Monday, May 31, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
However, on Monday the FBI released crime statistics that should cause the applauding anti-gunners to sit on their hands. The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. That amounts to about an 8.2 percent decrease in the per capita murder rate, after the increase in our nation's legal and illegal population is taken into account. And it translates into about a 10.5 percent decrease in the murder rate between 2004, when the ban expired, and the end of 2009. And finally, it means that in 2009 our nation's murder rate fell to a 45-year low."
The White House released their statement yesterday stating that Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel asked former President Clinton to ask Representative Sestak if he would consider their proposal via Mr. Sestak’s brother. Now considering that both Bill Clinton and Rahm Emanuel are involved, it seems impossible that this was done without President Obama’s knowledge and explicit approval of this offer. The White House insisted that the offer was for a non-paying job as a member on a presidential advisory board, and therefore was of no monetary value and thus not a bribe in violation of the federal law.
First, as a former Navy admiral it strikes me as extremely unlikely that the Mr. Sestak would consider giving up a senatorial run in exchange for a non-paying advisory job to the president. That simply does not pass the smell test and strongly suggests that again the Obama administration is lying. Further, this story released today by the White House at a time when the least amount of people would notice it was preceded by a luncheon between President Clinton and President Obama the day before the press release on Thursday. Was this done so that they could corroborate their stories with each other, one wonders?
Further, if this was an “informal” inquiry, and not an explicit offer made by President Clinton to Mr. Sestak on behalf of those in the White House, as the administration has stated, so that no laws were broken as no specific quid pro quo was ever offered, why did they not come out and say this months ago and thereby put the story to rest, rather than let questions and speculation build over the intervening months since Sestak first made the statement of having been offered this job. Mr. Sestak, for his part, has since been very dutiful to the White House and has refused to elaborate on the specifics. He concurred today with the White House press release on the matter.
There are those in congress that have requested that a special investigation be pursued into the matter; something which Attorney General Eric Holder has refused thus far. One has to assume that had George Bush been suspected of having offered a job to a fellow Republican in order to help a party-member of congress, that the Democrats would be SCREAMING for a special prosecutor to investigate the allegations and rightfully so.
The issue is that there was a seemingly illegal quid pro quo offer of an executive branch job for Sestak if he would withdraw from running against the incumbent Senator Specter. Article II Section 4 of the United States Constitution states, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” This offer of a job, even in the unlikely case that it was an “unpaid job” as the White House stated, still has significant value and influence and therefore meets the definition of bribery; an impeachable offense. Now, I am certain that in the very unlikely event that the Democratic congress and the their fawning media were to pursue this matter to its conclusion, the sacrificial scape goat would be Rahm Emanuel. It is exceptionally unlikely that President Obama would be implicated, despite the all-most-assured part he played in this.
The sad thing is that everyone is saying that this sort of thing happens all the time in Washington and it is part of the political game. I suspect that is indeed true, however, it is still wrong and especially so when an explicit quid pro quo is offered on behalf of the executive branch. I was under the mistaken perception that President Obama came to office to change this “politics as usual” and restore our faith in government. It would appear that he has not changed things but rather augmented Washington D.C. politics with Chicago-style politics. This is not the change I was looking for, but is indeed what I had expected from President Obama.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years. Truly, he is the savior of America 's future. He is the best thing ever.
Despite the fact that he has some of the lowest approval ratings among recent presidents, history will see Barack Obama as the source of America 's resurrection. Barack Obama has plunged the country into levels of debt that we could not have previously imagined; his efforts to nationalize health care have been met with fierce resistance nationwide; TARP bailouts and stimulus spending have shown little positive effect on the national economy; unemployment is unacceptably high and looks to remain that way for most of a decade; legacy entitlement programs have ballooned to unsustainable levels, and there is a seething anger in the populace.
That's why Barack Obama is such a good thing for America .
Obama is the symbol of a creeping liberalism that has infected our society like a cancer for the last 100 years. Just as Hitler is the face of fascism, Obama will go down in history as the face of unchecked liberalism. The cancer metastasized to the point where it could no longer be ignored.
