personal definition of "truth" begins in the pre-understanding phase of life - infancy. It is a universal truth among American infants, that if they become uncomfortable in their diaper area, and make loud noises, sooner or later a giant baby will show up to remove and replace the offending garment. The giant baby will probably make strangely reassuring noises as it performs that task, and, after the task is completed, may even hold the infant in those long things that dangle from either side of its body ! This is an example of an "adaptable truth" - it will, eventually, change. Then, as we grow, we tend to adopt the truths of others - siblings, parents, other relatives, our peers, teachers, clergy, etc. We do this because, to some degree, we desire their approval and we feel a need to be accepted by them. As we enter, or progress through, that stage of life chronologically identified as "adulthood", we think we form our own opinions. Our "own opinions" are those adapted, adopted, modified and influenced by every authority figure that has ever drifted in and out of our life.

We must fight our natural inclination to accept as absolute fact those theories that most closely agree with our own personal point of view. You'll probably find this hard to believe, but I have visited a few conservative web sites recently. Some were traditionalist conservatives, and others were (what I refer to as) radical, foaming-at-the-mouth conservative. Even in an area of research this limited the same problem exists - there is some element of truth in almost all theories. The difficulty arises in separating hard, objective fact from fictionalized fantasy during the evaluation process. I know that my natural tendency is toward conservative traditionalism, and, knowing that about myself, I understand that my conservative traditionalism will heavily influence my political world view. I accept that ... mainly because our nation is built upon a foundation of conservative tradition.

Besides that, if you read and believe all the conspiracy theories out here you'll be as nutty as the most radical of the theorists! All things in moderation ... except Truth and Freedom.

I could be wrong about this ... the odds of that are about the same as the odds that you are reading this on a braille monitor!

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." —John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790. (Speeches. Dublin, 1808.)

Friday, March 6, 2009

"Nationwide Unemployment at 8.1%" ... Officially

Today it was announced that the average official unemployment across the United States is at 8.1%. I say "officially" because there are factors the government does not take into consideration when determining the "official unemployment" rate. In practical terms, which would include those factors omitted from "official" reports, the unemployment rate is probably closer to 10%. Either figure is higher than unemployment at the beginning of the Great Depression! The second figure - my estimate of 10% - is equal to the unemployment rate during the peak 21 months of unemployment of the Great Depression.

In just the past two months we have seen unemployment grow by 1,200,000 - that's an loss of 1.2 million American jobs in 60 days. In the past year "official unemployment" has increased by over 8,000,000!

I live in Josephine County Oregon, and our "official unemployment" statistics were published in last nights' paper - a whopping 14.6% - which, when translated into real-world, practical terms, is probably closer to 17-18%. That's a LOT of folks unofficially out of work! In 2007 the U.S. Census Bureau estimated our population at 81,056 and, using a mean average of 17.5%, it translates to 14,185 unemployed. That's roughly the equivalent of having half the population of Grants Pass, Oregon out of work! It's not a pretty picture.

The current population of the United States is estimated at 305,957,000. An 8.1% unemployment rate would mean 24,782,517 people are unemployed nationwide. Combine that with rampant inflation, unreliable financial institutions, floundering giant corporations, outsourcing of American jobs, and a newly-elected government administration that practically invites illegal aliens to migrate into our country, and one which investors obviously do not believe in, and you have all the makings for some serious unrest.

Could I be wrong about this? I suppose it's possible ...................................... GOTCHA!! I was just kidding about it being possible!

Was Thomas Jefferson Related to Nostrodamus?

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson

Thursday, March 5, 2009

A Little Quick Math ...

A little quick math tells us that of the $410 billion Omnibus Spending Bill of which Nazi Pelosi is so proud (the governments operating capital for the remainder of 2009), and thanks to the "elimination of earmarks" promised by Barack Obama (there were only 8,570 earmarks in the bill - I suppose that's called "elimination" in the mystical language of politics), there was only $7,700,000,000 ($7.7 billion) set aside for those eliminated earmarks.

There are two ways to look at this, I suppose:

1. Pork accounts for just under 2% of the Omnibus Spending Bill, or

2. The mathematical mean average cost per slice of eliminated pork is only $898,483.08.

On the positive side, that is slightly less than $1 million per slice ... not much less ... but less. I'm glad our newly elected President has the intelligence to be a good steward of our tax dollars - I just wish he'd USE that intelligence!

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

The Blind Leading The Visually Incapacitated

The Dumocrats "Messiah" seems to be having difficulties filling his cabinet posts with anything other than tax dodgers and incompetents! I have not lived forever, but in the 65 years that I can account for, there has never been a weaker, less qualified Presidential Cabinet than the one Barack Obama is attempting to create. So far four of his appointees have inadvertantly forgotten to pay their taxes, and the majority of the remainder have no experience in the areas with which they have been politcally rewarded. Can you say "cronyism"?

