Goodbye Barry - Welcome Home AMERICA!

Saturday, February 27, 2010


The United States has the bloodiest history of labor of any industrialized nation on Earth. It is a story rich in human drama and tragedy. It is also one of progress and hope. For example: Janitors at General Motors are compensated at the rate of about $30 per hour. Assembly line workers are compensated at around $80 per hour. Considering that neither of these positions requires even a high school diploma to fill, there seems to be something incredibly wrong with their pay scales. Entry-level, unskilled labor rarely earns more than the prevailing minimum wage. And, unskilled labor - even with 10 years experience in whatever their field - is lucky if they are earning 50% over minimum wage. Learn a skill or get an education... but, if you fail to do either, learn to enjoy your career at McDonald's.

Pushing a broom and swinging a mop is not rocket science. Running a pneumatic nut driver, placing the same nuts on the same bolts for 8 hours per day doesn't even approximate brain surgery. Granted, they are both necessary and honorable ways of earning a living, but at that level of compensation they are earning two or three "livings". Labor compensation packages are a major part of the price of American-made automobiles... that, and corporate greed. Since 1935 the compensation packages for automotive workers have been negotiated by the United Automobile Workers union (UAW). The UAW is also known as the United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America International Union, and is a part of the AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations). The AFL-CIO is without doubt the largest union organization in the world.

Labor unions - on a relatively small scale - probably began in the USA in 1778, when the New York City journeyman printers united and gained an increase in wages. Apparently the idea of "unionization" didn't catch on right away, because the next notable action of that type didn't occur until 1785, when New York shoemakers struck for three weeks, and in 1786 printers of Philadelphia staged a successful walk-out strike for higher wages and gained a minimum wage of $6 per week. Keep in mind however, that in the 18th century 10¢ per hour was a better-than-average wage. And, in 1792 the Philadelphia shoemakers formed the first local craft union for the purpose of collective bargaining.

Thuggery was a common practice in both union organizing practices and union busting practices. Workers who spoke out or acted against the interests of union organizers frequently found themselves on the wrong end of an axe handle or billy club. Those beatings were simply warnings. If the worker was stupid enough to continue speaking out against union organizers, he might have found himself crippled... or sometimes even converted to a corpse by union thugs. There was an equal amount of blood on the hands of company officials as well, who would hire "special police" (read: "goon squad") to confront the union thugs - either in an all-out donnybrook, or in a 3 (or more) to 1 ratio, in order to explain the company's labor philosophy. Each entity would try to out-thug the other thugsmeisters. Union organization was a very messy undertaking (no pun intended) in the late 17th through the early 19th century.

Today, at the beginning of the 21st century, we are faced with labor unions being backed - and even being enthusiastically presented - by the current Administration in Washington D.C.
They are stacking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with radical nominees who will put forward the Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act via administrative action. Union bosses are pushing forward with efforts to represent airport screeners. One single thread runs throughout: an insatiable desire for money and power on the part of Big Labor bosses. Have they not heard that we are in a depression? We are suffering from a national financial hernia! If we keep applying pressure it will rupture... and our nation will bleed to death. Can you imagine the turmoil if the National Security Agency, the CIA, and the Transportation Safety Administration were to become unionized? Imagine even a brief, 1-hour work stoppage at Kennedy, O'Hare or LAX. Thousands of business meetings, surgical appointments, freight deliveries, etc. would be missed, and some possibly lost forever. Now imagine a 24 hour strike, or a week-long strike... the ramifications are mind-boggling.
Once upon a time, unscrupulous business owners and uneducated workers made unions a "necessary evil". Those times have passed. For the most part workers are no longer uneducated... but, there are still those business owners who would consider attempting to take advantage of the working class. I say "consider" because even the unscrupulous realize that workers are smarter today, and that they are basically familiar with federal and state labor laws. They are also aware that they can leverage businesses into making certain adjustments in compensation packages by simply organizing the employees of that business and initiating a sit-down or walk-out strike at the local level. There is no need for national, dues-collecting unions - they have outlived their usefulness. National unions do nothing but add to the cost of production so they can take (dues) from the workers. If collective bargaining negotiations at the local level cannot resolve issues between management and labor, an arbitrator would be used to facilitate that resolution. If either side refused to comply with the arbitrator's recommendations then an administrative law judge would have the final word. (It sounds like a workable plan to me... but I am also aware that I tend to over-simplify sometimes.)
Union membership was once a symbol of true, demonstrated craftsmanship. Today it is a symbol of security for the barely competent.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Are We As DUMB As Our Elected Representatives THINK We Are?