Average Americans who have quietly gone about their lives, earning a paycheck, contributing to their favorite charities, going to high school football games on Friday night, spending their weekends at the beach or on hunting trips - they've gotten off the fence. They've woken up. There is a level of political activism in this country that we haven't seen since the American Revolution, and Barack Obama has been the catalyst that has sparked a restructuring of the American political and social consciousness.
Think of the crap we've slowly learned to tolerate over the past 50 years as liberalism sought to re-structure the America that was the symbol of freedom and liberty to all the people of the world. Immigration laws were ignored on the basis of compassion. Welfare policies encouraged irresponsibility, the fracturing of families, and a cycle of generations of dependency. Debt was regarded as a tonic to lubricate the economy. Our children left school having been taught that they are exceptional and special, while great numbers of them cannot perform basic functions of mathematics and literacy. Legislators decided that people could not be trusted to defend their own homes, and stripped citizens of their rights to own firearms. Productive members of society have been penalized with a heavy burden of taxes in order to support legions of do-nothings who loll around, reveling in their addictions, obesity, indolence, ignorance and "disabilities." Criminals have been arrested and re-arrested, coddled and set free to pillage the citizenry yet again. Lawyers routinely extort fortunes from doctors, contractors and business people with dubious torts.
We slowly learned to tolerate these outrages, shaking our heads in disbelief, and we went on with our lives.
But Barack Obama has ripped the lid off a seething cauldron of dissatisfaction and unrest.
In the time of Barack Obama, Black Panther members stand outside polling places in black commando uniforms, slapping truncheons into their palms. ACORN - a taxpayer-supported organization - is given a role in taking the census, even after its members were caught on tape offering advice to set up child prostitution rings. A former Communist is given a paid government position in the White House as an advisor to the president. Auto companies are taken over by the government, and the auto workers' union - whose contracts are completely insupportable in any economic sense - is rewarded with a stake in the company. Government bails out Wall Street investment bankers and insurance companies, who pay their executives outrageous bonuses as thanks for the public support. Terrorists are read their Miranda rights and given free lawyers. And, despite overwhelming public disapproval, Barack Obama has pushed forward with a health care plan that would re-structure one-sixth of the American economy.
I don't know about you, but the other day I was at the courthouse doing some business, and I stepped into the court clerk's office and changed my voter affiliation from "Independent" to "Republican." I am under no illusion that the Republican party is perfect, but at least they're starting to awaken to the fact that we cannot sustain massive levels of debt; we cannot afford to hand out billions of dollars in corporate subsidies; we have to somehow trim our massive entitlement programs; we can no longer be the world's policeman and dole out billions in aid to countries whose citizens seek to harm us.
Literally millions of Americans have had enough. They're organizing, they're studying the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, they're reading history and case law, they're showing up at rallies and meetings, and a slew of conservative candidates are throwing their hats into the ring. Is there a revolution brewing? Yes, in the sense that there is a keen awareness that our priorities and sensibilities must be radically re-structured. Will it be a violent revolution? No. It will be done through the interpretation of the original document that has guided us for 220 years - the Constitution. Just as the pendulum swung to embrace political correctness and liberalism, there will be a backlash, a complete repudiation of a hundred years of nonsense. A hundred years from now, history will perceive the year 2010 as the time when America got back on the right track. And for that, we can thank Barack Hussein Obama.
Gary Hubbell is a hunter, rancher, and former hunting and fly-fishing guide. Gary works as a Colorado ranch real estate broker. He can be reached through his website, aspenranchrealestate.com
Saturday, May 22, 2010
I have also been in a complete news blackout during the past week, so I am curious to see what I have missed in the world. We are still the United States of America and not a unified country under UN governance yet, right?
In the meantime, a buddy of mine sent this picture to me which, of course, says a thousand words! Cheers to all!
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Let me go out on a limb here (actually this is a very safe bet) and say that the costs of this program that Obama promised would REDUCE costs is going to cost us far far far more than the current CBO estimates.
This is just the first lie of the progressives that has been debunked. Unfortunately, once the entire plan is implemented in four years, we will see the other lies they told us be debunked too, like "there will be no rationing" and "there are no 'death' panels".
Unfortunately my being able to say "I told you so!" will be small consolation as our country implodes from all of this spending and the destruction of the world's best health care system. Dang, I hate being right on this issue!
