Big Boom Bloggers

2010-09-30T01:23:00.001-04:00

It's obviously been a while since my last post. Like, two years while. I'm getting the old me going again. Check out my new blog. I'm going in a bit of a different direction. My new blog is Grassroots Intellectualism.

Democrats looking to take away your 401k

2008-11-15T00:17:00.005-05:00

Wow! It's been since July that any of our contributors actually contributed to this blog? Wow - I guess we're all slackers! :)

I originally posted up this article on my blog back in October:

Democrats want to take away your 401k

Well - I have an update that I will cross-post over at my site - but - since we've been slacking - anyone who still comes by here gets to read it first! This is the whole story from the Carolina Journal

Carolina Journal Exclusives
Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts

Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs

By Karen McMahan

November 04, 2008

RALEIGH ˜ Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers' personal retirement accounts ˜ including 401(k)s and IRAs ˜ and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers' retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Reti rement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on "The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers' Retirement Security," blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will "strengthen and protect Americans' 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans" and the "Democratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people."

Currently, 401(k) plans allow Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a defined percentage, which not only increases workers' retirement savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their wealth to their heirs, unlike Social Security. Even when they leave an employer and go to one that doesn't offer a 401(k) or pension, workers can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA.

Mandating Equality

Ghilarducci's plan first appeared in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the flawed American retirement income system (www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf).

The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, "exacerbates income and wealth inequalities" because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are "skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do."

Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals "provide a much larger 'carrot' to wealthy families than to middle-class families ˜ and none whatsoever for families too poor to owe taxes."

GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not "earn a 3% real return in perpetuity." In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants.

In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn't eliminate the tax breaks, rather, "I'm just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading ˜ spreading the wealth."

All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.

Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts. For workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their own contributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer contributions.

Another justification for Ghilarducci's plan is to eliminate investment risk. In her testimony, Ghilarducci said, "humans often lack the foresight, discipline, and investing skills required to sustain a savings plan." She cited the 2004 HSBC global survey on the Future of Retirement, in which she claimed that "a third of Americans wanted the government to force them to save more for retirement."

What the survey actually reported was that 33 percent of Americans wanted the government to "enforce additional private savings," a vastly different meaning than mandatory government-run savings. Of the four potential sources of retirement support, which were government, employer, family, and self, the majority of Americans said "self" was the most important contributor, followed by "government." When broken out by family income, low-income U.S. households said the "government" was the most important retirement support, whereas high-income families ranked "government" last and "self" first (www.hsbc.com/retirement).

On Oct. 22, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Argentinean government had seized all private pension and retirement accounts to fund government programs and to address a ballooning deficit. Fearing an economic collapse, foreign investors quickly pulled out, forcing the Argentinean stock market to shut down several times. More than 10 years ago, nationalization of private savings sent Argentina's economy into a long-term downward spiral.

Income and Wealth Redistribution

The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through redistribution.

On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that "from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw" in tax code incentives because they are "provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits."

Even people who don't pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. "There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all)," Greenstein said.

"Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and performance at the same time," Greenstein said, and "reducing barriers to labor organizing, preserving the real value of the minimum wage, and the other workforce security concerns . . . would contribute to an economy with less glaring and sharply widening inequality."

When asked whether committee members seriously were considering Ghilarducci's proposal for GSAs, Aaron Albright, press secretary for the Committee on Education and Labor, said Miller and other members were listening to all ideas.

Miller's biggest priority has been on legislation aimed at greater transparency in 401(k)s and other retirement plan administration, specifically regarding fees, Albright said, and he sent a link to a Fox News interview of Miller on Oct. 24, 2008, to show that the congressman had not made a decision.

After repeated questions asked by Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Miller said he would not be in favor of "ki lling the 401(k)" or of "killing the tax advantages for 401(k)s."

Arguing against liberal prescriptions, William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, testified on Oct. 24 that the "roots of the current crisis are firmly planted in public policy mistakes" by the Federal Reserve and Congress. He cautioned Congress against raising taxes, increasing burdensome regulations, or withdrawing from international product or capital markets. "Congress can ill afford to repeat the awesome errors of its predecessor in the early days of the Great Depression," Beach said.

Instead, Beach said, Congress could best address the financial crisis by making the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 permanent, stopping dependence on demand-side stimulus, lowering the corporate profits tax, and reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Testifying before the same committee in early October, Jerry Bramlett, president and CEO of BenefitStreet, Inc., an independent 401(k) plan administrator, said one of the best ways to ensure retirement security would be to have the U.S. Department of Labor develop educational materials for workers so they could make better investment decisions, not exchange equity investments in retirement accounts for Treasury bills, as proposed in the GSAs.

Should Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, congressional Democrats might have stronger support for their "spreading the wealth" agenda. On Oct. 27, the American Thinker posted a video of an interview with Obama on public radio station WBEZ-FM from 2001.

In the interview, Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society." The Constitution says only what "the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can't do to you," and Obama added that the Warren Court wasn't that radical.

Although in 2001 Obama said he was not "optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts," as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.

"The real tragedy of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused that I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change," Obama said.

Karen McMahan is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal.

2008-07-03T16:52:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON (IP) — Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday said as president he would strengthen government oversight of energy traders he blames in large part for the skyrocketing price of oil.

"Read my lips: No New Profits!"

"Some people blame low oil supplies or high oil demand for the recent spike in gasoline prices," said the presidential hopeful, "but these are just outdated economic theories. The real cause is speculative trading in the oil futures market. Trading by unscrupulous, unpatriotic profit-mongers. My administration will put a stop to this by making it illegal to sell oil futures for more than was paid for them. Without the market distortion caused by the so-called 'profit-motive' , our energy market - under the prudent and level-headed guidance of the federal government - will once again become both free and fair."Obama said that he intended to implement his "No New Profits" pledge within his administration' s first 100 days, promising to expand his economy-saving plan to other markets as his tenure progressed.

"Although I've long stood against the 'excessive' profits made by oil companies," said Obama, "the fact is that ALL profits are inherently excessive. That's why I vow to extend this program to other markets as well. Food, precious metals, stocks, bonds - all will eventually be both bought and sold 'at cost'. With all price fluctuations banned by the force of law, America will finally have a stable, sustainable, plannable future, unmarred by the evils of fear or uncertainty.

"The Democratic contender, however, reassured his audience that this new stability would not interfere with the creation and implementation of new government programs. "Some of my critics contend that without profits, we would be unable to collect the new taxes necessary to implement important new government programs like Universal Health Care, but we will find a way to make the wealthy pay their fair share. They'll just have to sell off their mansions and limousines."

"At cost, of course," he concluded.

Commentary: This speech by Obama should appeal to the Democratic base, many of whom are socialist at heart. Unfortunately, I also run into people who drive SUV's and are not necessarily die-hard Democrats or very political at all who will also find this rhetoric appealing. There seems to be a lot of people, even otherwise educated people, who simply have no understanding of economics. An increase in the price of their favorite commodity or a loss of a job and they are ready to tax away an industry's profits, embrace wage and price controls, and nationalize companies. You may recall, California Representative Maxine Waters called for "the government taking over and running the oil companies" back in May. Despite the repeated failures of socialism, there are many who still find it appealing.

OK. For you people in Antioch, the Obama speech is a parody. That is not a real story and he really didn't say those things. I don't want this to become one of those Internet rumors that are repeated as the truth. Unfortunately however, as bizarre as it may sound, Maxine Waters did call for oil company nationalization.

Author unknown, I plucked this from a chat group.

Iranian Nuke Program to be “dismantled” within a year!

2008-07-01T00:28:00.002-04:00

Well - it won't exactly be shut down voluntarily by the Iranians! Bwahahaha! Apparently, "a former head of Mossad has warned that Israel has 12 months in which to destroy Iran's nuclear programme or risk coming under nuclear attack itself. He also hinted that Israel might have to act sooner if Barack Obama wins the US presidential election."

I really like that last line - looks like our Israeli friends have no confidence in the Obamessiah either!

Here's the article:

Israel has a year to stop Iran bomb, warns ex-spy

By Carolynne Wheeler in Tel Aviv and Tim Shipman in Washington

Shabtai Shavit, an influential adviser to the Israeli parliament's defence and foreign affairs committee, told The Sunday Telegraph that time was running out to prevent Iran's leaders getting the bomb.

Mr Shavit, who retired from the Israeli intelligence agency in 1996, warned that he had no doubt Iran intended to use a nuclear weapon once it had the capability, and that Israel must conduct itself accordingly.

"The time that is left to be ready is getting shorter all the time," he said in an interview

Mr Shavit, 69, who was deputy director of Mossad when Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq in 1981, added: "As an intelligence officer working with the worst-case scenario, I can tell you we should be prepared. We should do whatever necessary on the defensive side, on the offensive side, on the public opinion side for the West, in case sanctions don't work. What's left is a military action."

The "worst-case scenario, he said, is that Iran may have a nuclear weapon within "somewhere around a year".

As speculation grew that Israel was contemplating its own air strikes, Iran's military said it might hit the Jewish state with missiles and stop Gulf oil exports if it came under attack. Israel "is completely within the range of the Islamic republic's missiles," said Mohammed Ali Jafari, head of the feared Revolutionary Guard. "Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime cannot confront it."

More than 40 per cent of all globally traded oil passes through the 35-mile-wide Strait of Hormuz, putting tankers entering or leaving the Gulf at risk from Iranian mines, rockets and artillery, and Mr Jafari's comments were the clearest signal yet that Iran intends to use this leverage in the nuclear dispute.

Despite offering incentives, the West has failed to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium. Israeli officials believe the diplomatic process is useless and have been pressing President Bush to launch air strikes before he leaves office on January 20 next year.

They apparently fear that the chances of winning American approval for an air attack will be drastically reduced if the Democratic nominee wins the election. Mr Obama advocates talks with the regime in Tehran rather than military action.

That view was echoed by Mr Shavit, who said: "If [Republican candidate John] McCain gets elected, he could really easily make a decision to go for it. If it's Obama: no. My prediction is that he won't go for it, at least not in his first term in the White House."

He warned that while it would be preferable to have American support and participation in a strike on Iran, Israel will not be afraid to go it alone.

"When it comes to decisions that have to do with our national security and our own survival, at best we may update the Americans that we are intending or planning or going to do something. It's not a precondition, [getting] an American agreement," he said.

Our liberal friends must be pissed to see that last sentence - Our Israeli friends get it. We should not, never, ever, be required to get approval from ANYONE to defend ourselves. Do you think they will go to the U.N. Security Council to announce their intentions when they decide to go? I think that is a resounding NO!! And...neither should we...ever.

I see some serious Global Warming coming Iran's way in the near future! That's enough to bring a tear to my eyes! I hope Muchmud Imanutjob is heeding this warning.

Democrats Broken Promises on Gas Prices

2008-06-16T21:12:00.003-04:00

Nancy, I thought you promised to bring down gas prices.

In 2006 in the lead up to the Congressional elections Nancy Pelosi promised "a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices." At the time gas was $2.23 per gallon; now it is $4.00.

Many people are looking to find a culprit and are looking for a conspiracy. The primary cause of higher gas prices is increased demand from developing countries, primarily China and India. However, if one wants someone to blame, the Democrats are the prime candidates. Democrats have blocked new American exploration, drilling and refineries for the last twenty years.

Nancy Pelosi is not such and idiot that she does not understand the cause of higher gas prices. Since, however, she promised "a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices," she should be held accountable. Nancy did you not promise to bring down gas prices?

This video was copied from youtube and was a production of rocketsfan34.

Smoke Smoke Smoke that Cigarette

2008-06-11T18:42:00.002-04:00

City of Loma Linda bans smoking in most public places

LOMA LINDA, Calif. (AP) -- Smokers soon will have far fewer places where they can light up in Loma Linda. Council members on Tuesday passed an anti-smoking law that prohibits tobacco use in most of the city's public places.

The ordinance bans smoking on Loma Linda's public streets and sidewalks, in parks, restaurants, theaters and hospitals, as well as most of the city's motel and apartment units. The fine for a first offense will be $100 or less. The city of nearly 21,000 residents in San Bernardino County was founded in 1905 by Seventh-day Adventists. They typically abstain from alcohol, caffeine and meat.

Commentary

When cigarettes are outlawed, only outlaws will have cigarettes.

Last October a new rule went into effect in Nashville and now most of the honky tonks of Nashville are smoke-free. I smoke a pipe so I don't have a craving to smoke the same way a cigarette smoker does, but sitting in a bar, listening to live county music and drinking a beer is when I most want to light up. Since the ban went into effect I find I have a whole lot less desire to go out. Dim lights, thick smoke and loud, loud music just seem to go together.

If I would have still been in the Metro Council, I would not have supported the ban on smoking in bars. I think it should be left up to the individual bar owner to set his own rules about smoking and the the customer can decide if he wants to visit that establishment or not. Nevertheless, while I don't like it and wouldn't have voted for it, I can understand the second hand smoke argument for banning smoking in enclosed places. Prohibiting smoking outdoors, however, is punitive and discriminatory and I do not see the logic used to ban it, other than people just find it offensive. I don't think we should have the right not to be offended.

Some people just can't stand it if other people are having fun. People like banning activity of which they disapprove. Strip clubs are often banned under the guise of health and safety regulations. Zoning and permitting are often used to prohibit activity that is otherwise legal. Regulations supported by the Baptist and the liquor industry keep wine out of Tennessee grocery stores.

Where are the lobbyist for the merchants of death when you need them. If this ban can stand, then the good citizens of Loma Linda may next ban coffee drinking in public. If the tobacco industry will establish a non-profit entity to legally challenge irrational smoking bans like this, I will donate ten dollars. Maybe smokers ought to converge on Loma Linda and have a massive smoke-in.

Obama wants to increase how much we pay for gas?

2008-06-09T21:43:00.002-04:00

Did I hear that correctly from him today? Did he not say that he wants to "tax windfall profits on big oil corporations like Exxon?" Excuse me, but, I thought this guy was supposed to be educated? Isn't he a lawyer or something? Surely he took a business or economics class while he was in college!

You can't tax profits! Profits is what comes AFTER taxes. If you try to tax "profits" it just goes back in to the corporate expenses - which get passed on to the consumer! So..here we are paying $4.02 as a national average for ONE freakin' gallon of gas - expected to get to $4.50 by July and this dipshit is proposing taxing oil even further?

So - the government taxes every gallon of gas at a rate of 16% and the big oil companies make a profit of 4% off of every gallon. So - the government makes 4 times the amount the big oil companies make - and they waste every penny of it on earmarks, failed social programs, and big government bureaucracy - yet they want to tax big oil? Who the hell is he kidding?