There's no way I'm wrong about this!

Monday, March 2, 2009


Not being satisfied with the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States, upholding a citizen's "right to keep and bear arms", left-wing liberals in the U.S. Congress have launched an oblique campaign to severely restrict, if not eliminate, that guaranteed right.

Knowing there would be strenuous and forceful resistance by "We The People" against their designs to create the Socialist States of America, the Dumocrats have initiated several bills designed to abridge and/or curtail that right. The Dumocrats current gun ban wish list proposal includes virtually all semi-automatic rifles, by virtue of the following wording: "The Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."

Obama's Attorney General appointee, Eric Holder, once wrote a brief supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event." In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public. Federal officers and the military have used ,and still use bolt action rifles for certain specific tasks, so that eliminates bolt-action and semi-automatic rifles, leaving us with what ... muzzle-loading rifles, paintball guns, and Nerf balls?

Their proposed handgun blacklist in not nearly so inclusive - only 11 makes/models - but it is nonetheless invasively unconstitutional! The handgun list seems to be based on appearance and reputation of use (i.e. - a favorite weapon of gangs), rather than actual function.

The semi-automatic shotgun list is even shorter ... which leads me to wonder if the real motive of such proposed legislation is to eliminate "We The People's" access to firearms with an effective range of more than 50 yards. Is there another yet undisclosed agenda?

How much confidence do investors have in Obama's administration? A look at the Dow-Jones, NASDAQ, and S&P should tell you that. They're all in the dumper!

If you own firearms, and value your freedom to do so, contact your Congressmen and demand they vote against any such proposed legislation. If you do not own firearms, and value your other freedoms, do likewise. Our right to keep and bear arms is the one that insures we keep the others.

I suppose that in some parallel universe I could be wrong about this. (That would be the same parallel universe where politicians always tell their constituents the truth!)

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Political Conservatism vs Republicanism

In case you haven't figured it out by now, I am what I refer to as a Conservative Traditionalist. I am not a card-carrying member of either major political party, because I do not believe in blindly supporting party agendas. I am in charge of my life, and when I enter the voting booth I will make the decision as to what I believe is best for my country.

One of the biggest problems of the "two party system" is that the majority of those registered as R or D, view the Presidential electoral process as a "them or us" situation. Presidential elections are always an us condition, because the outcome impacts the entire country for the next four years. On the other hand, we do not need the overwhelming quagmire of political parties that some of the European countries have - the UK for example:
  • 158 parties have their name registered for use only in England
  • 9 parties have their name registered for use in England and Wales.
  • 129 parties have their name registered for use in England, Scotland and Wales.
  • 19 parties have their name registered for use only in Scotland.
  • 9 parties have their name registered for use only in Wales.
  • In Northern Ireland, 48 parties are on the register, including the Conservative Party which fights elections in the province.
  • 4 parties are registered as "Minor Parties"
With as many as 158 registered parties, there should be a party for each and every issue under consideration! We certainly don't need that ... but, we do need a viable third party, a party whose primary interest is the good of the nation, rather than just the good of the party. A pork-free party!

Along with that, we would need representation for the nation as a whole, not just their home state. Why? Because that which is good for the nation is also good for the individual states! It cannot help but be beneficial in some respect. No more "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" backroom deals for earmarked state spending. But, I digress ... getting back to my topic:

A Conservative Traditionalist believes that our country, in spite of what few shortcomings it may have, is still the best country in the world. They also believe that the culture, traditions, and laws that made it the best country in the world are worth protecting from those who would scrap it all and reinvent the USA in the image of recently liberal Europe. And, I say recently, because Europe's conversion to liberalism has taken shape over the last 60 years.

We are not Europe ... nor are we Asia, Africa, or any of the remaining continents. We are the United States of America - the centerpiece of North America, a relatively new continent in the cultural sense. Yet in a scant 233 years - and because of the formula of that culture - we have overtaken and surpassed cultures a thousand years or more our senior. Economically, physically, spiritually, militarily and technologically we have advanced from relative obscurity, to a position of global leadership. The principles of our founding fathers have worked well for us for over two centuries, so where is the obvious indicator of a need for change? "Change", as someone once said, "is inevitable", but the result of change simply for the sake of change is frequently counterproductive, and sometimes destructive.

Who desires change in the American culture? Those who refuse to assimilate into that culture, and those who believe that the responsibility for providing the unearned rewards of individual success rests with the government. They believe that the government's role is to reward indolence and slothfulness with benefits equal or superior to those enjoyed by the productive, tax-paying members of our society. I strongly disagree with those people, whatever their party affiliation. We have too many grasshoppers and too few ants ... and if the ants should someday realize that the free ride is much easier than laboring for ones support, then we shall surely all perish of starvation.

I could be wrong about this ... and the Pope could be Jewish!