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
"The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops that come to me and say, 'We want you to pass immigration reform,' and I said, 'I want you to speak about it from the pulpit. I want you to instruct your' -- whatever the communication is," stated Pelosi, who purports herself to be Catholic despite her being in violation of church and scriptural teachings, especially when it comes to abortion, of which Pelosi is an ardent supporter.
"The people, some (who) oppose immigration reform, are sitting in those pews, and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the gospels," she said.
Now of course this whole ordeal of Pelosi trying to enlist the help of the Catholic clergy to persuade parishioners from the pulpit is amazingly hypocritical considering that the left in general and Pelosi in the specific have long argued that there should be strong "separation of Church and State". How can she, in good conscience, now try to enlist Christian clergy to pass her amnesty reform?
One has to assume that if a conservative Catholic politician were to likewise implore the Catholic clergy to preach that the Gospels claim that murder of the unborn is a mortal sin, that Pelosi and nearly all of the progressives in congress would be screaming to the media about how this violated that leftist sacrosanct tradition of holding fast to the separation of Church and State.
Further, her theological argument of saying that the Gospels require us to pass amnesty reform legislation is extremely shaky in even the best light. Christ did indeed command us to "love one another" but he also was not for anarchy but rather a supporter of law. Give to Cesar that which is Cesar's.
I would absolutely agree that the need for immigration reform is vital, but anything that includes amnesty is grossly unjust to those immigrants that have chosen to follow our laws respectfully. Pelosi asking the church to do her bidding only when it suits her purposes is the very type of cynicism that most Americans have grown very tired of seeing in our politicians. Being that Pelosi's district is the San Francisco area, I am sure her re-election is assured to the House; however, he re-election to the post of Speaker of the House is very much in doubt, and deservedly so!
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
As for Orin Hatch, the senator from my state, based on what information is already available on Ms. Kagan, he darn well better oppose her confirmation or he will only be adding to the likelihood that he will be joining his fellow Utah Senator Bob Bennett when Hatch's re-election is up for a vote in 2012.
Many on the right have argued that Ms. Kagan does not have the judicial experience to sit as a Justice on the highest court in the land. Kagan has never served as a judge in any court to date and thus gives pause to some who think that this is necessary for the posting.
I personally do not have a problem with Kagan not having been a judge prior to this. In my opinion, a deep understanding of Constitutional law, the workings of our judicial system, an analytical mind dedicated to serving truth and justice, and plain old common sense are what is most needed for any judge, particularly for one sitting on the Supreme Court. Indeed there have been Justices on the Supreme Court that were not even lawyers, let alone judges, that have served honorably in the past.
The problem is that I do not believe that Kagan has those necessary qualifications. She was a huge fan of Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and idolized him in many regards. Accordingly she has agreed with Marshall that the purpose of the Supreme Court is to help the "despised and disadvantaged" of our society. Further, Ms. Kagan has stated how the Constitution itself is a flawed document.
I find it impossible to reconcile these huge conundrums. How is a Justice supposed to interpret a Constitution that she finds to be deeply flawed from the beginning? Further, rather than justice being blind and serving the cause of truth for ALL that come before the court, Ms. Kagan has indicated in previous comments and writings that she, like her hero Thurgood Marshall, thinks the Supreme Court should be used to promote social justice.
This is, of course, is right in line with President Obama's statement saying that he would pick justices that showed empathy for the downtrodden of society. Thurgood Marshall had once stated that he would like to have the Supreme Court refuse to hear cases involving "one fat cat suing another fat cat" and reserve the court for the purpose of righting wrongs against the "despised and disadvantaged". He even tried to convince his other eight fellow justices of this at the time, thankfully to no avail.
Indeed our society as a whole should absolutely help the despised and disadvantaged on an individual basis, but our court system should adjudicate based on law, especially Constitutional law as intended by our Founding Fathers. Anything else is not in the service of "Justice For All", but rather a travesty and misuse of power to further a political agenda.
Now President Obama has an absolute right to nominate whomever he desires to sit on the Supreme Court. That is his Constitutional prerogative and the price we conservatives pay for having lost the presidential election to a socialist. That being said, the Senate also has a right to give advice and consent on the President's nominee. I can only hope that there are enough senators that understand that Elena Kagan would not serve the cause of blind justice for all Americans but rather would likely be an activist Justice that would legislate from the highest court in the land for what SHE felt rather than what the "flawed" Constitution says should be done.