The next time the media and the government start complaining about these so-called "gross" profits made by the big oil companies - just remember - multiply that by 4 and you see how much the government takes in for doing nothing! Obama says he's going to take the "windfall profit tax" and give it to those "who can't afford their energy bills." Sounds like a socialist system of wealth redistribution to me!

Well - gee - who's fault is it those people can't afford their energy bills? Could it be....the government? Afterall, isn't it the government who has put up all the roadblocks to drilling and tapping our own natural resources? We have enough natural gas and coal in our country to warm 30 million homes for 60 years - yet - because of government regulation and stonewalling - we aren't allowed to tap in to it. We have enough oil reserves in our country to fuel every single vehicle in this country for 60 years - yet - because of government regulation and bans and kowtowing to eco-terrorists - we can't even tap in to it! We aren't even allowed to drill off the coast anywhere in our country - yet - China is scheduled to begin drilling 70 miles off the coast of Florida within the year! There currently is a bill being pushed through that would ban American companies from drilling within 125 miles off the coast.

So - if that bill gets passed - then a foreign country is allowed to drill for oil off our coast where we are not allowed to?!?!? How freakin' crazy is that! 125 miles is in international waters - hell - anything past 7 miles is considered international waters. How the hell does the government expect to impose this 125 mile ban?

If Obama gets elected and has his way - just remember people - you asked for it and you will most definitely PAY for it!

Gay Marriage: Shut Up, Turek

2008-05-26T21:48:00.001-04:00

I just read this article by Frank Turek on Townhall talking about the implications of gay marriage. Here's an exerpt:

"The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children.

People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes—illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy."

The opening argument is a little weak. Fewer people will get married to have children? I hope people are getting married for more than just simply having children. Marriage isn't simply a blind attempt to reproduce, as far as I know. I was under the impression that, according to the strict conservative that Turek seems to be, marriage was an expression of love between two people. Once those two married people decided to have children after marriage, they could then cross that bridge; at the time of legal and religious marriage, though, future children aren't meant to be the primary motivation.

Also, "The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling." So, because gay people are getting married, I won't want to have children in my marriage? Right... uh... I'm doubting it.

Gay marriage, in fact, will be quite a positive. Their legal bond will open up a whole new venue for adoption (already possible, but isn't often pursued due to legal complications, etc.). All the ideas pursued in the second quoted paragraph will actually go in the other direction.

You lose.

How They Voted on the Farm Bill

2008-05-22T16:22:00.002-04:00

After a wink and a nod from the President, letting Republicans know it was OK to vote for the Farm Bill, it passed by a veto- proof margin in both houses of Congress. President Bush who was reluctant to veto any spending bill passed by a Republican Congress, apparently feels he needs to go though the motions of vetoing at least some excessive spending bill passed by a Democratic Congress. However, it is all a game and the President did not intend for his veto to be sustained. Apparently, he thinks we are so stupid, we will not see how the game is really played.

The farm bill was an absolutely terrible bill. It increased spending by 44% above last year’s level. It contains millions in non-farm pork spending, it subsidizes multimillionaire farmers, it increases food prices to the consumer, it makes corn syrup so cheap that it is added to products that don’t need corn syrup, it undermines American leadership on trade and puts farmers in undeveloped countries at a competitive disadvantage which keeps poor countries from developing a modern agricultural sector.

I have below a list of how each Senator voted. I have also listed the vote of the Tennessee Congressmen. To see how congressmen in your state voted, click here.

I did not expect better from the Democrats but I am deeply disappointed in a good many Republicans. You will note that some prominent Republicans, many who will brag about their conservative credentials and blast their opponents as "liberal", voted for this bill. I have highlighted a few of their names. While I am not going to turn against someone over one single vote, anyone who voted for this bill should not be taken very seriously if they rail against wasteful government spending.

In looking at the list below, I am very disappointed in my own two Senators, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker. I have admired and respected both of these men. I have thought they were rational, moderate, responsible, fiscally conservative public servants. I have voted for them and made modest contributions to their campaigns. They disappoint me.

Pleased to see voting against the bill in defiance of his own party is my own representative, Congressman Jim Cooper. Representative Cooper is a Democrat. If the next time we have a senatorial election in Tennessee, Democrat Jim Cooper should challenge either of our Republican senators, I might just vote for Cooper. This disgruntled Republican might just become a conservative Democrat.

How the Senate Voted:

Alabama
Aye Sessions, Jefferson[R]
Aye Shelby, Richard [R]
Alaska
Aye Murkowski, Lisa [R]
Aye Stevens, Ted [R]
Arizona
Nay Kyl, Jon [R]
No Vote McCain, John [R]
Arkansas
Aye Lincoln, Blanche [D]
Aye Pryor, Mark [D]
California
Aye Feinstein, Dianne [D]
No Vote Boxer, Barbara [D]
Colorado
Aye Allard, Wayne [R]
Aye Salazar, Ken [D]
Connecticut
Aye Lieberman, Joseph [I]
No Vote Dodd, Christopher [D]
Delaware
Aye Carper, Thomas [D]
No Vote Biden, Joseph [D]
Florida
Aye Martinez, Mel [R]
No Vote Nelson, Bill [D]
Georgia
Aye Chambliss, C. [R]
Aye Isakson, John [R]
Hawaii
Aye Akaka, Daniel [D]
Aye Inouye, Daniel [D]
Idaho
Aye Craig, Larry [R]
Aye Crapo, Michael [R]
Illinois
Aye Durbin, Richard [D]
No Vote Obama, Barack [D]
Indiana
Aye Bayh, B. [D]
Nay Lugar, Richard [R]
Iowa
Aye Grassley, Charles [R]
Aye Harkin, Thomas [D]
Kansas
Aye Brownback, Samuel [R]
Aye Roberts, Pat [R]
Kentucky
Aye Bunning, Jim [R]
Aye McConnell, Mitch [R]
Louisiana
Aye Landrieu, Mary [D]
Aye Vitter, David [R]
Maine
Aye Snowe, Olympia [R]
Nay Collins, Susan [R]
Maryland
Aye Cardin, Benjamin [D]
Aye Mikulski, Barbara [D]
Massachusetts
Aye Kennedy, Edward [D]
Aye Kerry, John [D]
Michigan
Aye Levin, Carl [D]
Aye Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]
Minnesota
Aye Coleman, Norm [R]
Aye Klobuchar, Amy [D]
Mississippi
Aye Cochran, Thad [R]
Aye Lott, Trent [R]
Missouri
Aye Bond, Christopher [R]
Aye McCaskill, Claire [D]
Montana
Aye Baucus, Max [D]
Aye Tester, Jon [D]
Nebraska
Aye Nelson, Ben [D]
Nay Hagel, Charles [R]
Nevada
Aye Reid, Harry [D]
Nay Ensign, John [R]
New Hampshire
Nay Gregg, Judd [R]
Nay Sununu, John [R]
New Jersey
Aye Menendez, Robert [D]
Nay Lautenberg, Frank [D]
New Mexico
Aye Bingaman, Jeff [D]
Aye Domenici, Pete [R]
New York
Aye Schumer, Charles [D]
No Vote Clinton, Hillary [D]
North Carolina
Aye Dole, Elizabeth [R]
Nay Burr, Richard [R]
North Dakota
Aye Conrad, Kent [D]
Aye Dorgan, Byron [D]
Ohio
Aye Brown, Sherrod [D]
Nay Voinovich, George [R]
Oklahoma
Aye Coburn, Thomas [R]
Aye Inhofe, James [R]
Oregon
Aye Smith, Gordon [R]
Aye Wyden, Ron [D]
Pennsylvania
Aye Casey, Robert [D]
Aye Specter, Arlen [R]
Rhode Island
Nay Reed, John [D]
Nay Whitehouse, Sheldon [D]
South Carolina
Aye Graham, Lindsey [R]
Nay DeMint, Jim [R]
South Dakota
Aye Johnson, Tim [D]
Aye Thune, John [R]
Tennessee
Aye Alexander, Lamar [R]
Aye Corker, Bob [R]
Texas
Aye Cornyn, John [R]
Aye Hutchison, Kay [R]
Utah
Aye Hatch, Orrin [R]
Nay Bennett, Robert [R]
Vermont
Aye Leahy, Patrick [D]
Aye Sanders, Bernard [I]
Virginia
Aye Warner, John [R]
Aye Webb, Jim [D]
Washington
Aye Cantwell, Maria [D]
Aye Murray, Patty [D]
West Virginia
Aye Byrd, Robert [D]
Aye Rockefeller, John [D]
Wisconsin
Aye Feingold, Russell [D]
Aye Kohl, Herbert [D]
Wyoming
Aye Barrasso, John [R]
Aye Enzi, Michael [R

How Tennessee’s Representatives Voted.
Aye TN-1 Davis, David [R]
Nay TN-2 Duncan, John [R]
Nay TN-3 Wamp, Zach [R]
Aye TN-4 Davis, Lincoln [D]
Nay TN-5 Cooper, Jim [D]
Aye TN-6 Gordon, Barton [D]
Nay TN-7 Blackburn, Marsha [R]
Aye TN-8 Tanner, John [D]
Aye TN-9 Cohen, Steve [D

How Black is Obama? Let the Hillary Campaign Show You.

2008-05-21T20:25:00.002-04:00

Isn't the Hillary-Obama contest fun? I don't know the truth of this matter obviously, but it is alleged by the leftist kooks at Daily Kos that the Hillary campaign has doctored pictures of Obama to show him with a wider nose and darker complexion than he really has. Would Hillary really stoop that low to win the vote of "hard working white Americans?" Follow this link to see how they did it and read all about the controversy.

A Turd in the Libertarian Punch Bowl

2008-05-21T05:36:00.001-04:00

The Libertarian Party will be holding its convention in Denver over Memorial Day weekend. I know this is not an earth shattering event in the political life of the nation, the Libertarian candidate for president is always just a very small asterisk in the final election results. But, even if you are not a libertarian it matters.

This time there are a couple of D list politicians vying for the nomination-- non-libertarian Mike Gravel, and douche bag Bob Barr. Many hope that someone like Barr, who could garner the support of some social conservatives, Paulites, White supremacists, homophobes, Know Nothings and paleoconservatives, would get enough votes to make an impression.

That is not the route to success of the libertarian message. Did the candidacies of Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, John Anderson or George Wallace change the political landscape at all?

And do we really want to send out a package of damaged goods, who has recently started spouting a few lines from the Libertarian platform, just so the party can get some fleeting attention?

To succeed the party has to broaden its base beyond the old white guys, and fellows with disturbing haircuts, that dominate it. The Libertarian Party Platform is by far the most progressive when it comes to the rights of women, minorities, and gays—as well as white males.

You see, Libertarians do not believe there is a finite reservoir of rights, that will run low if they are shared with others.

A couple years ago I was trying to convince some converts to the Party. They were Idaho panhandle conservatives and were none too keen on any of this gay marriage type stuff. I explained to them that libertarianism meant there would be naked pot smoking lesbians frolicking on the shores of Lake Coeur d'Alene , but they would also be able to keep their Uzis and semi-automatics.

The guys thought they could get down with that.

When there are gay pride parades, the Libertarian Party should be as prominent as they are at gun shows. And they need to make a concerted effort to explain to both gays and women—that guns are not just a constitutional right—but life insurance.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats have forsaken any real pretense of being fiscally conservative. Small government frugality used to be axiomatic in the Republican Party. These fiscal conservatives don't really care about all the social crap that has come to dominate modern Republicanism. Libertarians need to reach out to the country club Republicans and small business owners—and when there is a Republican that is with the program openly support them.

There are still Goldwater Republicans, who were betrayed by Reagan, and then totally forsaken by both Bushes. They are looking for a party.

Most African-Americans are not European Socialists—but they are also uncomfortable in the hypocritical party of Clarence Thomas. The Libertarian Party stands for everything the civil rights movement was, before it was captured by leftists who successfully sold the peculiar idea that greater control by a central government will somehow enhance the individual freedoms of minorities.

Libertarians should be hooking up with the NAACP—and when Al Sharpton happens to be right—say it, and when Obama is saying something intelligent and uplifting don't just dismiss him as another socialist.

The Libertarian Party is not going to win a single state in the electoral college for a long time, but there is a lot we can do at the local level.

In many places with just two or three hundred votes we can gain control of local governments. If there was a libertarian on the Canton city council I doubt they would be throwing people in jail for not mowing their lawn.

Gilbert, Arizona would not have built a 40 million dollar Little League ballpark on the taxpayer's dime--nor banned Victoria's Secret posters at the mall or yard signs advocating the recall of the mayor.

The Shreveport police would not be unleashed on the baggy pants crowd.

Los Angeles would not be harassing street cart Taco vendors.

Nor would they ban construction of fast food restaurants.

And San Francisco would not ban the sale of cigarettes in drug stores.

Arizona would not prohibit poker playing in social clubs, and it would not be a felony in Washington State to sit in your undies and play a few hands of online poker in the privacy of your home.

Assbag school administrators would not ban hugging, but their ass would be in a sling if they stripped searched a fourteen year old girl to find out if she is concealing a Motrin pill..

We should be lobbying for, and raising awareness of, the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 and Representative (R-Arizona)John Shadegg's Enumerated Powers Act.

And at the local level, neither of the major parties cares about individual property rights one bit.

When some hippies organize a peace march, go with them, we agree on that issue.

And Latinos—they are predominantly conservative—but the Republicans lost that gigantic chunk of the electorate with their vile xenophobic hate---don't be ashamed of, or minimize, the party's immigration platform—there is a natural constituency, uncomfortable in either major party.

We need to get out the message that the big spending federal government and the policies of the Federal Reserve are the the cause of the tax that is beginning to strangle the Republic and destroy the poor and middle class—inflation.

There is much real work that can be accomplished, beyond a never ending bitch fest.

And yes, we should run a presidential candidate—one who is truly a principled libertarian—one who has worked the bakes sales, peace marches, petition drives, gun shows, and backyard barbecues.

Someone who Thomas Jefferson would vote for.

Not a turd in the punch bowl--like Bob Barr.

Mexican Slaves up for Auction Tomorrow!