Hav yu goten thee impreshun that hour politishuns thenk We the People ar stoopid? We seem to provide genuine proof of that opinion by our voting records. We repeatedly put the same worthless people back into office, even after they have shown their disdain for what the people who put them into office really want.

If our politicians were half as smart as they think they are, they would be serving their constituency rather than "servicing" them. Obama just finished his "Health Care Summit", loaded of course, to his advantage - 20 Democraps and 17 mostly RINOs (Republican In Name Only). There was no discussion... simply a lecture by The Chosen One, laying the blame for his failure to move Obamacare through the House and Senate at the feet of the Republican party. That's politics for you! The Republicans are reflecting the true desires of the majority of Americans - we do not want or need a socialist takeover of health care by the Government. It is not cost effective, it will increase taxes. It will result in longer waits for treatment and, in some cases, the wait will be too long. It will cover those who are not citizens of this country, most of whom - if working at all - are working for "cash under the table", and are therefore not paying into the system. It will overtax our existing medical workforce, resulting in qualified medical personnel leaving the field, placing an increasing burden on those who remain, resulting in even longer waits for medical treatment.
Many doctors have said they would give up the practice of medicine should Obamacare become law. More government interference is not the answer to our health care issues. Tort reform is a partial answer. Severe reductions in the cost of medical training is another partial answer. Reasonable (40% - standard retail markup) profit margins on medical supplies and equipment would reduce expenses, which should reduce patient costs. Allowing the sale and purchase of health insurance across state lines would increase competition, and should therefore reduce premium costs. Including small businesses in large "Group Plans" thereby reducing premium costs. Insurance companies should be responsible for covering preventive care - which may cost them only a small fraction of what corrective treatment would cost.

I am a recipient of Medicare now, having paid into it almost all my working life, and continuing to do so in retirement. My personal physician recently put a letter out to all his patients the general thrust of which was: Doctors lose money on every Medicare patient they treat. This is true throughout the state OMA, and the national AMA. If national health care becomes a requirement I will have to cease treating Medicare and Medicaid patients.
I may be carrying that statement to the wrong conclusion, but it appears to me that although we will have Medicare coverage, we seniors will be unable to get treatment under it. What is the practical difference between that and being uninsured??
Then we will have millions more without usable medical coverage - which we will probably continue to be charged for via Social Security deduction. Where is the gain in that?

Monday, February 22, 2010


Tiger Woods was unfaithful to his wife, his children (in a manner of speaking), his fans (in an even less emphatic manner of speaking) and his corporate image. WHO CARES?

What Tiger chooses to do in his personal life is between him and his wife... and whomever he chooses to associate with in that activity. He was caught in flagrante delicto (red-handed) by his wife, who chose to chase him out of the house while flogging him with a nine-iron. What made it newsworthy was that he crashed his Cadillac Escalade SUV into a tree about 50 yards from his house. Then came the media speculation that all was not well in the Woods household. The front-end of the Escalade hit the tree... how did the rear windows get broken out?

This is a tragedy of errors - Elin Woods discovered Tiger's initial peccadillo by investigating his cell phone records.
First error - Tiger ignored his wedding vows, and found sexual partners outside his marriage. As have millions of other men and women.
Second error - Tiger didn't clear his cell phone of messages that would indicate moral turpitude.
Third error - (This one is on Elin.) Snooping is a no-no. When one invades the privacy of another, searching for things that may disappoint, sadden, or enrage them, they should not be surprised when they find those things.
Fourth error - also Elin's. A sexual indiscretion does not justify an assault with sporting goods.
Fifth error - Veronica Siwik-Daniels, (aka Joslyn James, pornographic movie "star") knew full-well that Tiger was a married man and father of two children. Doesn't having sex for money make her a HO? (Siwik-Daniels is also $12,000 in arrears on court-ordered child support.)

Enter Gloria Allred - a law ho - who claims her client is now a victim because TW "didn't apologize to her" during his Apology Press Conference last week. (Tiger should take apologizing lessons from Obama, who made sincere apologies for the USA all over the world last year.) HEY GLORIA! Pay attention here... your client is a HO! Her life has been one of "use me and abuse me, as long as you pay me". Now her feelings are hurt because TW won't let her continue to use his "nine-iron" after he had already played ten holes before her? What could she reasonably expect? For Allred and Siwik-Daniels this is nothing more than a publicity stunt, designed to give "Joslyn James" a little more marketability when she returns to the silver(?) screen. Shame on them both.