We can only hope that President Obama will be forced to pick again, and this time choose someone that actually has an understanding, reverence, and intention to follow the dictates of our Constitution.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Utah Senator Bob Bennett failed to get the Republican nomination today for his fourth term as Utah's junior senator. He came in third place behind the decidedly more conservative Tim Bridgewater and Mike Lee, the two of which will have a primary runoff on June 22nd to determine who the final GOP nominee for the United States Senate seat from Utah will be.
Bennett has faced huge and growing opposition in the state of Utah for his decidedly leftward shift in voting over the last term, including his aggressive seeking of earmarks, his weaker stance on illegal immigration, and then the final straw of having voted for the bank bailouts with the TARP legislation.
This is the first time that an incumbent senator has not regained his party's nomination in the state of Utah since 1940 when the Democrats threw out Senator William King. Bennett could still try for a write-in candidacy but it is all but certain that the state of Utah is done with candidates that have a tendency to tack left on vital legislative votes.
Utah's senior senator, Orin Hatch is up for re-election in 2012 and after having read the tea leaves, as it were, is desperately attempting to repair his drift to the left in recent years so that he too will not follow his current senatorial colleague from the state of Utah when the citizens go to vote for the presidential elections in November of 2012. As of now, it is very likely that Hatch will end up also being replaced with a candidate that is more conservative and thus more representative of the people of Utah at that time.
I suspect that Senator Bennett's political demise will only be the first of many as the primary season rapidly approaches. People across this country are fed up with the huge and egregious over-reaching of our federal government as has been the case under Senator Reid (who will almost certainly lose his senate seat), Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama.
The socialistic legislation being passed, even though the public has overwhelmingly warned against doing so, will lead to a giant shake up of the legislative branch of the federal government this fall. I, for one, am very glad to see it happen so that we can restore our government to the rightful place under the control of We The People!
Head east from Carthage
on Mississippi 16 toward Philadelphia .
After a few miles a sign says you're in
Edinburg . It s a good thing the sign's there, because there's no other way to tell.
On June 15, 1919, Van T. Barfoot was born in Edinburg -- probably didn't make much news back then.
Twenty-five years later, on May 23, 1944, near Carano , Italy ,
Van T. Barfoot, who had enlisted in the Army in 1940, set out
to flank German machine gun positions from which fire was
coming down on his fellow soldiers. He advanced through a
minefield, took out three enemy machine gun positions and
returned with 17 prisoners of war.
If that wasn't enough for a day's work, he later took on and
destroyed three German tanks sent to retake the machine
That probably didn't make much news either, given the scope
of the war, but it did earn Van T. Barfoot, who retired as a
colonel after also serving in Korea and Vietnam , a Congressional
Medal of Honor.
What did make news last December 2009 was a neighborhood
association's quibble with how the 90-year-old veteran chose
to fly the American flag outside his suburban Virginia home.
Seems the rules said a flag could be flown on a house-mounted
bracket, but, for decorum, items such as Barfoot's 21-foot flagpole
He had been denied a permit for the pole, erected it anyway and
was facing court action if he didn't take it down. Since the story
made national TV, the neighborhood association has rethought its
position and agreed to indulge this old hero who dwells among them.
"In the time I have left I plan to continue to fly the American flag
without interference," Barfoot told The Associated Press.
As well he should.
And if any of his neighbors still takes a notion to contest him, they
might want to read his Medal of Honor citation. It indicates he's not
real good at backing down.
Van T. Barfoot's Medal of Honor citation:
This 1944 Medal of Honor citation, listed with the National Medal of
Honor Society, is for Second Lieutenant Van T. Barfoot, 157th Infantry, 45th Infantry:
"For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above
and beyond the call of duty on 23 May 1944, near Carano , Italy .