2008-05-20T21:39:00.001-04:00

Yes, that's what I said, Mexican Slaves - Illegal Immigrants - whatever you want to call them, but they are slaves to corporate America. Those slimeball politicians in Washington are at it again. As you all know, the Emergency War-time Spending Bill was approved by the house last week. It comes before the Senate tomorrow (Wednesday, May 21, 2008). Included in that WAR-TIME spending bill is what the Dems are calling an "Ag-jobs measure." Here's how it is described:

Congress including in the domestic-programs amendment a provision that would help pave the way for undocumented agriculture workers to win legal status, an amendment that could reopen Congress’ rancorous debate over immigration policy.
The supporters of the so-called Ag-Jobs measure, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho), say the five-year program is needed to keep farms operating and crops growing. The provision was added by a 17-12 vote.

Notice how they've changed the term from Illegal Immigrants to undocumented workers to "Undocumented agriculture workers." They say they need this extra money in a WAR-TIME spending bill in order "to keep farms operating and crops growing." Wait - I thought you guys just passed a farm subsidy bill last week? You mean that wasn't enough to keep the farms operating? If not, you guys suck even more than I thought!

So, even though 80% of Americans have already said NO to Amnesty - they are trying to sneak it in and backdoor it in an EMERGENCY WAR-TIME spending bill. So, they are holding our troops hostage again! Either we say yes to amnesty or they so no to our troops!

Call your Senators tomorrow and tell them to either take this measure out of the WAR-TIME spending bill or vote NO on it. Freakin assholes! Again, they are trying to make it easier for those who come here ILLEGALLY to circumvent the whole system and jump ahead of those who have been here for years following the rules and doing it right.

Here is a link for finding out how to contact your Senators:

To find your Senator, click here

Now, tell everyone you can think of to contact their representatives tomorrow (Wednesday, May 21, 2008). Link back to this post or blog it yourself. In any case, we need to get the word out there again that America says NO to AMNESTY!

Top Stories

Obama Blames Loss on Fox News

2008-05-20T20:47:00.004-04:00

Obama, maybe there are other reasons you lost the white vote in some recent primaries. Maybe your comment about frustrated people clinging to guns and religion offended some religious gun owners. Maybe your wife's comment about being proud of America for the first time in her life had something to do with turning off patriotic middle Americans who love their country. Maybe that picture that shows you as the lone candidate on the stage who does not have his hand over his heart during the playing of the National Anthem made some middle Americans think that you do not share their values. Despite your eventual disavowal of Reverend Wright, do you think that perhaps your former pastor, who referred to America as the U.S.K.K.K.A. and said AIDS was a government created illness designed to kill Black Americans and who said "God damn America" could have turned some people off? After all, prior to disavowing him, you did call him your spiritual advisor and you did sit in the pews of his church for 20 years and contributed over $27,000 to that church.

Maybe some white Americans would simply prefer to vote for a white American just as some Blacks prefer to vote for a Black American and some females would prefer to vote for a female. Maybe they are just not that into you. You have the Blacks and the college educated elites but maybe the white middle class are just not ready to vote for a Black man who is also rated as the most liberal person in the U. S. Senate. Maybe it is because you don't have as much testosterone as Hillary Clinton. You can't put back shots of liquor and mingle in the pool hall as good as Hillary. You don't love guns and you are not a hunter. You are just not the "good ole boy" that Hillary is. Hillary is just better at playing the redneck. Maybe Hillary just knows how to pander better than you do.

When Bill Clinton got caught in a scandal, Hillary blamed his problems on a "vast right-wing conspiracy". Back when there were a lot fewer media outlets and less diversity in News reporting, Republicans used to blame a lot of their losses on the "liberal media." Fox is only one network. You still have the fawning MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN plus the quasi-news comedy shows that love you. Surely you can do better than blame your recent losses on little old Fox news network.

The GOP at the Trough

2008-05-19T19:22:00.002-04:00

By Robert D. Novak Monday, May 19, 2008; The Washington Post

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, 38 and having served less than five terms, did not leap over a dozen of his seniors to become the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee by bashing GOP leaders. But an angry Ryan delivered unscripted remarks on the House floor last Wednesday as the farm bill neared passage: "This bill is an absence of leadership. This bill shows we are not leading." (link)

Commentary: The story of Republican complicity and lack of leadership on the farm bill is reason for any conservative to be disgruntled and disgusted. The Farm bill is a bad bill. It raises spending by 44% above last year’s level. It contains non-farm pork spending, it subsidizing multimillionaire farmers, it increases food prices to the consumer, it undermines American leadership on trade, and puts farmers in undeveloped countries at a competitive disadvantage and keeps poor countries poor. The Republican leadership has shown no leadership on this bill.

According to Novak, President Bush has promised to veto the bill but let it be known that it would be OK if Republicans “voted their districts.” Apparently Republicans are not going to be pushed hard to sustain the veto.

In the Senate, Republican leader Mitch McConnell is not only supporting the bill but got a provision added to the bill giving special tax breaks to horse farms in his state of Kentucky. In the House, Minority Whip Roy Blunt voted for the bill. In the House, Republicans voted for the bill 100 to 91 and in the Senate, 35 Republicans voted for it and only 13 opposed it.

When Republicans vote like Democrats, why should one care if Republicans lose elections? Maybe it is time for Republicans to take a major beating, do some major soul searching, regroup, and rediscover why they are Republicans.

Ehem..

2008-05-18T23:31:00.001-04:00

Uh... where did all my bloggers go!?

Michael Yon and Michael Moore

2008-05-18T23:30:00.000-04:00

Kind of on the same note, Michael Yon takes aim at Michael Moore: Many readers have complained that Michael Moore, in the conduct of his latest crusade against whatever he is against this month, has illegally used one of my photos on the banner of his website [It's the right-most photo in Moore's banner above]. Mr. Moore is not the first to have done so, and my readers can get pretty upset when it happens.

Later in Yon's post, he writes probably one of the most powerful paragraphs I've read in quite some time:

When someone’s grandmother disseminates the photo of Major Beiger cradling a dying girl in his arms, I allow the usage because I feel she is trying to share the human tragedy. When Michael Moore puts that same photo on his web site, alongside images of George Bush, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, the clear implication is that Farah’s death is their fault. That is a misrepresentation of the facts on the ground, as well as the story of the photo. Farah was killed by a suicide car bomb in Mosul on May 2, 2005. Major Bieger and other soldiers literally risked their own lives to save many children and adults that day, but Farah didn’t make it. Michael Moore apparently does not understand-or refuses to acknowledge-the moral distinction between a man who would murder innocent people, and a man who would sacrifice himself to save them. The photo, as I took it, is the truth, but Moore uses it-illegally-to convey falsehoods. His mind is that of a political propagandist who sees Farah’s death not as a human tragedy, but a tool.

Read the whole thing (linked above... it's interesting stuff.

German Visitors and Pride

2008-05-11T12:17:00.001-04:00

My family is welcoming in a German family in America for a week to see the country. My mom knew them in college, as the mother, Stephie, was an exchange student. They are now on their way from JFK to our house. I'm sure I'll talk at length about conversations with them in later posts, but for now, I'd like to talk about American pride.

We spent the better part of this morning cleaning our house in preparation for these people. I've been vacuuming and mopping all morning. I, personally am doing it to keep my parents happy. But at a deeper level, I think, is a sense of pride instilled in all Americans. On my trip to Ecuador, our guide literally walked into random homes and ask if the family had time to see us. For starters, no one turned us down. But even more than that, at no point did they try to excuse or apologize for their messy homes or cluttered rooms. At all levels, they simply wanted us to take them for face value, see who they really were.

But Americans prepare for hours, even days for visitors. They want to display the best of the best, the pinnacle points in life as an American. It's an inner American pride, I think, that drives this. For better or worse, it's a uniquely American characteristic.

John McCain and the Dirty Dozen

2008-05-07T06:07:00.005-04:00

Today John McCain was trying to woo the conservative base of his party, which is a good idea since in today's North Carolina primary 27% of Republicans voted against the guy, even though he has a lock on the nomination.

McCain promised to appoint "conservatives" to the Supreme Court, saying that his
“ nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power."

Cool—but I wonder if he will appoint a justice inclined to overrule McConnell v. FCC, where the Supreme Court upheld the McCain-Feingold Act, which was the single greatest abridgment of free speech since the Civil War—giving political speech less protection than burning the flag.

I don't think that Honest John is much of a reader, but it would be a good idea if he took a look at The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom .

In the book, Robert Levy and William Mellor explain why Alexander Hamilton was wrong when he opined that the Judiciary was the weakest of the three branches of the federal government.

The book is about twelve Supreme Court cases that changed the course of American history by expanding the power of the federal government far beyond that enjoyed by King George , and gutting the civil rights and liberties which were the reason we fought a revolution.

One of the profiled cases is McConnell v. FCC.

I wonder if a President McCain would want a Justice who would overrule Wickard v. Filburn which stands for the proposition that under the interstate commerce clause the federal government can regulate virtually anything, which now includes making a terminally ill patient a criminal for using medical marijuana, grown and distributed in a single state, taken under a doctor's prescription, in accordance with state law.

Or does McCain favor federalists of convenience, like Antonin Scalia—who are always able to find the inherent drug or national security exception to the Constitution?

How about Bemmis v. Michigan? The Supreme Court allowed a wife to lose her half interest in the family car in a civil forfeiture proceeding because her husband had used the vehicle as a convenient place to get a blowjob from a hooker.

While McCain is, at best, a johnny come lately to the view that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, it is not at all clear that he understands that the reason is because the Constitution has absolutely nothing to say about abortion—not because he might be personally against abortion, or many of the voters he is wooing are.

I rather doubt that a President McCain will appoint a justice willing to take on Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell where the Supreme Court decided that when the drafters of the Constitution wrote "No State shall ... pass any ... law impairing the obligation of contracts" they meant essentially the opposite.

Or how about the Japanese internment cases, which stand for the “national security exception” which was the rationale for holding Jose Padilla, an American citizen, in a military brig for years without bringing criminal charges.

Would he have the courage to appoint a justice who was at least willing to chip away at Helvering v. Davis , and the rest of the New Deal decisions, which through the “general welfare” clause, gave the federal government unlimited power to tax, spend and control every crook and cranny of an individual's life.

Honest John ticked off liberals because they don't care what the Constitution says when it comes to their pet projects. He pleased the type of people who nowadays consider themselves “conservatives” because he was implicitly endorsing their two primary pet projects—no abortions and plenty of capital punishment.

I'd like to know John McCain's thoughts on The Dirty Dozen.

Attention Hippy-Crites

2008-05-06T17:55:00.001-04:00

I just read this article (thanks to Glenn Reynolds) on the Hollywood left's hypocritical loonies (this article calls them hippy-crites, but I'm sure we can come up with something better than that). Anyway, I thought I would take this opportunity to rant and rave about these nut jobs.

Here's the thing. I love liberal hippies. The long haired, global warming obsessed tree-hugger liberals honestly make the world go round. Those who walk their talk, and smoke it too. They are, quite truly, some of the most simple living and happiest people in the world. I also believe we need people around to tell us when we're messing with the environment too much. (I think environmental issues are important, I just think, for the most part, government restrictions aren't necessary because these are issues that can be dealt with in the private sector. Again, for the most part, for all those about to call me out.) These environmental prophets are good people; honest people. We need them in our world.

It's the gas-guzzling liberals that get to me. Really, come on. If you're going to scream and yell about the environment, don't fly the private jet every flight, just make it once or twice a month. At least make it sound like you care about the issue you've decided to knock my block off about. These celebrities (ehem, stage right) dominate the television with their nonsensical gibberish, but don't manage to practice what they preach. And their prominence is what keeps them in the spotlight. They are like cockroaches; they disturb everyone and make the world a crappier place; they never go away. They use their power and wealth and prestige to keep themselves on ET and NBC to continue their nonsense. Then they find themselves on Oprah and The View, where they wave to a group of brainwashed blind bats cheering them and their private 747 on. And then they shove unwanted information into my ear hole via television. They rape my ear.

No means no.

Shame on John McCain...

2008-05-03T09:45:00.001-04:00

For shameless pandering on the gas tax.

Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain are proposing to suspend the federal gas tax as a response to rising gas prices; despite the fact that most economist and energy experts think that this is a counterproductive proposal. Obama deserves credit for not joining in the pandering. He has rightly called it a “silly idea.”

I am more disappointed in McCain than Clinton; I didn’t expect better from Hillary. It is not that I think Hillary Clinton is so dumb that she really thinks suspending the gas tax is a good Idea; I think she is so unprincipled and ambitions that she will do whatever it takes to be elected. I expected more from McCain. In the past he talked sense about energy independence, ethanol, and global warming. McCain has to know this is a stupid idea and I thought he had more integrity than to pander with the best of them.

The federal tax on gas is 18.4 cents per gallon. What happens if we cut the tax? For one thing, the price will fall temporarily, which will increase demand for gasoline and result in another increase in price, then when the 18.4 cents is added back, the resulting price will be higher than it otherwise would have been. Another thing that will happen is that not all of the 18.4 cents will be passed on to the consumer. The oil companies will keep part of it.

The reason prices are so high is neither due to an Arab oil embargo nor greedy oil companies. It is primarily due to the increase in demand. The people of India and China are beginning to drive private automobiles. It is basic Economics 101. Demand is exceeding supply and prices are increasing. Another reason is the slide of the dollar. It takes more dollars to trade for the same amount of other currencies and therefore anything we import cost more.

Every administration since the late seventies has talked about energy independence and instead we have steadily moved toward greater dependence. Americans continue to drive more and consume more gasoline every year than they did the year before. Urban sprawl continues and people move further from urban centers. Instead of choosing energy efficient vehicles, people choose to drive gas-guzzling SUVs.

What are the negative effects of increased gas consumption?

(1) We finance our enemies. It is an unfortunate accident of geology that the countries with the most oil are ruled by fanatics and despots. Saudi Arabia is officially an ally, but it has a Muslim population that takes seriously the mandate of their faith to give alms. So, American dollars flow to Saudi Arabia, some of which ends up the pockets of devout Muslims and they give to the clerics who build Wahhabi Muslim schools throughout the world where people are taught the most violent and radical strain of the Muslim religion. Every time you fill up your SUV you are contributing to the radical Muslim cause and the training of terrorist. Also we are financing the anti-Americanism of the Venezuelan dictatorship.

(2) We are increasing the rate of Global Warming. Despite all of the concern about global warming and all the talk about combating it, we have not yet decreased the rate of increase in CO2 emissions. Feel-good environmental measures and exhortations to properly inflate your tires and change light bulbs and wear a sweater are not going to be sufficient to curtail global warming. It is going to take some pain and sacrifice.