TW has pretty much ruined his marketability. He may play - and win - at golf again, but I think by now all of his sponsors have told him to bugger off. Many of his fans are deeply disappointed in his off-greens behavior (and a lot of guys are envious of him), his wife is understandably outraged, and his children are... what?? Are the children even aware of what daddy TW did? Do they understand the intricacies of infidelity? Probably not, but they will understand that "Daddy doesn't live here any more.", and that will hurt their little hearts.

Shame on them all. But still - it's nobody's business what goes on in anybody else's personal life, unless that other person chooses to share that information directly with them.

Saturday, February 20, 2010


Here's a new acronym for some of you out there - IANSA. This is how they describe themselves: "The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is the global movement against gun violence - a network of 800 civil society organisations working in 120 countries to stop the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons." Sounds innocuous enough, eh? After all, nobody is in favor of gun violence. They go on to say,"IANSA seeks to make people safer from gun violence by securing stronger regulation on guns in society and better controls on arms exports. It represents the voices of civil society on the international stage, for example in the UN process on small arms, and draws on the practical experience of its members to campaign for policies that will protect human security."

The UN (which recently described its "process on small arms" activity as "Throughout October 2008, governments are attending the First Committee, which proposes and adopts resolutions on disarmament and international security. Their discussions include resolutions on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and small arms control.") is notoriously anti-gun simply because civilians owning guns are an indication of a free people, and those who enjoy freedom just may make it difficult for the UN to establish itself as the One World Government.
Sculpture outside the U.N. Secretariat in New York City

What exactly is the United Nations, and how does it relate to the United States Constitution? The United Nations is an association of non-elected representatives from approximately 192 nations around the world. During the 20th century, only 31% of the human population lived in fully democratic nations, the remaining 69% are limited democracies, communist states, one-party rule, autocracy, traditional monarchy, military junta, or have no government. Which means that more than 2/3 of the U.N. is occupied by something other than fully democratic nations. The bulk of these nation's representatives are motivated by resentment, envy, jealousy, fear and hatred of Democracy - Democratic Republics in-particular - as demanded by their leaders (possible exceptions: UK, Scandinavian countries, Australia, South Korea, and New Zealand... maybe France).
You should be able to determine for yourself how the U.N. relates to the United States Constitution by now - but, in case you can't, the answer is... NOT AT ALL! The vast majority of U.N. representatives fear our Constitutional guarantees, and look for every opportunity to reduce our nation's citizens to the same subservient status as their own.

Back to IANSA... IANSA is funded by socialist-progressive organizations including George Soros' "Open Society Institute", and liberal foundations including the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. IANSA's postion on "Women and Guns" is ludicrous: "It is overwhelmingly men who buy, sell, and use small arms around the world, while women are victimised to a disproportionate degree. This dynamic is often overlooked in discussions of armed violence." There is nothing in our country stopping women from "buying, selling, or using small arms", other than lack of interest or personal choice. And armed citizens - male or female - are significantly less "victimised" than are unarmed subjects. The Brady (Gun Grab) Campaign/Center is one of the 700+ members of IANSA, and I'm certain they would have the support of Bandits Without Borders. IANSA is "on board" with the UN's "process on small arms".

In October of 2009, Obama
made a couple of moves to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a gun control treaty with the United Nations. The upside of such a treaty for Obama would be deniability - "I didn't revoke the 2nd Amendment, I simply signed a UN treaty. It's not my fault they want to take your guns away." The downside for Obama and the UN is that, according to the Constitution, all treaties must be ratified by Congress before they become binding. I don't know that Congress is willing to completely abdicate our sovereignty in such a fashion... not if they're half as smart as they want us to believe they are, anyway.