With his platoon heavily engaged during an assault against forces
well entrenched on commanding ground, 2d Lt. Barfoot moved off
alone upon the enemy left flank. He crawled to the proximity of 1
machinegun nest and made a direct hit on it with a hand grenade,
killing 2 and wounding 3 Germans. He continued along the German
defense line to another machinegun emplacement, and with his
tommygun killed 2 and captured 3 soldiers. Members of another
enemy machinegun crew then abandoned their position and gave
themselves up to Sgt. Barfoot. Leaving the prisoners for his support
squad to pick up, he proceeded to mop up positions in the immediate
area, capturing more prisoners and bringing his total count to 17.
Later that day, after he had reorganized his men and consolidated
the newly captured ground, the enemy launched a fierce
armored counterattack directly at his platoon positions. Securing a
bazooka, Sgt. Barfoot took up an exposed position directly in front of
3 advancing Mark VI tanks. From a distance of 75 yards his first shot
destroyed the track of the leading tank, effectively disabling it, while
the other 2 changed direction toward the flank. As the crew of the
disabled tank dismounted, Sgt. Barfoot killed 3 of them with his
tommygun. He continued onward into enemy terrain and destroyed
a recently abandoned German fieldpiece with a demolition charge
placed in the breech. While returning to his platoon position,
Sgt. Barfoot, though greatly fatigued by his Herculean efforts,
assisted 2 of his seriously wounded men 1,700 yards to a position
of safety. Sgt. Barfoot's extraordinary heroism, demonstration of
magnificent valor, and aggressive determination in the face of point
blank fire are a perpetual inspiration to his fellow soldiers."
There is a reason why these folks were called "The Greatest
Generation". It is adamned shame they raised the greediest,
most-self-serving, narcisistic generation named "The Baby Boomers".
2. Why is it a travesty against human rights for President Bush to keep the Guantanamo Bay prison open, but nary a word is heard now that Obama STILL has done nothing to close it down as promised?
3. Why do I have to swear on the Bible in court when the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed outside?
4. Why is Bush's out-of-control spending a subject of just criticism for the left, and yet Obama's spending and proposals for spending (which is more than that of the previous 43 presidents COMBINED) is no cause for alarm to the left?
5. Lastly, I could not verify the authenticity of this statement and I highly doubt the veracity of it, but it was so danged funny that I thought I'd include it nevertheless.
It was supposedly reported that when President Obama was having that one, lone brief conversation this past year with General McChrystal about Afghanistan, things were obviously not going the way the General had hoped. Obama could sense this and told him, "I bet when I die, you'll pee on my grave." To which General McChrystal answers, "No sir, I've always said when I get out of the Army, I'll never again wait in another line."
Regardless, some of these are quite humorous and definitely not politically correct. In light of the ridiculousness of all the PC garbage I have been inundated with lately, this seemed like a good counterbalance. Enjoy!
The following directive was issued by the commanding officer of all naval installations in the Middle East. (It was obviously directed at the Marines.)
U.S. Navy Directive 16134 ( Inappropriate T-Shirts )
To: All Commands Subject: Inappropriate T-Shirts
Ref: ComMidEast For Inst 16134//24 K
All commanders promulgate upon receipt.
The following T-shirts are no longer to be worn on or off base by any military or civilian personnel serving in the Middle East:
1. 'Eat Pork or Die' [both English and Arabic versions]
2. 'Shrine Busters' [Various. Show burning minarets or bomb/artillery shells impacting Islamic shrines. Some with unit logos.]
3. 'Napalm, Sticks Like Crazy' [Both English and Arabic versions]
4. 'Goat - it isn't just for breakfast anymore.' [Both English and Arabic versions]
5. 'The road to Paradise begins with me.' [Mostly Arabic versions, but some in English. Some show sniper scope cross-hairs.]
6. 'Guns don't kill people. I kill people.' [Both Arabic and English versions]
7. 'Pork. The other white meat.' [Arabic version]
8. 'Infidel' [English, Arabic and other coalition force languages.]
The above T-shirts are to be removed from Post Exchanges upon receipt of this directive. In addition, the following signs are to be removed upon receipt of this message:
1. 'Islamic Religious Services Will Be Held at the Firing Range at 0800 Daily.
2. 'Do we really need 'smart bombs' to drop on these dumb bastards?'
All commands are instructed to implement sensitivity training upon receipt.