In today’s newspaper there was an article, Small-car sales help Nissan end April with gain. The article said that while U. S. auto sales were declining that the sale of the Nissan Altima and subcompact Versa was showing gains. Honda, Toyota and Volkswagen are also posting increased sales. Americans are starting to fall out of love with their gas-guzzlers and to prefer small fuel-efficient cars.

In yesterday’s newspaper there was an article that said "Demand for gas eases slightly as more carpool.” Markets work. Supply and demand is not right-wing dogma. it is as true as gravity. People cannot change their behavior overnight however but we are starting to see a decrease in demand. If gas prices were high and people thought they would stay high we would see greater reductions in consumption. Overtime, the American vehicle fleet would shift to more fuel-efficient cars. and we would start to see a lessening of urban sprawl. The cost of gas would enter into the equation in many decisions consumers make. Conservation would be cost effective is prices were expected to stay high. Investment in alternative fuels and alternative technologies would be worth the investment if there were not an expectation that gas would stay high. If we want to continue the trend of reducing gasoline consumption then we do not want to lower gasoline prices.

It is best if we do nothing about high gas prices and let the demand for gas fall.

Hillary, I didn’t expect better from you. John McCain, shame on you.

Cuban Reintroduces Private Farms. Time to End the Embargo!

2008-04-29T19:55:00.002-04:00

Cuba giving land to private farmers
The Associated Press, 12:55 PM EST April 6, 2008

In a country where almost everyone works for the communist state, dairy farmer Jesus Diaz is his own boss. He likes it that way - and so does the government.

Living on a plot of land just big enough to graze four dairy cows, Diaz produces enough milk to sell about four quarts a day to the state.This is independent production on a tiny scale, but it has proved so efficient that Cuba has decided on a major expansion of its program to distribute underused and fallow farmland to private farmers and cooperatives."It's a way for the land to end up in the hands of those who want to produce. I see it as a very good thing," said Diaz, 45.

He received his land and cows from the state in 1996, and now hopes to get access to more property.The government is preparing for a "massive distribution of land," Orlando Lugo, president of Cuba's national farming association, said last week.

Private farmers have begun receiving land for the cash crops of coffee and tobacco, and will soon be able to lease state land for other crops.The idea is to revolutionize farming, one tiny plot at a time. (link)

Commentary
End the Embargo Now!

This is more good news from Cuba. Following the announcement that individuals would be given the deed to their homes, that Cubans could own cell phones, that Cubans could stay in luxury hotels, now comes another liberalization.

This could be profound. Just a little market capitalism will reveal the superiority of markets over a command economy. This could be the camel getting its nose under the tent.

The US should use these changes as an occation for ending its failed policy of isolating Cuba.
The embargo of Cuba began in 1960 and may have been a mistake from the very first. The intent was to pressure Castro to Democratize. It had the result of pushing Cuba further into the arms of the Soviet Union. The embargo made a martyr out of Castro and helped prop us his regime. The poverty of Cuba was the result of Castro’s socialist policies, but he could blame it on the U.S embargo.

If one thinks that there was logic for the embargo in 1960, surely that logic no longer applies in 2008. The Soviet Union is dead. The only two remaining truly Communist countries in the world are North Korea and Cuba.

Cuba is changing; we could facilitate that change if we would simply end the embargo. American dollars flowing into Cuba would mean more Cubans with money to spend, which would lead to more opportunities for the flourishing of a non-government sector of the economy and more pressure for more liberalization.

I suspect that Cuba would welcome US investment and trade. Along with that trade and investment would come a clarification of private property rights and the rule of law.

If it is too bold of a move for the current administration to totally end the embargo all at once, they could do it incrementally. A good place to start would be with a change in the policy that restricts Cuban-American and Cubans living in America from traveling to Cuba. This would be a humanitarian move and the right thing to do. Let families unite.

These moves by Cuba to liberalize should be met with American efforts to reinforce good behavior. We should change our policy regarding Cuba because it is the right thing to do and the smart thing to do. If we want to see an end to socialism and totalitarian rule in Cuba, lift the embargo.

Thoughts on Reverend Wright

2008-04-28T23:30:00.000-04:00

I have been in debate with one of my loyal readers on the thread from this post a few days ago. We have been talking about Reverend Wright and... well read it for yourself, my bias will shine through too much. But most recently, he said this:

If it is the case that you believe that someone is a better American if she doesn't find fault with "The Trail of Tears," or slavery, or the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during WWII, or jim crow, we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.

For starters, I never said that. It is obviously important to look back and realize those terrible faults in American history. But it only proves useful to examine those faults with the hope of improving them and eliminating them from our culture. Looking back on them and claiming that it proves some sort of moral fault in the modern American people as a whole is incorrect and unjustified (especially when Obama himself believes so strongly in the decency of the American people).

To say "God fuck America," so passionately as Reverend Wright did, he obviously hasn't travelled much. I just returned from a service trip to Ecuador as I'm sure you've read, where I found a lifestyle so dismal and so impoverished that I literally teared up multiple times a day. Their unethical, completely corrupt government is robbing and destroying the people instead of helping them. 1/3 of Ecuador lives on a dollar - a DOLLAR - a day per person, and all those except the wealthiest 6% live on less than $3 a day. A family of four will live in a home the size of the room I am typing in now (which isn't that big). I went to two masses while I was down there, both in open air churches; one parish couldn't afford to finish putting in flooring, so it was only half covered. But nonetheless, they sing praise to their God and are joyful for what they have. Reverend Wright preaches from his gorgeous air-conditioned Church and oak-wood pulpit, wallowing in self-pity and anguish of a crime now largely nonexistent.

Yeah, God, you fuck America.

Is this how McShamnesty expects to get the conservative vote?

2008-04-26T20:33:00.001-04:00

These past few days with McShamnesty on the campaign trail pandering to the left has just solidified my choice to not vote for him in November. First, while pandering in New Orleans, he bashes the federal government and Bush for the "slow response" to the crisis that was Hurricane Katrina. As we all know, the only ones to blame for that mess was the Democratic Governor and the Democratic Mayor of New Orleans. Bush called Mayor Nagin three days before Katrina hit land and warned him that he should start evacuation protocols. Mayor Nagin ignored that warning. After Katrina hit, Bush called both the Governor and the Mayor to offer federal assistance, both of them refused initially. If anyone knows how the government works, in order for the Federal government to provide disaster assistance, the states have to request it. Neither the Governor nor the Mayor requested assistance for three days after Katrina hit. I still don't understand how this became Bush's problem or the Federal government's problem. The state of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans failed those people, not the federal government. For McShamnesty to continue to play to this lie is just ridiculous and proves he's just pandering for the black vote.

Then, he has the gall to say that the GOP in North Carolina is out of touch with reality because they decided to play that attack ad against Barack using the words of Jeremiah Wright. I would say that McShamnesty is out of touch with reality! Barack Obama is interviewing with the general public for the highest public seat in this country. I know that if I were to go for a job interview and I told my future employer that my pastor is a racist and hates America, and that one of my best friends bombed the Pentagon and a New York police department, and that I hang out with a guy who calls white people skunks of the earth, and that one of my friends is currently on trial for real estate fraud, don't you think they would conduct a VERY thorough background check on me before deciding to hire me? The American people need to know about the associations of every single candidate...to include McShamnesty. In my view, he is the one that is completely out of touch with reality.

I'm sorry, but I absolutely refuse to vote for a man that bashes his government and his own party. This man has no loyalty whatsoever except to the liberals. He always has and he always will. For those of you who still are supporting him, maybe you need to think about your values and principles as well. Is this really the guy you want representing you in the White House? He's no Republican and he's definitely no conservative!

Don't try feeding me that line that he will lower taxes, and that he will make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and he will put in constructionist judges, and he will put security first before amnesty for illegals, and blah blah blah. He voted against all of these when he was a Senator, do you honestly think he will institute these as President...or don't you think he's just telling you what you want to hear just to get your vote. The man is a career politician. Forget the fact that he is a Viet Nam war hero. He's not that same man that was tortured at the Hanoi Hilton. He threw his character out the window a long time ago!

A condensed version of World History for those who slept through World History 101

2008-04-25T09:59:00.003-04:00

(I didn't write this. It was sent to me by my brother; not the liberal brother, my other brother. )

Here is a condensed version of World History.

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were:
1. The invention of beer, and
2. The invention of the wheel.

The wheel was invented to get man to the beer, and the beer to the man. These facts formed the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
1. Liberals
2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BB Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement. Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, the evolution oft he Hollywood actor, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide all the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years, Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most liberal women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America! . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history. It should be noted that a liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it. A conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers, and to more liberals...just to irritate them.

Have a great day.

Inside Ecuador

2008-04-23T15:37:00.000-04:00

This past week, I went on an eight day Christian (no, I'm not religious) service trip to Ecuador. Our twelve man group left almost two weeks after the Ecuadorian-Venezuelan-Columbian triangular conflict hit the news, so to be honest, I was a bit worried. I never really thought Ecuadorians would be dumb enough to kidnap Americans on a poverty immersion trip, but I didn't put it past Chavez and the Venezuelan government.
I soon realized I had nothing to worry about. As I assumed, the Ecuadorian people have no problem with Americans. In fact, they welcome us into their homes with open arms. Most of them wish they were American, considering their state of poverty.

What I didn't count on, though, was the absolute lack of interest from the Ecuadorian government in our location, Duran. Duran is a suburb of the city of Guayaquil, and its residents live in a horrific form of poverty; most live on a dollar or slightly more a day. Located geographically opposite and politically unimportant to Quito, the government simply doesn't care. The current president, Raphael Correa, ran on the platform of reforms for the poor, but has largely ignored them since his election. So my outlandish kidnapping and death concerns were dispelled quickly.

We were welcomed into the Rostro de Cristo mission (excellent organization) in this urban-ish area, and it was here where we spent the week. The idea of their organization is building relationships with the people of Ecuador, so we spent our immersion week playing soccer, getting absolutely crushed in Ecuadorian checkers, playing cards with patients at the Padre Damien foundation for Hansen's Disease (leprosy; yes, it's still around, and still terrible), and learning all we could from these people about the government from their perspective.

Considering almost the entire country is in poverty despite the very, very elite, and education and health care systems are dismal at best, socialism seems to be the common strategy of the people. They all want better schools; they all want to, well, not die when they get sick (at this point, both those things are slightly unrealistic).

I understand a lot of things about Ecuador now. The country is corrupt; presidents typically don't last a year before overthrow (Correa being an exception) and no crime is priceless. The medical system is in shambles. A third of Ecuadorians live on a dollar a day (I lived on two while down there, it's hard). I learned how much of the world lives like this. I mean really learned it, and really lived it.

But most importantly, I think, was the understanding that there is a major difference between poor and poverty. Poverty is a state physically impossible to overcome from the inside. Without structural changes to government, it is not actually possible for these people to move their way up economically. A man in Ecuador named Daniel (they all have very American names, which struck me funny) was given the rare opportunity to live and study in America. His flight was paid for. His schooling was paid for. He attended Gateway Community College (not due to unintelligence, due to money) and received his Associates degree in medical technology, and he went back to Ecuador to live with his family. With one of the better resumes in the country, he began the job search. How is he now, five years later? Living on nothing, in the same house he grew up in. That is poverty.

See, the people who come from Duran are broken down into a few groups, educationally. The lowest group never tries high school. They didn't have money to buy school supplies, their family needed them to get a job. They are probably 10% of the people I met. Another 50% are those who dropped out of high school because they ran out of money. Another 30%-40% finished high school. They next 10% started college and, again, ran out of money. The last 5%? They finished college, got a job in downtown Guayaquil, got fired because they could afford the 18¢ for the ten minute bus ride into the city, and wound up selling fried plantains on the corner for 10¢. That is physically impossible to overcome. That is poverty.

There are parts of Duran called land invasions. These are typically swampy areas taken over by people so poor that they actually travelled to Duran for work. These people settled on government land and built themselves beautiful 6x6 sugarcane and tin homes on stilts so they would be out of the disturbingly infested water. Since it was government land, though, the government showed up with bull dozers. They knocked every home over, giving people just enough time to retrieve themselves. They usually left behind the small amount of stuff they actually owned. Then the government left, and the people rebuilt. The government came back and did it all again. And they rebuilt. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. "This happens all the time, all around Ecuador," A Rostro volunteer named Nate said. "It goes on until either the government or the people give up. "In this case," he said, pointing behind him into the never ending swampland mess, "the people won." It is called Veintiocho de Augusto, the day the government gave up and handed over a deed to the land. The people live on twice-picked garbage dumped their by lazy garbage men who don't want to drive another twelve miles to the garbage dump.

That is poverty.

No one in America is in poverty. That statement, made by a politician, would get him or her never, ever, ever elected again. Ever. But after those last three paragraphs, I hope to God you agree. As an example, McCain was in the Appalachia area this week. Yes, those people are very poor. Their life sucks. But it is possible, with a little elbow grease (okay, okay, a lot of elbow grease), to get out. That is America, that is the dream that this country was founded on. But most of the world doesn't live like that, and that sad realization is something I found myself forced to come to this week.

So I find myself driven to go back. I want to go back and help these people. The personal relationships I formed with so many have honestly changed me. Oswaldo, Roxy, Maria, Brian, Aide, Gabriel. They are no longer faces on "Adopt a Child" commercials. I understand that they are real people, living real lives, and they need help.

I hope you do the same.

Welcome, Becky C.

2008-04-20T13:39:00.003-04:00

As you can see, we have a new blogger here, Becky from Girl in Short Shorts. I haven't been around for a while, as I'm sure you've also noticed, because I was in Ecuador on a service trip. A long post on that is following, but as I said on RL, it was a life changing experience. Anyway, welcome Becky!

IRS Seeks Wesley Snipes Crucifixion

2008-04-17T02:40:00.004-04:00

I know a guy named Harry. Harry went into the Navy after getting thrown out of High School. Having never before engaged in any gainful employment, he was not familiar with the ways of the income tax. So he sought the advise of one of his drinking buddies, who told him the trick was to never file, and then you don't get in the government system.

Surprisingly, this worked real well for Harry. After getting tossed out of the Navy, he became a drywaller in New England, but his real passion was the distribution of drugs and weapons. And Harry never paid taxes on the millions that passed through his hands.

As usually happens with lame brained criminals, the DEA caught up with Harry. Like so many criminals do, who are facing 212 months in the federal pen, and twenty-five years at MCI-Cedar Junction, Harry saw the light and became a snitch.

After being severely punished with six months in a county jail, the IRS stopped by. At first Harry was a little concerned, but they were more than happy to give him amnesty.

