Friday, October 29, 2010

Let's hear it for the unions?

Think I mentioned a couple times that I've been in labor unions. Illinois is a "closed shop" state, meaning that it allows unions to outlaw employers from hiring non-union employees. So I had a job in a factory that was represented by -- believe it or not -- the SEIU. But that was before Andy (Karl Marx Jr.) Stern took that union over and split it away from the AFL-CIO. Now the AFL is trying to throw in with SEIU -- tells you how successful unionism has been in the USA over the last 30 years, doesn't it?

At any rate, I had that job in 1972, when George McGovern ran against Nixon. McGovern's big brilliant suggestion was a so-called "guaranteed income" for every American. So no matter what you did -- or didn't -- do, you would get a certain amount of income every year. Apparently from the feds if no one else thought you were worth the money.

And the union, of course, the SEIU, backed McGovern and sent him a 18-wheeler full of union dues. And all the people I worked with, most of whom liked the union, got very upset about that.

"We work so hard.... yadayadayada.... and 'they' will get an income for doing nothing?!"

Maybe no one else remembers, but McGovern lost pretty big that year, and Nixon was not exactly everyone's favorite personality.

I mention this because I watched Hannity on TV tonight and he had Frank Luntz on, doing a focus group in Cleveland, Ohio. Also flashed a bunch of new poll results -- not necessarily for the candidates, but on the issues and general attitudes. Something very interesting:

60% OF UNION MEMBERS THINK THEIR UNIONS ARE WASTING THEIR DUES.

One lady, apparently a union member, said she believed her union should be investing their dues, or at least consulting with the membership about where their dues should go, rather than just shoveling it all into dem coffers.

So the union leadership thinks the best way to guarantee jobs is to get in bed with the Comrade and the merry marxists, while most of the union members seem to have more realistic ideas about that. Even they understand that the government does not create jobs. Matter of fact, wonder if Ohio is a closed-shop state --where you don't work if you don't join the union. That might explain why Frank Luntz could even find so many union members. Anyway, just found those poll results extremely interesting.

All of this may help to explain why unions get smaller and smaller every year in the USA, apart from their government worker membership. I understand unions are even recruiting the unemployed now. I mean, really, who else would join a union? Let's face it, people who work for the government are probably incapable of finding a real job anyway. In Chicago and most parts of Illinois, people who work for the government are usually members of the an office-holder's immediate family, ward heelers who pass out literature during campaigns (that's honest-to-God how you get a city job in Chicago), or are cast-off mistresses of other government workers, especially the elected ones. I don't suppose it's really too much different in other states or for the feds.

Anyway, I thought that was cool. So the Comrade and the merry marxists get union donations, but they don't get the union vote.

Excuse me, I'm rolling on the floor laughing.

Don't forget to vote -- especially you fed-up union members. Apparently they've figured out, even if their leadership hasn't, that if there is no business in America, there are no jobs, either.

Save the Republic.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

About the bail-outs

Been wanting to write for some time about the bail-outs, and why they're bad and how they may even be retarding the chance for economic recovery. Maybe not, though, because of the nature of the economic collapse.

Anyway, when a company goes out of business, its products usually go off the market for a time -- its branded products, anyway -- and there's a temporary displacement of the employees. Over all, though, when a company goes out of business, it's because it's inefficient, obsolete, badly managed, or something similar. And I find I've got to preface all of this by saying "In a free market economy," because let's face, we don't live in a free market economy, and the economic meltdown is less the fault of the free market than it is of government interference and poltical bullying.

At any rate, when a bad or outdated or inefficient or poorly-run company goes out of business, it's a good thing. The assets it was sitting on are then freed up to go to more useful, better managed, and more efficient companies, or they can even be re-directed to some new area all together.

On the other hand, if you take a crummy company or one that produces buggy whips or something, and prop it up with public funds, all you're doing is 1) throwing money down a hole; 2) keeping the capital and employees from going somewhere else where they would be more productive; 3) blocking growth and innovation in the economy in general. Going out of business is the real world's way of saying: You're only taking up space and wasting resources.

In the 2008 meltdown in particular, I'm not convinced the bail-outs -- as in TARP and Geithner's picking and choosing which financial institutions got to survive -- did much good, though apparently the Comrade among others keeps repeating the mantra, "It could have been worse. It could have been worse." Who really knows? Maybe "It could have been better. It could have been better." I think the very fact that recovery isn't happening is a strong indication that "It could have been better. It could have been better."