Eliminating guns will not eliminate violence. Inasmuch as they are known for breaking the law, criminals will still have guns - but their innocent victims won't. They will be left defenseless. Baseball bats, golf clubs, machetes, kitchen knives, bricks, rope, ballpoint pens, lumber and automobiles have all been used as weapons to commit intentional acts of violence, but they aren't particularly effective against a criminal armed with a firearm. Your survivors can have "First Runner-up" engraved on your grave marker. Australia's relatively Draconian gun restrictions resulted in a substantial increase in violent crime. In the United States, those states with the least restrictive firearms laws have the lowest violent crime rates!
IANSA, it's members and the United Nations combined, are a greater threat to American sovereignty than many people realize. The IANSA/UN partnership is second only to the current administration in that regard.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Would You Rather Fish For Freedom... or Cut Bait For Obama?

Referring to slavery, Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other."

Paraphrasing our 16th President, yet referring to
a different kind of slavery - "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half socialist-progressive and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." (emphasis added)

I, on the other hand, would not be surprised to see the Union dissolve. Thirty-three states have felt it necessary to reaffirm their sovereignty over the past 12 months. Why do you think that is? Were their State Legislatures bored, and had nothing better to do? The reason is that they can see The Beast of government growing larger on an almost-daily basis - stealing more power for itself while attempting to reduce the powers granted to the States by the United States Constitution, Amendment X -
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Any government is essentially a parasite. Our government is much like a leech - one which "supports" itself by simply taxing the earnings generated by the blood, toil, tears and sweat of the citizens of the fifty sovereign states. The government ignores the expressed will of the people, for we are not nearly as intelligent as "The Chosen One". We are just the ignorant worker-drones whose only legitimate function is to feed The Beast. But The Beast is insatiable.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Snownami Shuts Down Federal Government for Two Days

DID ANYBODY NOTICE? DID ANYBODY EXCEPT THE POLITICIANS CARE? Could it be that our current administration is so ineffectual, and our Congress so lame that this interruption to government went unnoticed by the majority of the country?

Rather than being received as an "interruption to government", many of us saw it as a relief from government. When government works against the will of the majority of the people it becomes tyrannical. When it works against the best interests of the nation it becomes traitorous. People appreciate relief from either one of those concepts.
This is the year to save our Republic! Replace the left-wing progressives in D.C. with true conservatives, who understand and respect our Constitution and the traditions upon which our once-great nation was founded! The key word there is CONSERVATIVES. Not just Republicans... and don't ignore conservative Democrats - although they are few and far between. We need the Captains of our "ship of State" to save it - not to scuttle it as they are doing today. We need those who are both fiscal and social conservatives controlling our government, and between now and November there will be more "special elections". There are large numbers (around 35 as I recall) of liberal Dems retiring or choosing not to seek reelection to their office.
Opportunities such as this only present themselves once every four years. Governments such as our current one present themselves only once in a lifetime... for which we must be THANKFUL! Do your part - cleanse our national leadership of those supporting the Marxist/Socialist political philosophy - vote CONSERVATIVE in 2010!

Sunday, February 7, 2010


The Tea Party... is it a political party... or more like a "toga party"? As of today the Tea Party is not an official political party, nor is it seen as such by most Americans. Actually, outside of the Tea Party movement itself, most Americans don't have a real "handle" on what the Tea Party believes, does, or is.

There was a Tea Party conducted here in Grants Pass Oregon, a small town of approximately 30,000, on April 15th of 2009. "TEA", in this case, is an acronym representing the phrase "Taxed Enough Already". You should be able to deduce from that acronym - and the date upon which the nation-wide Tea Party was held - that the primary thrust of the movement is stabilized, preferably reduced taxation, and fiscal restraint demonstrated by our government. In fact, inasmuch as the beast of government survives only off the earnings of We the People, doing the first would necessitate the second.

You can now see that the Tea Party movement is (1) against increased taxes, (2) fiscally conservative, and (3) supports the concept of smaller, less powerful federal government - government within the confines of our Constitution.

The liberal radical left wants the world to believe that the Tea Party movement is not a true grass-roots movement, but rather that those extremely intelligent, "rich Republicans" are behind the whole idea. They few are the puppet masters, manipulating the rest of us poor, ignorant Bible-loving, gun-toting, freedom-addicted, Constitution-following dummies into supporting their desire for power. That's how they say they see us, because that's how they wish we really were. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Tea Party is made up of Republicans, Independents, and even some disenchanted Democrats. I'm fairly certain that some of the Republicans are "rich" - as are some of the Independents and some of the Democrats. However, I didn't see any truly exotic or outrageously expensive vehicles at our Tea Party. A few Cadillacs, a couple of Lincolns and a Mercedes or two. Not a Rolls, Bentley, Ferrari or Bugatti anywhere in sight. There were no YSL suits or A. Testoni shoes on the men. No Louis Vitton handbags or Prada shoes worn by the ladies. I saw one sport coat, and two ties in the crowd of 750. This was a working-class, jeans and t-shirt crowd. This was the backbone of America making itself heard!