I was reminded of Harry yesterday, when we all dutifully logged on to Turbotax or headed down to the Post Office to file our income tax returns.

Federal Prosecutors chose Tax Day to make an example of Wesley Snipes. They are asking the judge to throw Wesley in the can for three years, because he failed to file his return.

They say they want to make an example of him. Kinda like how the English used to put the head of pickpockets on a pole at the entrance to the village.

Thats how the system works. Harry gets amnesty and Wesley's head is jammed on a spike.

It makes all us commoners not only behave, but feel good and righteous about it.

We find it outrageous that Wesley was not doing his part in contributing a third of his salary to help the federal government pay off the interest they owe to our Chinese and Arab creditors.

But it pleases us if we are able to get a $400 refund, and it is so nice Congress is going to send us a $600 rebate, though a lot of us have bills to pay, and won't be able to go down to Walmart, and do our patriotic duty by purchasing a whole bunch of crap imported from China.

For the life of me I do not understand why Americans are worse than cattle being led to the slaughterhouse.

Don't you think it would be nice to get a thirty percent raise? Or even ten or twenty—we could do this by just giving the boot to a sizeable chunk of the annoying bureaucrats at all levels of government. Then we could admit that World War II is over, and we don't need any more troops in Europe and Japan. And is there any reason for the federal government to subsidize Warren Buffet's medical care? I, for one, think we could afford to quit giving subsides to Exxon/Mobil.

The sad truth is that if Congress could get back to the level of spending in 1997, the income tax could be entirely eliminated.

Can you imagine what an extraordinary economic stimulus this would be?

But that is not going to happen.

The government wants to use the tax to mold us into being good little citizens.

We are rewarded with credits when we buy a Prius, or the goods of whatever corporation a lobbyist, soon to be felon, has persuaded Congress, with contributions to their favorite PAC, should be the recipient of the collateral financial benefits of some noble cause.

And the government needs something to reward the Harrys of the world with—nothing is more important than sntiches and rats who are willing to spy on the citizenry.

How dare Wesley Snipes defy our enlightened Congress, and their IRS henchmen.

FLDS Raid a Constitutional Travesty

2008-04-13T06:04:00.003-04:00

If one of the many people who think me a snarky bitch, anonymously called up the local police and told them that I, and a guy who has not been in Arizona for thirty years, was holding them captive , even though the evidence is somewhat less than overwhelming, I think it would be a good idea for the police to check out the situation.

If when they arrived, they did not find this anonymous person, nor the person who has not been anywhere near here for three decades, but noticed a couple of pregnant teenagers, that should be the end of the matter. After all, pregnant teenagers are not exactly an endangered species.

That is precisely what should have happened in Texas with the the FLDS. Now I am far from sympathetic to those who abuse children, and I have even argued, much to the distress of my libertarian pals, that there is a valid reason for the state to actually prohibit polygamy, even in the rare case where statutory rape is not a factor.

But what is much worse is for the authorities to make a mockery of the fundamental constitutional requirement of a search warrant based upon actual facts which constitute probable cause.

We fought a revolution over this.

You can read the entire application affidavit for the search warrant which kicked off the raid in Eldorado, Texas at The Smoking Gun.

The officer who wrote out the affidavit simply stated that some domestic violence outfit was contacted by an anonymous person who claimed they were a sixteen year old girl, had been forced to marry a creepy old guy named Dale Barlow, who had impregnated her, and was now holding her against her will at the Church's compound.

The authorities went and checked the story out. They did not find the pretend girl, or Dale Barlow, who they had no evidence had ever been in Texas. They did notice several teenage mothers and pregnant teenagers.

Those are the only facts.

The affiant then recites a number of conclusions, with no detail on how he arrived at them. It is stated that “in the course of the investigation” it was determined that the sect has a practice of forcing underage girls to marry old geezers as soon as they reach puberty.

I think most of us can agree that the speculative conclusions of the affiant are not out of this world. But in America we do not arrest people or search their homes because of opinion, conjecture or rumor—no matter how widespread or popular they may be.

The warrant shouldn't have been issued unless there was some specific factual evidence on how this information was obtained. In the course of looking for the pretend girl did some of these kids relate this? Did it come from a “reliable confidential informant?”

There was no evidence like that, or the police officer would have included it in his affidavit. And for a judge to issue a search warrant, the supporting facts must be stated in the affidavit.

Since then another pretend girl called a domestic hotline in Arizona and made similar allegations about the FLDS community in Colorado City. The Arizona authorities decided not to call in the SWAT team and run roughshod over the Constitution.

Dale Barlow was interviewed by Texas law enforcement officers today.

After the interview his lawyer drove him back to his home.

Communism is Coming to an End in Cuba

2008-04-12T12:42:00.002-04:00

Cubans to get title to state-owned homes

April 12. 2008 Associated Press

HAVANA -- Thousands of Cubans will be able to get title to government-owned homes under regulations published Friday –A step that might lay the groundwork for broader housing reform.My Commentary: This should be a cause for celebration; not dancing in the streets celebration but at least a high-five. Communism is ending in Cuba. The process may be slow but it is starting. Cubans are still not allowed to sell their homes to anyone but the government, but they get title, they do not lose their homes when they change jobs, and they can pass their home down to their children. Who can doubt that more change is not on the way? This will lead to wealth creation, home loans, home improvements and a Home Depot.

This change in policy allowing Cubans to own their own home came a day after another important announcement that ended the maximum wage limit in Cuba. Earlier this month, the new Cuban president opened the way for ordinary Cubans to own cell phones.

America could speed up the process of change in Cuba if we would only end our senseless embargo. The embargo at one time made sense, but that day has long ago passed. Because the embargo may have been logical when Cuba was a client state of the Soviet Union, does not mean that we should stick with that policy forever. There certainly has been no justification for our policy ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Our policy has meant that Cuba could blame all of their failings on the US embargo and the US had no opportunity to have influence in Cuba. We trade with China and Vietnam, why not Cuba? What is the logic of our current policy?

If American dollars could flow freely to Cuba, we would see concession on the part of Cuba to accommodate investors. With opportunities to make money, we would see an evolving entrepreneurial class. With more dollars to spend, Cubans would not be dependent on the government for everything, other spheres of influence would emerge and the socialist totalitarianism mold would be broken. Even if Cuba remained an authoritarian one-party state for some time, they would become Communist in name only. A little freedom leads to a demand for more freedom. Cuba is changing despite the policy of the United States. We should help accelerate the change that is taking place in Cuba by ending the embargo now.

Someone needs to tell President Bush the Cold War is over. If President Bush were a bright fellow and a statesman, he would use today’s announcement about the change in the homeownership policy in Cuba as an occasion to say that we were encouraged by the reforms occurring in Cuba and as of Monday, we were lifting the embargo and would be looking for ways to facilitate trade and friendship between our two nations.

Bob Barr: Libertarian Party Blight

2008-04-10T14:20:00.002-04:00

So now, former congressman, reformed Drug Warrior and current homophobe, Bob Barr is joining Mike Gravel in seeking the Libertarian Party presidential nomination.

Probably this would be the best way for the Libertarian Party to get some serious votes. Ron Paul and the paleolibertarians like him a lot. As do white supremacists. Maybe some of the rEVOLution enthusiasts, who think Ron Paul invented libertarian thought, will jump aboard.

The campaign will attract the Know Nothings and skinheads, since Barr opposes both legal and illegal immigration. These ignorant morons, who turned out to rally behind Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the Battle of Bell Road last week, are a natural constituency:

And he will siphon off those voters who will always vote against their best interests, and fundamental political beliefs, so long as the candidate understands, that no matter how adorable Ellen DeGeneres is, Jesus would slit her throat if he was on the scene.

The values voters don't really care if the federal government reins in the budget, gets the economy on track, or ends the war-- if they are committed to getting their daughters to quit dressing like Paris Hilton, and doing something about all that sex education.

Its no secret, that these value voters have no use for John McCain, who occasionally throws them a bone on abortion, but has expended a lot more energy trashing the late Reverend Falwell.

When he was in Congress Bob Barr sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, saying “The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundation of our society, the family unit.”

And in his continuing effort to ensure that the federal government protects and promotes his narrow brand of Christianity, in 1999 Bob attempted to outlaw the practice of Wicca in the military.

However, like so many of his ilk, the flames of hypocrisy burn brightly in the life of Bob Barr.

He has been married three times. Paid for his second wife’s abortion (she also suspected he was cheating on her). Failed to pay child support to the children of his first two wives and, while married to his third and present wife, was photographed licking whipped cream off the boobs of strippers at his inaugural party.

It is nice that Barr is concerned about the Patriot Act (even though he voted for it) and that he is against the Iraq war (though he was in favor of it when it mattered) and I am told he is no longer a dedicated Drug Warrior, but I hope libertarians are not going to cozy up to the former House Floor Captain of the Cum Stain Impeachment Debacle, who in the process personally filed a 30 million dollar frivolous lawsuit against Bill Clinton and Larry Flynt (the defendants caused Barr emotional distress while he was attempting to impeach the president).

It is a monumental travesty if the Libertarian Party nominates a sleazy, flip flopping, hypocritical D list politician, who also happens to be an anti-First Amendment religious loon, at the expense of all those who have tirelessly worked the bake sales, gun shows, petition drives and peace marches, like Christine Smith, sincerely promoting the true libertarian message.

I vote Libertarian, because I can leave the polling place with a clear conscience.

The only way to blot out the shame of tapping Bob Barr's name would be to celebrate the Second Amendment, with a bullet through my skull.

What's next?

Alan Keyes for veep?

Hmm... Rice

2008-04-07T23:33:00.000-04:00

A Fox blurb on Rice's VP bid:

New speculation that Condoleezza Rice is lobbying for the vice presidential seat has sparked denials from the State Department as well as non-comment from John McCain.

I find myself enthusiastically indecisive. On the one hand, her name on bumper stickers will tag McCain as Bush repeat. The 70% will come charging, and McCain will be, in effect, screwed. On the other hand, however, Rice is black. Yeah, that's all I got for the upside so far, I'll let you know when I have more.

Oprah and friends redefining Christ!

2008-04-05T22:50:00.002-04:00

A really good friend sent me this...Please read this..it is absolutely apalling..I am getting so sick and tired of the way liberals are trying to keep God and Jesus out of the public life...to the point where even schools are making it an offense to even draw a picture of a Cross in art class Kid Sues in Federal Court (check this link for that) I've already blogged that over The BoBo Files. The kid in that story had to sue the school and the schoolboard in federal court! In the meantime, the Hollywierd elite like Oprah are trying to redefine who Christ was. They are teaching that Christ's death is meaningless..don't believe? Check the link provided in this story.

You really need to read this

"Oprah and Friends" to teach course on New Age Christ

Many of you, like me, have probably been Oprah fans for a long time. This is very discouraging news to hear about one who has such tremendous influence on the general public. Please ask God to show Oprah the real Jesus Christ.

Just to make sure this was true, I went on Oprah's website and there it is. The below article is very interesting, so I thought I would share.

Subject: Oprah joins false prophets Bible warned about

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/007/smith-oprah.htm (Check out this link for yourself!)

"Oprah and Friends" to teach course on New Age Christ

Jesus Christ being reinvented, redefined, and blasphemed and, this false New- Age Christ teaching is about to make huge inroads into the world, with the help of the queen of television talk shows, Oprah Winfrey.

Oprah Winfrey, beginning January 1, 2008, on her daily radio program will offer a year-long course on the New Age Christ , in a lesson a day and completely cover the 365 lessons from the Course in Miracles "Workbook."

Listeners will be encouraged to buy A Course in Miracles for the year-long course, and an audio version, recited by Richard (John Boy Walton) Thomas will be available on compact disc.

Those who finish the Course will have a wholly redefined spiritual mindset-a New Age worldview that include the beliefs that there is no sin, no evil, no devil. A Course in Miracles teaches its students to rethink everything they believe about God and life, and, bluntly states: "This is a course in mind training" and is dedicated to "thought reversal."

The Course in Miracles -in reality-is the truth of the Bible turned upside down.

Oprah told her television audience that Williamson's book, A Course in Miracles was one of her favorite books, and that she had already bought a thousand copies and would be handing them out to everyone in her studio audience. Oprah's endorsement skyrocketed Williamson's book to the top of the New York Times bestseller list .

A Course in Miracles is allegedly a "new revelation" from "Jesus" to help humanity work through these troubled times. This "Jesus"-who bears no doctrinal resemblance to the Bible's Jesus Christ-began delivering channeled teachings in 1965 to a Columbia University Professor of Medical Psychology, Helen Schucman

One day Schucman heard an "inner voice" stating, "This is a course in miracles. Please take notes." For seven years she diligently took spiritual dictation from this voice that described himself as "Jesus."

Here are some quotes from the "Jesus" voice of A Course in Miracles:

"There is no sin . . . "

A "slain Christ has no meaning."

"The journey to the cross should be the last ' useless journey."

"Do not make the pathetic error of 'clinging to the old rugged cross.'"

"The Name of Jesus Christ as such is but a symbol... It is a symbol that is safely used as a replacement for the many names of all the gods to which you pray."

"The recognition of God is the recognition of yourself."

"The Atonement is the final lesson he [man] need learn, for it teaches him that, never having sinned, he has no need of salvation."

Popular author Wayne Dyer told his PBS television audience that the "brilliant writing" of A Course in Miracles would produce more peace in the world.

The Course in Miracles-based book, Forgiveness, continues to be sold in Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral bookstore as Schuller prepares to host a January 17-19, 2008, "Rethink Conference" at his Crystal Cathedral.

2 Timothy 3 (King James Version)

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters,
proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers,
incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers
of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from
such turn away.

It's not surprising at all that Oprah Winfrey is supporting Barak Obama!!!

Christians....Take heed!! They are on a full frontal attack now! Please stand up and do something! Contact the network and her sponsors and let them know you will not continue to support an individual who is so Anti-Christian that as long as they support her and her network you will no longer support their products by buying them!

Jane Fonda Endorses Barack Obama:

2008-04-04T17:27:00.001-04:00

There Goes the Crossover Vote.

Jane Fonda, the actress and ardent anti-Vietnam War advocate who visited North Vietnam during those hostilities, has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president.

There were no formal ceremonies for the endorsement. In fact, the Obama campaign may just be learning about the actress's approval now as word spreads like lit gunpowder via the Internet. (link)

My Comment: You should not judge a candidate by the people who endorse him. You can't always choose your supporters. Apparently Obama didn't seek this endorsement and if he is smart he will ignore it.