Friday, May 7, 2010
There is so much wisdom, and I personally believe, divine inspiration to be found in so many of our founding fathers' thoughts and deeds. It saddens me greatly how far removed we have become as a nation and how little of our country's history we Americans now know and understand.
Having said that, below are some various quotations from our third president and the primary author of our founding document as a nation; The Declaration of Independence. It is amazing how prescient Thomas Jefferson was with his thoughts and insights. Sadly his warnings have not been heeded and the consequences of this are seemingly just as he said they would be for our country.
When we get piled upon one another in large cities,
as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe .
- Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
- Thomas Jefferson
It is incumbent on every generation to pay
its own debts as it goes. A principle which
if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
- Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they
can prevent the government from wasting the
labors of the people under the pretense of taking
care of them.
- Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most
bad government results from too much government.
- Thomas Jefferson
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
- Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the
right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort,
to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
- Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
- Thomas Jefferson
To compel a man to subsidize with
his taxes the propagation of ideas which he
disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
- Thomas Jefferson
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to
our liberties than standing armies. If the American people
ever allow private banks to control the issue of their
currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the
banks and corporations that will grow up around the
banks will deprive the people of all property - until
their children wake-up homeless on the continent their
- Thomas Jefferson
He was playing under the on-line name of mpeach obama21. A live spokesman for Microsoft Xbox told WND "If you were Obama, what would you feel if you saw this?"
The teenager wants his user ID back stating, "it's the principle of the thing", but thus far Microsoft Xbox is holding their ground and not relenting.
Sounds to me like our next gaming console in my home will be from Nintendo...
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Lets say that Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit. She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, they can no longer afford to patronize her bar. To solve this problem, she comes up with a new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later.
Heidi keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans). Word gets around about Heidi's "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit.
By providing her customers freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Consequently, Heidi's gross sales volume increases massively.
A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.
At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders figure a way to make huge commissions, and transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then bundled and traded on international security markets.
Naive investors don't really understand that the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb, and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses.
One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. He so informs Heidi.
Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and the eleven employees lose their jobs.
Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.
The suppliers of Heidi's bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms' pension funds in the various BOND securities. They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds. Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations. Her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.
Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion dollar no-strings attached cash infusion from their cronies in Government.
The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, non-drinkers who have never been in Heidi's bar.
The left seems to hate the Tea Party because its purpose is to take back control of the government and place it with We The People so that a more responsive, fiscally responsible, and Constitutionally governed federal government can be the ultimate result.
I understand the tactic of lies and demagoguery from the left, as it tends to be their only form of combating conservative ideas since they seem to be devoid of anything that does not resemble Marxist ideals and the usurpation of our rights as Americans in their intellectual arsenal. The fact that it is relatively effective when their willing allies in the state-run media repeat these lies, only guarantees their continued use of such tactics.
That being said, the Tea Party is about restoring America to the way our founding fathers intended it to be and cries of racism are hugely inaccurate and often times fabricated by the left. See the video below for more on this.
She told me of how yesterday she was walking down a hallway to class when this very tall boy, who happened to be white, decided it would be amusing to push and harass a smaller boy, who happened to be black. In the process of his bullying, the one boy used the typical ignorant racial epithet towards this other boy. My daughter, who has an extremely strong sense of right and wrong, was flabbergasted and immediately started upbraiding the much larger bully for his stupidity and bigotry.
She said he stopped harassing the other boy, asked her what her problem was, called her a few hateful names, and somewhat chastised and sheepishly walked away down the hall. The other boy went on about his business without a word said evidently. I asked if anyone else said anything or if any of the other students tried to help. My daughter said, "No!"
My question then is what in the heck is going on when someone tries to do the right thing and stop a bully, especially one that is behaving in an ignorant and racist manner, and no one else even bothers to get involved other than to stand by and watch the train wreck as it occurs?
I thought all of these years of liberal political correctness had supposedly enlightened us and taught us to respect each others differences. We were supposed to learn that African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Native-Americans, Asian-Americans etc. all had wonderful and unique cultural aspects to their heritages. I have no doubt that this is indeed true, but by separating ourselves into seemingly more segregated sub-groups of Americans, don't we end up achieving the exact opposite of the intended goal for which we are striving?