The turnout here in Grants Pass for the Tax Day Tea Party was 750 people. That works out to 2.5% of the population. Since total figures for the national Tea Party are quite elusive, lets just use that 2.5% against the national population of 306,000,000. That calculates as 7,650,000 participants nationwide. This does not include those who may have been working, hospitalized or otherwise indisposed and were therefore unable to attend - we can consider them as "Tea Party Sympathizers". I won't even attempt to assign a numeric value to them, because I have no idea how many "sympathizers" there may have been. There could only be ten... or as many as ten million.

How is the Tea Party "fractured"? It is fractured by its very structure - or lack thereof. There is no clearly recognized, single focal point for a "National Tea Party Headquarters". The "leadership" is fragmented within geographical regions and even within states -
(1) Judson Phillips is the founder of the Tea Party Nation
(2) Tom Knapp claims to be founder of the 21st century version of the Boston Tea Party
(3) Eric Odom is the founder of the American Liberty Alliance (ALA), the group that launched and organized the tea party movement across the country
(4) Constitutionalist grass roots activist Chad Peace - as part of the original team of people who organized Boston Tea Party re-enactment protests in 50 different cities in late 2007 - claims to be the co-founder of the movement.
And recently, some moron lawyer/radio host in Florida filed a lawsuit to be granted copyrights to the name of Tea Party. There are even more claimants to founding the Tea Party movement!

Such fragmentation makes centralizing power difficult at best, and impossible at worst. The saving factor is that the goals of all the individual groups are the same - lower taxes, fiscal conservatism, and smaller government within the framework of the Constitution. There is, however, one consistent focal point within the movement - Sarah Palin. Sarah is not an official in any of the multiple branches of the movement, but she is the only physical common thread between them all.

The Tea Party Convention was attended by only 600 people. Perhaps there are only 600 "rich Republicans" in the movement, since - at $549 per ticket - it was out of the question for most of us who are associated with the movement. Had it been free - or even $100 per ticket - I'm sure there would have been thousands of attendees. The Tea Party movement has the potential to become the 3rd nationally recognized, viable political party - but only the potential at this point. What seems most likely is that the Tea Party will put its weight behind those candidates who have either proven track records as conservative traditional constitutionalists, or, those political newcomers who show the most promise of demonstrating those traits.

The only thing that is OBVIOUS about the Tea Party movement, is that America is still in the mood for "change", and that we are very unhappy with the ones that have been proposed during the past year by our government. Does government respond to those
indicators in a positive fashion? No... instead of adjusting their behavior, they "go to the mattresses" and begin their siege on Americans - insisting that the 535 people in Washington D.C. know better than the other 306,000,000 what is best for the country.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010


On the 10th of January, 49BC, Julius Caesar dispatched one Roman Legion across the Rubicon - a 29 km long river in northern Italy. The river flows from the Apennine Mountains to the Adriatic Sea through the southern Emilia-Romagna region between the towns of Rimini and Cesena. The act of soldiers "crossing the Rubicon" initiated a civil war in the region. The rebellion was squelched, and Caesar became the unrivaled leader of the Roman world - and "crossing the Rubicon" became a popular idiom meaning to pass a point of no return.
The "leadership" of the United States of America now stands on the banks of our own Rubicon. "They" - the legislative and executive branches of our government - have ignored the expressed will of "We the People" for many years. However, since our most recent election, the disdain of our arrogant leadership for its people has been in plain view.
The liberal-progressive left wants a revolution. They ignore our Constitution. They wish to rebuild the United States using the socialist foundation of Marx and Engels... an overhaul which the conservative-traditional right stands firmly against. The liberals are in the process of destroying our economy. Revolution, like most other things in this world, is not free - it comes with a definite price. They may well get a revolution... but it will not be the revolution they desire.
Are "they" willing to pay the price to support the government's attempt to enslave a free people? Perhaps... but they find our Constitution to be a bothersome impediment to their agenda.
Are those who espouse freedom willing to pay the price to maintain it? From every indication I have seen the answer is YES, they are.