Given that at this point in the race there are only three choices, it is not surprising that Jane Fonda would endorse Obama. Of the three, Obama is the one promising an immediate pull out from Iraq and damn the consequences. I can see how that view would appeal to Jane Fonda.

There are people with whom I have a difference of opinion but still respect. There are very few public people who I truly detest. Jane Fonda is at the top of that short list. Most celebrities who say or do stupid things, I think should simply be ignored. Jane Fonda, however, I cannot forgive for her betrayal of America, her stab in the back of U.S servicemen, and her cheerleading for the North Vietnamese Communist.

I am generally a peace-loving, non-violent, forgiving type of guy. I hope no harm comes to Jane Fonda. However, if a deranged Vietnam vet was determined to assassinate a public figure and could not be talked out of it, and he was asking for nominations, I would not be disappointed if someone nominated Jane Fonda.

Ethanol Worse than Gas in Causing Global Warming

2008-04-01T23:28:00.001-04:00

“Politicians and Big Business are pushing biofuels like corn-based ethanol as alternative to oil. All they’re doing is driving up food price and making global warming worse- and your paying for it.” These sentences are on the cover of the most recent issue of Time magazine introducing an article entitled The Clean Energy Myth, written by Michael Grunwald.

Grunwald, who is a senior correspondent for Time magazine and has written extensively on environmental issues, examines the consequences of the increased use of ethanol and evaluates ethanol’s effect on global warming.

In the past decade, the US has quadrupled the production of ethanol and the recently passed energy bill mandates another five-fold increase. Grunwald quotes studies that show that the actual effect of the increase of the use of ethanol is that “it’s dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it.”

One way this is happening is that the push to produce more ethanol is resulting in clearing of the Amazon rain forest. When the rain forest is destroyed, the act of deforestation releases carbon emission and this deforestation accounts for 20% of all current carbon emissions.

In addition to making global warming worse, in the process we are also destroying the most ecologically diverse places on the earth at an alarmingly accelerated rate, not only in the Amazon but also in Indonesia and other places in the world.

Another point Grunwald makes is that producing fuel from corn provides only a modest gain in net fuel. It takes almost as much energy to create a BTU of energy from corn as is produced.

Other points he the article makes are these:
Only sugarcane-based ethanol is efficient enough to cut carbon emissions by more than it takes to produce the fuel. The rest of the “green fuels” are net carbon emitters.
The U. S. leads the world in corn and soybean production, but if 100% of both crops were turned into fuel, it produces only enough fuel to replace 20% of the gas consumption.

The author is unequivocal that “biofules aren’t part of the solution at all. They’re part of the problem.”

How in the world could we be so irrational as to be mandating ethanol in order to deal with global warming? That is like an alcoholic who switches from beer to bourbon to deal with his drinking problem. The evidence is clear, that as the author says, “we’re better off growing food and drilling for oil.”

It is not as if the truth about ethanol was not known before the new Congress passed the recent energy bill. Rational environmentalist knew this all along but ethanol is trendy and the feel-good environmentalist want it. The rational environmentalists are too few and too timid to counter the feel-good environmentalist and the activist of the environmental movement. The environmental community, with few exceptions, celebrated the passing of the recent energy bill by the newly elected Democratic Congress.

It is disheartening that we are pursuing a policy that is making global warming worse in the name of fighting global warming, but most politicians are willing to give stupid people what they want. The fact that the nations first Presidential nominating contest is in the corn-growing state of Iowa probably plays a roll in the popularity of ethanol also. Candidates for President, of both parties, pander to the Iowa voters by endorsing ethanol. In 2000, John McCain was the only politician with the courage to speak the truth about the folly of ethanol, but apparently McCain wants to be President more than he wants to tell the truth, so this time around he also jumped on the ethanol bandwagon.

I don’t see much hope for curtailing global warming. Everywhere you look, the only news about global warming is bad news. Lofty goals are not met, and the rate of carbon emission continues to grow. Rationality on the issue seems to be in short supply. On the one hand, you have the global warming deniers and on the other hand you have the feel-good enviournmentalist who are happy as long as we do “something” even it that something is worse than doing nothing.

Don't Stop Campaigning

2008-03-31T23:33:00.001-04:00

A Washington Post editorial - Don't Stop Campaigning. Either ignorant or conservative, I don't know which. And now for my own version of Don't Stop Campaigning:

Mrs. Clinton, please don't stop campaigning. You are a well-qualified, politically savvy asshole. Yes, indeed, you are more qualified than your opponent. And your desire to remove democracy from a democracy for your own benefit in state races that have already occurred is, well, enlightening. You dazzle us with your fantastic ability to piss off your entire party, the one who used to look up to you, love you. Hug you. Kiss you... oh, wait, that was only Nancy Pelosi. But hug you, they did. And you were their leader. You were respected. So who better to run this country than you? But you really didn't think a political campaign could tire you, hurt you, age you. Thanks to Botox, the latter was true. No, the campaign only cost you the respect of your party, but who needs them anyway? Do you really need Howard Dean, or Ted Kennedy, or Chris Dodd, or John Kerry, or Russ Feingold, or Tom Daschle, or Bob Gee, or Ted Sorensen? No, you don't. You are doing a fine job slaughtering your reputation on your own, thank you very much.

You are such a wonderful person. Even if you didn't run through Bosnia under sniper fire, at least you had the nuts to make up a pretty cool camp fire story, right? And your wonderful ability to paste together words to make a ridiculously impossible story parallels that of the lovely Michael Moore.
I guess what it comes down to, Hillary, is that we over here really love you. We enjoy your biological warfare against your own that will, hopefully, make the whole country red. We love the infighting that would stop if you simply muttered the two terrible words, "I quit." We love when you make our objectively mediocre candidate look like God himself.

So Hillary Clinton, please don't stop campaigning.

Turn Out the Lights,

2008-03-29T12:06:00.001-04:00

Another Meaningless Empty Symbolic Gesture.

SYDNEY (AFP) - Twenty-six major cities around the world are expected to turn off the lights on major landmarks, plunging millions of people into darkness to raise awareness about global warming, organisers said. Cities officially involved in 'Earth Hour' include Aalborg, Aarhus, Adelaide, Atlanta, Bangkok, Brisbane, Canberra, Chicago, Christchurch, Copenhagen, Darwin, Dublin, Hobart, Manila, Melbourne, Montreal, Odense, Ottawa, Perth, Phoenix, San Francisco, Suva, Sydney, Tel Aviv, Toronto and Vancouver. (link)

Comment: Liberals love the meaningless empty symbolic gesture. Turn off your lights and show how much you “care.” Show your solidarity with others who “care.” This feel-good measure can make you feel like you are “doing something." The only possible reason for something like this is to raise awareness. Mr Friends, awareness has been raised! It is time to get behind policy changes that will actually do something. Showing how environmentally pious you are is useless. I will be keeping the lights on.

TJ's Anti-Contrarian Blog: It's TRUE!!!!

2008-03-29T00:20:00.001-04:00

This is just way too funny! Gotta give a h/t to MegaBrad over at TJ's Anti-Contrarian Blog: It's TRUE!!!! . Type in the following URL into your web browser then hit the green arrow and just let it take you there!

""www.IAMSORETARDED.com""

This is just too funny!

Juicy Campus

2008-03-24T17:56:00.000-04:00

I was watching the local news on channel 12 like every well educated person should, and I saw CT Attorney General Richard Blumenthal going on about how terrible an effect this new website (here - Juicy Campus), can have on people. It's simply a no registration anonymous posting site, where people can literally post anything they want about anyone they want, and the site claims complete anonymity. Curiosity got the best of me, so I logged on to this site to see how crazy it really is. Basically, it's a hotspot for coward idiots who want to rip on people. An example...

Now, I have no idea who David Knoeckel is. I don't know if these are David Knoeckel's two best friend messing with him, or maybe it's actually David Knoeckel himself. But maybe it really is some jerks who despise David Knoeckel enough to permanently tag his name on the internet as "quite possibly the horniest guy at UNC."

I decided to throw my own little bash out there and see how easy this thing really is. I went to the website, and clicked "New Post." I came to this screen:

So I typed in my bash, even daring to throw in a little crazy Virginia Tech stuff.

I doubt you can actually read that. It says, "I hate jerks. They suck. You know what, Joe Shmoe is a jerk. In fact, I plan on murdering Joe Shmoe. Tomorrow, in his bed, with a pitchfork. Police, that's where I'll be."

So I had my sample down, and I hit 'submit' and went back to the main page. Behold...

That whole process took me all of two minutes. For a first time user, that's not bad.

Now that we've figured out how to work the thing, what are the legal ramifications here? Well, it's freedom will be it's downfall, whether in the public or private sector. I wouldn't want my name plastered all over the site like poor David Knoeckel, but I tend to doubt he'll be hurt in the least in the long run. A google search on his name returns no obvious relevant results, and somehow, I don't think an employer is going to take such a simple online toy seriously enough to block his application.

Students can use Facebook and Myspace as freely as they use Juicy Campus. I know from experience; I have used both sites. The difference is you have at least some control over who actually sees the content, especially on Facebook, as accounts can be blocked off from the public eye. Also, statements on both social networking sites are retractable and names go along with them. Statements on Juicy Campus are completely anonymous and non-retractable.

Certainly, the site is in no way illegal, it is simply a "because I can" use of the First Amendment. No person will take the site seriously. At some level, I tend to think a solid portion of the names tagged up there were done as practical jokes. I suspect the real world knows this, too, and a site such as this is not and will not be taken seriously. So, why not let the thing live, and kill itself on its own?

ONLY IN CALIFORNIA! (Self Explanatory!)

2008-03-20T22:28:00.002-04:00

Farmers Feeding at the Federal Trough

2008-03-19T21:48:00.001-04:00

Amber Waves of Green

March 13, 2008; Page A18 Wall Street Journal (link)

When it comes to picking taxpayer pockets, no one -- not the trial lawyers or even AARP -- has it over the farm lobby. How's this for clout? Though last year was one of the best ever for farm incomes -- up 44% to $87.5 billion -- farmers are about to score the most lavish subsidies in American history.

The House and Senate are now ironing out differences between their bills, and it's all but certain that farmers will get about $26 billion over the next five years in subsidies. Soybean and wheat farmers are slated to receive higher price supports, though bean prices hit a 34-year high last year and wheat prices have soared to a new record.

Corn producers will get subsidies of $10.5 billion over five years, which is on top of the deal of a lifetime these farmers were handed when Congress expanded ethanol subsidies. The handouts make growing corn so profitable that last year some 15.3 million acres were converted to new corn production, according to the USDA. That has a cascading effect on other prices, as farmers convert bean acreage to more lucrative corn fields and feed prices for meat producers climb.

Commentary: Farmers Feeding at the Federal Trough

I don’t get it. Farm prices are up, but so are government price supports for farm products. A married couple farming full time can have an income of up to $2 million a year before they lose their eligibility for a taxpayer subsidy. We enrich the corporate factory farmers. Our farm policy keeps some people farming who don’t need to farm. We pay other farmers not to farm. We keep the poor of the world poor and undermine our advocacy of free trade.

We subsidize the production of corn syrup to the point that it is so cheap that it is added to things that don’t need corn syrup such as peanut butter and the crackers you put the peanut butter on. And all that corn syrup makes Americans very fat. Speaking of fat, fat cats like Ted Turner, David Letterman and David Rockefeller get farm subsidies. All the while, we are increasing the price of groceries to the American consumer. This is nuts! Speaking of nuts, they are subsidized too, especially peanuts. The farm bill needs to be vetoed. We need to stop this welfare for farmers and we need to get government out of the business of setting farm prices.

Double Life of Barack Obama

2008-03-18T21:23:00.002-04:00

Wright is wrong for America. (link)
By Thomas Sowell

There is something both poignant and galling about the candidacy of Barack Obama.

Any American, regardless of party or race, has to find it heartening that the country has reached the point where a black candidate for president of the United States sweeps so many primaries in states where the overwhelming majority of the population is white. We have all seen the crowds enthralled by Barack Obama’s rhetoric and theatrical style. Many of his supporters put their money where their mouths were, so that this recently arrived senator received more millions of dollars in donations than candidates who have been far more visible on the national stage for far more years.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that Barack Obama has been leading as much of a double life as Eliot Spitzer.

While talking about bringing us together and deploring “divisive” actions, Senator Obama has for 20 years been a member of a church whose minister, Jeremiah Wright, has said that “God Bless America” should be replaced by “God damn America” — among many other wild and even obscene denunciations of American society, including blanket racist attacks on whites.

Comment: I at first ignored the criticism of Obama as it related to his church affiliation. I had seen the lies that branded Obama a closet Muslim extremist and assumed the reports that he belonged to a racist Black nationalist church to be more of the same. Once I saw the evidence against his pastor, I still cut Senator Obama some slack. After all, some Republicans I admire go to Bob Jones University to campaign and BJU has a past that some might categorize as racist. Many Republicans courted the late Jerry Falwell, and they court the 700 Club's Pat Robinson. Both of these men have said some outrageous things, especially Mr. Robinson. I thought I ought to extend to Senator Obama the same leeway as I do those Republicans who associate with BJU and Pat Robinson.

However, I think that Senator Obama must be judged by his associations with the Reverend Wright. Mr. Obama has more than just a casual association. He has been a member of that church for over twenty years, and his children were baptized in that church. Mr. Obama has made large financial contributions to the church and calls Reverend Wright his mentor.

Mr. Wright has not just occasionally uttered an absurdity taken out of context but apparently has consistently preached a message of racism and hatred of America. Copies of his sermons and excepts of his preaching are available. Reverend Wright went with Louis Farrakhan to Libya and Farrakhan received an award from the church.

Mr. Obama has tried to position himself as above the racial divide. It saddens me to have to face the truth about Obama. I doubt that I could have ever voted for him, despite my discontent with the Republican Party. Obama has an ADA rating of a perfect 100% and is one of the most liberal member of the U. S. Congress. His promise to immediately begin a military pull out of Iraq without regard to the consequences scares me. I am concerned about his inexperience and apparent naivete. Nevertheless, I thought Mr. Obama was a decent person, and brought more dignity to the office than his Democratic rival. I thought his success showed that America was over it's prejudice past and that skin color did not matter. Dispite not agreeing with his politics, I thought he was a breath of fresh air.

If a leading white candidate for President had set in a church for 2o years that preached racial prejudice, the church had given an award to David Duke, and yet the candidate contributed to that church and called the church pastor his mentor, we would weigh that in considering the candidates fitness for office. We should likewise consider Senator Obama's association with the Reverend Wright, in the same light.