Why must we focus on what makes one race, creed, or ancestry different from the others to such exclusion? Rather, should we not be focusing on what we all have in common as Americans? Should we not focus more on what it is about our American culture and the God-given rights and freedoms that our government is supposed to protect so that there may be justice for all of us?
Why must we separate ourselves as hyphenated Americans? Why don't we just label ourselves as Americans, because that is indeed what we all are.
When we start focusing more at the commonalities that bind us together as Americans, I suspect there will be far fewer idiots in the world that find it necessary to degrade someone else for having a different color of skin pigmentation. Further, there would not as likely be one lone voice speaking out against such ignorance, but rather there would be a lot more kids in the hallway standing in solidarity to shame a racist bully for his actions and words.
I am not so naive as to think that racism will one day be totally eradicated completely in our country, but it seems to me that focusing on what draws us together as Americans rather than on what makes us different would be far more hopeful and helpful in restoring that seemingly lost notion of the great American melting pot.
In the meantime, I am proud that this is one lesson that my daughter seems to have deeply ingrained within her character and the courage to stand up when others would rather just watch or keep on walking down the hallway.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Now I don't know that regulation was the answer either, but there should have been a criminal investigation into the wrong-doing and cooking of the books under the stewardship of Franklin Raines, who became Obama's economic advisor.
Seems like crooks to the left and far left have found escape in the Obama administration. I challenge any of you open-minded leftists to view the damning videos contained in this posting and tell me where I am wrong on this issue.
It is PRECISELY because of the greed of Democrats in protecting these cash cows that the housing industry collapsed thus providing the initial impetus for our current recession we are now in the depths of over the past two years.
(By the way, my thanks to Lisa for providing the link to this excellent video!)
We absolutely should be looking at VIABLE alternatives to oil for our energy, and I am certain that there are plenty of people that are indeed working on this right now. The person or certain few people that come up with the most cost-effective solutions to this dilemma will transform the energy industry and indeed the entire world accordingly. They may very well become the Bill Gates of this new energy industry. What form that energy solution will take is yet to be seen and may still be decades out before it becomes a significant percentage of our nation's energy consumption.
With that being the case, like it or not, we are stuck with the vital national interest of drilling for oil to fuel our nation's economy for transportation, electricity, and heat for our homes. Far better that oil be drilled and extracted from our nation's own untapped petroleum reserves than from those nations that are not necessarily friendly or possibly even down-right hostile to America and its interests.
Does that mean that we drill with reckless abandon without regard for our environment and without the safety precautions necessary to ensure that such is protected? Of course not, but the left's answer in typical fashion is greater regulation and restrictions on the industry. This, of course, will only serve to make domestic oil reserves ever more costly to the American consumers thus guaranteeing that the status quo remains in our purchasing of oil from not-necessarily friendly foreign sources.
Free0352 from John Galt for President summed it up succinctly in a retort to a liberal rant on another blog that was calling for more such regulations when he said, "There are regulations on oil drilling. Lots of them actually. Didn't work now did it?"
He continued, "Accidents happen. When you damage stuff, you should have to pay for it. That's how grown ups roll. We use a little common sense. Let's pretend you're British Petroleum and you just spilled several million gallons of oil into the gulf. Guess what, you get sued by the nice people of Florida, and you get a big fine plus pay for the clean up. The end. Regulations won't end industrial accidents no matter how many rules you make. You can make a rule that I can't trip and fall but guess what.... some day I'm going to have an 'accident' and those happen- so why make rules? We only need one rule. When you hurt someone on accident, you have to pay for it".
Sounds like common sense to me. If you try to cut corners by not installing all of the more expensive safety precaution cut off valves etc to counter just such accidents, then when an accident does happen, you will be paying billions more to correct the damage you have done as a company from a standpoint of environmental impact all the way to the loss of income for the livelihoods of those ruined in such rare disastrous cases.
Oil may not be the most desired or cleanest way to provide the energy our country needs, but it is one of the most abundant and prolific, and therefore cheapest sources of that vital energy currently. Until a better solution is put forth, whether the left likes oil or not, we have to use this valuable resource. That is a fact that no amount of altruistic desires can erase. Better to deal with it and obtain that oil from domestic sources in the meantime.