Welcome to Failure, Johnny

2008-03-18T09:18:00.001-04:00

Althouse talks about a new law in Madison schools:

Under the new system, students will continue to receive a traditional letter grade — A, B, C, D or U (unsatisfactory) — for every subject....

A second section of the report card, known as Academic Performance, will show how students perform compared to the state's academic standards on a scale of 4 (advanced), 3 (proficient), 2 (basic) and 1 (minimal) — the same ratings students receive on annual state tests.

Grades began in schools as a way of keeping students focused and keeping tally of how the students are doing in comparison to one another. Now, though, grades dominate the entire train of thought. In high school, at least from my experience, students feel (and the thought is endorsed almost universally by parents) motivation is solely based on the intent to go to college. As a result, students work their tails off to keep solid grades, but the actual material they were meant to learn is lost in the process.

While missing out on some high school material probably won't have a major effect on the outcome of my life, and it's most likely safe to assume I won't actually need the subjunctive superlative preterite form of the verb "huir" at any point in my life, I get the feeling that learning, especially at the college level is certainly not meant to be such a grade-based adventure. Sure, grades will remain important. I mean, you can't tell an interviewer for a job at... Bear Stearns (heh, in response to a question about your 1.7 GPA, that you thought learning wasn't supposed to be about the grades. But in college, if you walk in to class solely with the motive of coming out with an A, I think it a valid argument that you may not walk out that door with much practical knowledge.

This second grade system in Madison seems to attempt to spackle over the problem by giving out a second grade for "understanding." Maybe it will work from fall through... eh, January. After that, though, I don't think this will be much more than a subjective effort grade. I mean, what Mrs. Smith is going to fail hardworking Johnny in english via crazy new grade if he earned an A? Not many. The new grades will really find themselves correlating with the letter grade. The C kids will become C-3 kids, and the A kids will simply become A-1 students. It's just another way to make the lower level kids look dumb: "not only does Billy have a D, but he also doesn't understand they material."

I guess, "no shit sherlock" sums up the thought process.

Toward a Nuclear-Free World

2008-03-17T12:07:00.003-04:00

By GEORGE P. SHULTZ, WILLIAM J. PERRY, HENRY A. KISSINGER and SAM NUNNJanuary 15, 2008; Page A13, Wall Street Journal (link)

The accelerating spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how and nuclear material has brought us to a nuclear tipping point. We face a very real possibility that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into dangerous hands.The steps we are taking now to address these threats are not adequate to the danger. With nuclear weapons more widely available, deterrence is decreasingly effective and increasingly hazardous.

One year ago, in an essay in this paper, we called for a global effort to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, to prevent their spread into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately to end them as a threat to the world. The interest, momentum and growing political space that has been created to address these issues over the past year has been extraordinary, with strong positive responses from people all over the world.

Commentary: It is time for worldwide nuclear disarmament. It is time to sit in place mechanism that assure nuclear weapons do not fall into the wrong hands. Times have changed. The Soviet threat is over. It is time to make nuclear disarmament a goal and a priority.

Many, especially those on the right, will resist the effort to disarm. Unfortunately people get locked into a position and do not change their position despite changes in circumstances. During the cold war, we needed to insure that we had parity if not supremacy in the nuclear arms race. We had to be armed to keep the peace. At times, a nuclear build-up was even necessary so we could have a bargaining chip to advance further nuclear arms control. We could not afford to be weak or be in second place.

The Nuclear Freeze movement was naïve. Some of those advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament may have been disloyal and had objectives of advancing the cause of our enemies. Unilateral disarmament would have been folly and would have assured America’s destructions. Mutual arms reduction agreements without verification would have been irresponsible and foolish. However, that was then and this in now. In a war against modern terrorist, the logic of Mutual Assured Destruction does not apply.

Those who only became politically aware since the end of the cold war or who were not paying attention, may not be aware of how close we came to the horror of nuclear annihilation. While the threat is different than at the height of the cold war, the threat of nuclear war is still real. The new nuclear threat is that terrorist or rouge states can get and use nuclear weapons. While we remain the only super power, we should do all we can now to remove the threat of nuclear war.

The people who authored this call to disarm are hard-nosed realist and old cold warriors. Kissenger, Shultz and Sam Nunn are not moonbeam, starry-eyed leftist, or Hollywood airheads. You do not have to be an old hippie humming “Imagine” to see the logic of freeing the World of Nuclear weapons. When Reagan was president he called for "the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth." That day should be today.

Sex too hard to sell these days!

2008-03-15T00:56:00.002-04:00

Apparently, Spitzer didn't have a revolving account with these folks!

Here's what the Madam has to say:

"The family-run Hotel Luxor, established in 1948, is being sold to an investor and will close down for good next month, madam Waltraud Mehrer said, according to the Hamburg Morgenpost and Bild newspapers.

She blamed the decline in business on easily available Internet porn, the rise of call-girl services [emphasis by me], and "noisy discos and dance clubs" on the same street as her business, the newspapers reported."

Did you catch that "family-run" part? Well..Mr. Spitzer certainly could have hired one of them German call-girls! Maybe that's why it cost $5,500! He had to pay for them to fly over on Lufthansa! Having lived in Germany for 8 years and passing through the Frankfurt Red-Light district..I can totally confirm...those women in the windows (literally) don't shave!! Nothing! They are the hairiest! I have a feeling that part of the reason..other than the aforementioned..probably has something to do with the fact that most guys don't want to feel hairy arms around them!!!

Okay..so things are ruff over there in Germany for these poor hookers! Considering this is the oldest established Whore House in Germany..I figure these girls must have been pulling in quite a bit. There's probably going to be a lot of hookers out on the streets now (pun intended)!

"Hotel Luxor today employs four prostitutes, and is only open Tuesday through Friday nights."

"Two thousand euros (US$3,080) per night - it was like that once," one of the women, who gave her name only as "Nicole," told the Morgenpost. "Now I can only dream of that. I've been here a year and only earn around euro200 (US$308) per shift."

Okay..I guess I was wrong..only 4!! 4 Hookers on the street! They were only making $300 a shift. Working only 4 days a week. Okay..so they were still pulling down $1,200 a week! Not too shabby! Do ya think they will be looking for jobs at the local Der Wienerschnitzel? What kinda "special" sauce will be on those wieners!?!?! Ewwwww.

Misha over at the Rottie has a Quiz for you!

2008-03-14T23:14:00.004-04:00

Here's the Caption over at Yahoo News

Eliot Spitzer (R) holds a news conference in New York City with his wife Silda by his side

Now that you've seen the headline..with the picture...Now head over to The Rottweiler for the Quiz. If you don't know the answer..maybe you'll figure it out from the discussion string!

Americans Start to Curb Their Thirst For Gasoline

2008-03-13T20:26:00.001-04:00

By ANA CAMPOY March 3, 2008; Page A1 Wall Street Journal

As crude-oil prices climb to historic highs, steep gasoline prices and the weak economy are beginning to curb Americans' gas-guzzling ways.In the past six weeks, the nation's gasoline consumption has fallen by an average 1.1% from year-earlier levels, according to weekly government data.That's the most sustained drop in demand in at least 16 years, except for the declines that followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005, which temporarily knocked out a big chunk of the U.S. gasoline supply system. (link)

Commentary: What a concept! If something cost more people will consume less of it.

This is not rocket science. This is basic Economics 101.

The reason we have not seen an even greater reduction in consumption is because prices are not high enough for a long enough period of time. People look at high gas prices as an anomaly and think they will come back down. If gas prices reached, say, $5 a gallon and people did not expect prices to fall, is there any doubt that people would change their consumption patterns? Would that young family contemplating a housing purchase be as likely to more to the far-flung suburbs if gas was $5 a gallon as they would when it is $2.50 a gallon? When contemplating a car purchase, would MPG matter less or more if gas were $5 a gallon?

The other thing that would change if gas reached $5 a gallon and stayed there is that alternative renewable energy, technological innovation, and conservation would flourish. Automakers are already producing hybrid vehicles and developing new improved batteries. If gas cost more the alternative would be cheaper in comparison. The only thing holding back the alternatives is that they cannot compete with cheap gas.

For those who do not believe global warming is real, I can understand why they would oppose efforts to combat it. What I do not understand is why so many environmentalist who claim to care deeply about the issue of global warming are wasting their energy advocating feel-good measures and meaningless cajole and control schemes rather than getting behind a gas tax.

Some argue that sustained higher gas prices would be detrimental to the economy. If a gas tax was revenue-neutral and any increased revenue from a gas tax was off set, dollar for dollar, by an income tax reduction, a gas tax should have no detrimental effect on the economy. In fact, a reduction in the tax on income could result in greater production of income.I would much rather tax carbon, which I think is not desirable, than to tax income which I think is desirable.

So This is Kristen

2008-03-13T15:24:00.002-04:00

So this is Kristen. This is the girl who slept with Spitzer for $4,300. Ashley Alexandra Dupre. That's her name. Here's her Myspace page. She is a musician. Not a very good one, but a musician nonetheless. You can also fund her inevitable lawyer fees here by purchasing her one song for $.98. Sweet. It's a bargain; iTunes would hit you up for $.99.

If you take a look at her Myspace page, you may notice the ridiculous number of sympathetic comments.

"Sorry to hear what you're going through. I don't know why they are broadcasting your stuff all over. If it wasn't you it would have been someone else."
"DON'T WORRY LIL SIS!!EVERYTHING'S GONNA BE FINE!!JUST KEEP UR HEAD UP!!U KNOW WE GOT U!!"
"What's good keep your head up sis you know we got your back all day you how we do and after this blows over we gona make a HOT song like we always do!!!!"

Uhh... am I missing something, or am I the only one realizing she's a prostitute. It's not like she was raped. She wanted to do it, and came out the other side with $4,300. In some countries, there's a 50/50 chance she would have been stoned or burned at the stake. America is the only place in the world where people are sympathetic to this girl.

I don't get it.

Spitzer is Out, Time to Talk About Black People

2008-03-12T13:34:00.000-04:00

Spitzer resigned, and Lt. Governor David Paterson will take over on Monday. New York is now the fourth state ever to have a black governor. The others are Massachussetts, Louisiana and Virginia. Examining the numbers (a few year old), I think it's time to note the black percentages in each of these states... Massachussetts has one of the smallest percentages of blacks in the country (5%). New York is pretty heavy, with 15.9%, although Paterson wasn't exactly elected to governor, so it's not telling. Louisiana is up there (30.8%), but again, he wasn't elected. Virginia has 18.8%.

Why?

2008-03-11T20:19:00.001-04:00

Demographics of Republican and Democrat Voters as reported by the Pew Research Center

Seriously, why? Why is it that our African-American and Hispanic American brothers and sisters typically vote Democrat? With known racists in the Democrat party such as George McGovern, David Dukes, and Robert Byrd, why do they still insist on voting Democrat? Even Black leaders are stating that “The Democratic Party is the architect of modern day racism." Even the so-called liberator and civil rights President - Lyndon B. Johnson was a segregationist:

Lyndon Johnson never believed in racial segregation. He pushed for the civil rights bill, but as a Southerner, he had to be politically careful. He could not attack segregation outright without jeopardizing his chances of being re-elected. Still, Johnson was convinced that segregation condemned the South to educational and economic backwardness. Johnson believed that, in order to join the mainstream of America, the South would have to abandon racial segregation. Most important, Lyndon Johnson wanted to be president of the United States — he realized he would never be accepted outside the South if he were perceived as just another Southern segregationist.

When we look at the differences between the liberal agenda of the Democratic Party and the conservative views of the Republican Party and then compare them to the value systems of most African-American and Hispanic-American families we find that their value systems are more closely tied to the conservative views. Conservatives are pro-life, pro-family, pro-self responsibility, and pro-self reliance. Most African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans are very pro-church and consider themselves to be religious people. Again, I ask you, why do they typically vote Democrat? I just don’t get it!

I hope that one of our African-American or Hispanic-American brothers or sisters reading this will provide a very logical and coherent response to this question. How is it that the Democratic Party hi-jacked the civil rights platform of the Republican Party? After all, wasn’t it Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) who freed the slaves and drafted the Emancipation Proclamation? Wasn’t it Howard Smith (a Democrat) in 1963 who promised “to keep the Civil Rights bill bottled up indefinitely?” This is the same guy who was quoted as saying “The Southern people have never accepted the colored race as a race of people who had equal intelligence . . . as the white people of the South.” In fact, it was the Democrats who filibustered the bill..led by none other than the aforementioned Robert Byrd. The Republicans were able to muster enough votes and broke the filibuster. After LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law on July 2, 1964, he is quoted as having said "We have lost the South for a generation."

Why is it that up until 1935 every African-American who was ever seated in government was a Republican? I still don’t understand how the Democrats hi-jacked the civil rights platform of the Republican Party. It was the Republican Party who introduced and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that was overturned 8 years later by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. It was the heart and soul of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that was passed as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Again, there were more Republicans than Democrats that voted to institute the CRA of 1964. For our Hispanic brothers and sisters…were you told that the very first Hispanic Senator elected was…yup..a Republican. He was from New Mexico and elected in 1928.

Two of the co-founders of the NAACP, Ida Wells and Mary Terrell, were African-American Republican women! The Republican Party is RICH with a history of supporting equal rights for all Americans and is the party of civil rights. Conversely, the Democrat Party is the original supporters of the KKK! (this link is from The University of Indiana).

“By the time the six Klan founders met in December, 1865, the opening phase of Reconstruction was nearly complete. All eleven of the former rebel states had been rebuilt on astonishingly lenient terms which allowed many of the ex-Confederate leaders to return to positions of power. Southern state legislatures began enacting laws that made it clear that the aristocrats who ran them intended to yield none of their pre-war power over poor whites and especially over blacks. These laws became known as the Black Codes and in some cases they amounted to a virtual re-enslavement of blacks.

In Louisiana the Democratic convention resolved that "we hold this to be a Government of White People, made and to be perpetuated for the exclusive benefit of the White Race, and....that the people of African descent cannot be considered as citizens of the United States." Mississippi and Florida in particular enacted vicious black codes, other southern states (except North Carolina) passed somewhat less severe versions, and President Andrew Johnson did nothing to prevent them from being enforced.

These laws and the violence that erupted against blacks and union supporters in the South outraged Northerners who just a few months before had celebrated victory not only over the Confederacy, but its system of slavery as well. In protest of the defiant Black Codes, Congress refused to seat the new Southern senators and representatives when it reconvened in December 1865 after a long recess. Thus at the moment the fledgling Klan was born in Pulaski, the stage was set for a showdown between Northerners determined not to be cheated out of the fruits of their victory and die-hard Southerners who refused to give up their supremacy over blacks.

Ironically, the increasingly violent activities of the Klan throughout 1866 tended to help prove the argument of Radical Republicans in the North, who wanted harsher measures taken against Southern governments as part of their program to force equal treatment for blacks. Partly as a result of news reports of Klan violence in the South, the Radicals won overwhelming victories in the Congressional elections of 1866. “

So..with all of this overwhelming evidence, why is it that our African-American and Hispanic-American brothers and sisters continue to support the Democratic Party and vote for the liberal agenda..an agenda that is so completely the opposite of their own values and belief systems? How is it that Black Leaders such as Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and other religious activitists like themselves continue to push their brothers and sisters towards a party that only serves to oppress them? How is it that Hispanic activists such as Dolores Huerta and Hector Flores continue to push their brothers and sisters towards a party that only panders to them for their votes?

I guess, the main question should be how did the Republican Party allow the Democratic Party to hi-jack the greatest civil rights accomplishments and make them theirs? After that, I gotta ask our African-American and Hispanic-American friends....Why? Why the Democrats?

Grab Your Pitchforks! American Pizza Parlor Accepts Pesos!

2008-03-11T19:32:00.002-04:00

DALLAS - A pizza chain has been hit with death threats and hate mail after offering to accept Mexican pesos, becoming another flashpoint in the nation’s debate over immigrants.

“This is the United States of America, not the United States of Mexico,” one e-mail read. “Quit catering to the damn illegal Mexicans,” demanded another.

Dallas-based Pizza Patron said it was not trying to inject itself into a larger political debate about illegal immigration when it posted signs this week saying “Aceptamos pesos” — or “We accept pesos” — at its 59 stores across Texas, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and California.Pizza Patron spokesman Andy Gamm said the company was just trying to sell more pizza to its customers, 60 percent of whom are Hispanic.Wal-Mart, H-E-B supermarkets and other American businesses in towns along the Mexican border accept pesos. And some businesses in New York and Minnesota communities along the northern border accept Canadian dollars. (link)

My Comment: Lighten up People! Money is only a medium of exchange. If someone can buy a pizza with Mexican Pesos it does not undermine American sovereignty. By the way, is not Pizza an Italian food? Maybe we should feel threatened that all of that Pizza is being sold in America. Real Americans eat hamburgers. Right?

What is the big deal? Why would one feel threatened that a Pizza parlor accepts pesos? The world is getting smaller. People travel more than ever. We do not live in isolation from the rest of the world. You may encounter people who don't speak English and who also happen to have another currency in their wallet. What is the difference between the foreigner exchanging his pesos for dollars and then purchasing a pizza, than a pizza parlor accepting the pesos and then exchanging them for dollars?

I had an occasion to visit a Caribbean island last year, and US dollars were accepted everywhere. I have been to Mexico on several occasions and on a recent trip I did not even bother to get local currency. On those rare occasions that I could not use my Visa card I used US dollars. Some people need to get out more; maybe, visit a foreign country. Of course, real Americans don't visit foreign countries, do they?

New York Gov. Spitzer Caught in Sex Scandal

2008-03-11T18:21:00.011-04:00

NEW YORK
New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, the one-time "Sheriff" of Wall Street who campaigned on a promise to clean up state politics, was embroiled in a sex scandal on Monday that threatened to force his resignation.

A New York Times report linked him to a $1,000-an-hour prostitute, saying he was caught on a federal wiretap at least six times on February 12 and 13 arranging to meet with her at a Washington hotel last month.

The Times said he was the man described in court papers as Client 9 who patronized the Emperors Club, which federal investigators allege was a prostitution ring whose most expensive professionals charged more than $5,500 an hour.

Spitzer, a married 48-year-old Democrat who investigated prostitution as New York's attorney general, apologized for what he described as "private matter" but said nothing about resigning. State Republicans called for him to step down. (link)

For the Emperors Club web site and picture gallery click here.

Comment: I have only one question: How could ANY pussy be worth $5500 an Hour??

Billy Madison Now Writes for the NYT

2008-03-11T17:02:00.000-04:00

New York Times busts out another excellent editorial. This time, it's Harvard sociology master Orlando Patterson butchering Clinton's "Three A.M." ad. I'll just throw down a brief excerpt:

"I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery, and when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image — innocent sleeping children and a mother in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger — it brought to my mind scenes from the past. I couldn’t help but think of D. W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation,” the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society. The danger implicit in the phone ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man, someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.

The ad could easily have removed its racist sub-message by including images of a black child, mother or father — or by stating that the danger was external terrorism. Instead, the child on whom the camera first focuses is blond. Two other sleeping children, presumably in another bed, are not blond, but they are dimly lighted, leaving them ambiguous. Still it is obvious that they are not black — both, in fact, seem vaguely Latino."

Mr. Patterson, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone reading this is now dumber for having done so. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Buckle Up, I'm Thinking

2008-03-11T02:59:00.000-04:00

Recently, I began to stray from direct support of any candidate, primarily because I wasn't sure... I wasn't really sure about anything... who to support, how to support them, and moral blocks I had... but I have come to a conclusion, and it's one I think I knew I would arrive at all along.

The thought that McCain may be another Bush has held me from enthusiastically jumping in with two feet behind him. But this rationalization no longer suffices me any more. McCain has been one who, like it or not, always heard out his opposition. He absorbs ideas from both parties, and arrives at conclusions based on his own inner compass. He has learned to trust that compass, whether it tilts right or left (it happens to lean right approximately 86% of the time, for any of you who care to call me out).

Interviewing Christopher Shays last month opened my eyes a little. I understand, and have more fully understood since the interview, that McCain is a man of true character. See, I always knew this, but I recently realized character is actually more than I thought. It involves actually thinking issue to issue, case to case. Character isn't black or white, it's a shade of gray (a weird, maroon-like shade of grade, but gray nonetheless).

So as this is my first serious and lengthy post in quite some time, I may actually be putting you to sleep by now. My fault, just godda knock the rust off those wheels... but no, I'm not done.

On to the ability to unite. I have recently decided that this is, by far and away, the most important quality in a candidate. A divisive leader will be a lame duck in the modern era; a president who can unite and pass bills will be the one who gets some wind in the sails of this motorless boat that is Congress. I'm not talking about divisiveness within a party (I hope you know I understand it would be impossible to support McCain in such a circumstance), but divisiveness within a nation. In the recent era of 51-49 elections and a red/blue divide that rattles patriotism to no end, a strong, charismatic, war-torn Rough Riders president is really what we need. This country hasn't seen patriotism since Michael Moore went to the big screen, and that's really something that needs to come back to some degree. Patriotism can no longer be synonymous with naivety. So, just running through the candidates, I'll throw parties to the wind and base my judgment solely on divisiveness

Quite obviously, love or hate Hillary, unity is clearly something she cannot provide. So cross her of the list.

Obama. That's an interesting thought. With the raging Obamarama syndrome right now, many have been caught up in the minority, come-from nothing fairy-tale Mulatto Stallion (sorry, Rocky reference), thinking he has unity in the bag. I know, I used to agree... strongly. But take a deeper look, and realize his unity is a brand that applies to only a small minority of the population. The right will be cynical from the start, and the former Hillary supporters will take shots at his (nonexistent) political experience. Not to mention, many conservatives (including myself) will find it difficult to get past his extreme liberalism no matter what he does. So, let's regretfully cross out Obama.

And then there's McCain. McCain is conservative. He always has been. He was one of the first who wanted to go to Iraq, he was one of the few who still wants to be there (which, admittedly, will rarely be swallowed by anything to the left of Coulter). But the man knows how to negotiate. He is one of the few conservative out there who can really get stuff done. This comes from his incredibly rare ability to reason with the liberal mind. Just ask Rush Limbaugh; the guy gets along with nutjobs. On top of this, he is one of the most honorable and respectable man in our military. Watch this video. Yes, it's propaganda, but it's true. No lie.

That's all there is to say. If you don't like McCain now, I doubt you speak English. I am exhausted, good night.

Bring back the "N" word!

2008-03-09T20:41:00.000-04:00

There was a time when the “N” word was used all the time! Despite what anyone has to say, times were good when we used the “N” word. There was a sense of community, camaraderie, and well being when we used the “N” word. We looked out for each other’s “N” word. There was a time in this country when we would say, “How’s your “N” word? Is he okay? We haven’t seen him in a while.” or “I heard your “N” word was doing well! I hear he’s making some serious money!” or “I hear that “N” word of yours is having another baby!” or “Did you hear we have another “N” word in our community?”

I would say the downfall of the use of the “N” word came around the 1960’s. The U.S. seemed to be in turmoil. Civil rights really tore up a lot of communities. People who were once friends started hating each other because of their stance regarding civil rights. People moved out of their communities and kept to themselves. The “N” word was used less frequently after that. We stopped asking each other how we were doing. We also stopped caring about the “N” word. Those who did, and still do, use the “N” word do it out of ignorance. These are generally individuals from our older generation who really understood the “N” word and its importance to our society and country. They don’t get the way things are today. The generations following them generally only look out for themselves. Today’s kids want instant gratification. If you hear a kid call another kid their “N” word, there is no meaning behind it. There is no concern over the ‘N” word. The “N” word is used so little today that it is very shocking when you hear someone actually use it! There are people today that would ban the ‘N” word if they could. They feel if we use the ‘N” word regularly again it would destroy their liberal agenda.

I say, it’s time to bring back the “N” word! Let’s use it liberally again and when we use it, let’s really mean it. Communities were built around the “N” word. We sat on our porches and talked about all the “N” words in our communities. We found ways to make things better. We organized to improve the communities. We welcomed newcomers into our communities when the “N” word was commonplace. I say, it’s time to bring back the “N” word.

People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton use the ‘N” word all time. But, when we use the “N” word to organize, we’re racists because we disagree with them because we want to organize differently than they. There seems to be a double-standard in the use of the “N” word. In “da hood” they can all use and be the ‘N” word because they have a common bond. But, when we use the “N” word to improve our common bonds, we’re called hate-mongers because we want things to be better also, just differently than they. I say it’s time to bring back the ‘N” word for all to use!

In the Christian Bible, James 2:8 states “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.” It’s time we brought back the “N” word…Neighbor. We stopped loving our Neighbors, and therefore ourselves. If this nation is to become one again and heal, we need to think of our Neighbors regardless of age, sex, and race. It’s time to love our Neighbors once again! Neighbors and neighborhoods need to be able to organize around their communities again. The strength of our nation depends on our communities. The strength of our communities depends on the individuals living in those communities. Individuals need to become Neighbors again..not just someone living next door to you. When we are all Neighbors, we look out for one another, feel for one another, and want what is best for one another. There is less fighting when we really get to know our Neighbors and who they are. We aren't liberal or conservative; democrat or republican; we become friends.

Drugs in Our Water

2008-03-09T14:10:00.000-04:00

A vast array of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows.

This reminds me of the discovery of cocaine on 4 of 5 dollar bills in 1997 (can't find the article, sorry). I personally don't think this is any major breakthrough, I just realize that this means that if drugs can get through industrial water filters, so can anything... flushed drugs, poo, dead goldfish, dog slobber, and so on. I'd much rather find myself ingesting a mood stabilizer (that I may actually need) than human feces. Oh well, I'm not dead... yet.

Read it.

Evil Empire Named 25 Years Ago

2008-03-09T11:48:00.000-04:00

Twenty-five years ago today Ronald Reagan first used the term "Evil Empire" in a speech he gave to the National Association of Evangelicals at their annual convention in Orlando, Florida. In that speech Reagan told his audience:

So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware
the temptation of pride - the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above
it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and
the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant
misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.

Regan had previously referred to the 'evil of totalitarianism" in a speech before the British House of Commons in 1982 but the phrase "evil empire" was first used at that March 8, 1983 convention. Later that same month, after the Soviets shot down Korean Air Lines flight 007, the phrase "evil empire" was used several more times by Reagan and became know around the world.While the term stuck a reponsive chord among many thoughout the world, many American liberals went ballistic at Regan's terming the Soviets "evil". The Hollywood left, academia, media elites, and intellectuals thought it rude to refer to Communism as "evil" and they denounced Reagan as dangerous and unsophisticated. Liberals feared Reagan would antagonize the Soviets and exasperate tensions.
Now that Communism has been relegated to the "ash heap of history" it is easy to assume that we were united in our desire to defeat Communism. We were not. Many American liberals had a soft spot in their heart for Communism. Perhaps because they shared a vision of an egalitarian society, many liberals could overlook the atrocities committed by Communist and the human rights record of Communist regimes.
Unlike the liberal elites, the conservatives had no sympathy for Communism, but most dared not dream of actually defeating communism. Until Reagan, the policy of America was containment, peaceful coexistent and dÃ©tente. Reaganâ€™s policy was a break with the past. Reagan sought liberation of communist nations, roll back and defeat of Communism.
Regan defined the cold war as a war between good and evil, right and wrong. By use of the term ˜evil empire", Reagan sought to emphasize the moral divide of the cold war, while many on the left sought to define the cold war in terms of moral equivalency. Reagan also used the term to embarrass and shame the Soviet leaders for their suppression of human right in the Soviet Union and the captive counties.
Before we could win the cold war we had to believe it was a war worth winning. Reagan made America believe it was. As long as we refused to see the war against communism as a war between good and evil, America would continue to retreat and contain, and retreat and contain. If not for Reagan's daring to define Communism as an evil worth defeating, no doubt we would still be fighting the cold war and watching the decline of the west and the spread of Communism.

Info/Updates

2008-03-07T17:38:00.000-05:00

First of all, I am proud to announce that Rod Williams of A Disgruntled Republican and Bob O (aka Bobo) of The Bobo Files have both joined the team. Great to have them!

I'm currently speaking with a few other bloggers, so look for more additions over the coming days. Also, begin to look for regular posts from the team starting on Sunday/Monday. (Tomorrow if things go really well, but I tend to doubt it.)

UPDATE: Something is wrong with our timestamps, I actually posted this at around 5:30 PM. I'll get on that.

Hello to All!

2008-03-05T22:39:00.000-05:00

This site is just lifting off the ground. It's intended to be a news and political team blog. We are currently assembling the team. If you are interested in joining, email me at regardingliberty@yahoo.com or leave a comment here, and I'll look at your site.

Big Boom Bloggers

2008-03-04T17:34:00.000-05:00

Site is in progress. Tell me if you are interested in joining.