The only thing is, the financial collapse didn't happen in a free market. Contrary to the Comrade's peculiar economic ideas, Wall Street is not "unregulated" and it hasn't been "unregulated" for many, many decades. No doubt the stupid diktats from the government about giving mortgages to the unemployed and unemployable went a long way toward destroying the banks and insurance companies, and the other companies and individuals who invest in them. So perhaps we could classify the collapsing companies as being "badly managed" -- by the federal government and the Reserve Bank?

That makes more sense than blaming the collapse on the personal greed of Wall Street traders. I mean, the traders are there to make money. If they make money, their companies make money. If they were getting reckless -- which hasn't been proved to me -- perhaps they were spurred to take more and more risk in hopes of making enough money to compensate for what they were losing on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and related. If they hadn't had so many losses in one department, maybe other departments wouldn't have been under so much pressure to perform?

I don't know. I doubt anyone knows what kinds of deals go down between the feds and Wall Street. I'm sure that Wall Street appreciates the support -- with Uncle Sam standing behind them, they can take all kinds of screwy risks. I mean, who cares? If they throw away a billion or so, the government will rush to their rescue.

Which brings us to the worst reason for bail-outs: They tend to support the very worst organizations around. They reward the incompetent bunglers -- and use the profits of the successful to do it.

And that's about it. I've been wanting to write that for some time, but have been distracted by the shenanigans of the politicians.

And I saw where Charlie Sheen was found "drunk and naked" in a hotel room. This is news? And still, he sets himself up as some kind of guru and font of wisdom for how others should behave... and vote? I like Charlie Sheen. He's funny. But he doesn't know jack about politics or economics.

Save the Republic!

Monday, October 25, 2010

Before you vote, another thing to think about

I already wrote one blog today, but am inspired to write another.

The Comrade put together something called the "Debt Commission" to think up new ways of putting the USA more into debt. No, I'm sorry, that should be, to think up new ways to increase the tax burden on US citizens. Oops! I mean, to try to hammer out a plan to help the USA retain some sovereignty from Red China, which owns our butts at the moment. They bought a lot of our debt.

Toward this end, the Comrade named Jan Schakowski (dem-IL), among others, to this little committee. Couldn't have picked a better person to promote the cause of tax and spend and spend and spend and spend... She's an addle-brained machine political hack from Chicago. And I believe even her husband is on the government payroll in some useless but highly-remunerated government job. Or a lobbyist or something. If Schakowski's on this committee, the electorate doesn't have much of a chance of survival. I shudder to think who else might be working relentlessly on crushing American liberty through taxation.

At any rate, earlier reports said the Debt Kommissars were considering a V.A.T. tax -- basically a sales tax on wholesale goods, which is then passed along to consumers. The V.A.T. is very popular in Europe -- and look what it's done for Greece and France.

But the latest report is that the Debt Kommissars are likely to recommend eliminating the income tax break that's currently allowed on mortgage interest. And, WSJ says:
At stake, in addition to the mortgage-interest deductions, are child tax credits and the ability of employees to pay their portion of their health-insurance tab with pretax dollars. Commission officials are expected to look at preserving these breaks but at a lower level, according to people familiar with the matter.
The officials are also looking at potential cuts to defense spending and a freeze on domestic discretionary spending.
In other words, don't reduce outrageous over-the-top spending, but do raise taxes.

The same article notes, "The White House has said these and other breaks cost the government about $1 trillion a year."

OK, first of all, contrary to marxist opinion, the money in question does not belong to the government. It belongs to citizens. To say that the failure to steal a certain amount of private property from citizens is a "cost" to the government is really pretty much a pile of steaming crap and an insult to us all. It's NOT THEIR MONEY. It only becomes their money under threat of seizing the rest of our property and putting us in jail. Let's face it. That's what this all comes down to.

I mean, would you voluntarily fork over 30% to 40% of your earnings to a bunch of clowns who have loudly and proudly demonstrated that they are completely irresponsible with money? You know, if you give that drunken pan-handler $5.00, he's not going to buy food with it, he's only going to buy some more cheap wine. Such is the federal government and the Debt Kommissars.

Second, leave it to the dems to first look at grinding citizens more deeply into the dirt rather than giving up any of those specious little bribes they dangle in attempts to lure potential voters, like "free" health care -- which is already costing us a fortune and leading many large employers to cancel the benefits they currently offer.

The government racks up TRILLIONS of dollars of debt building Turtle Tunnels in Florida and funding research into new ways to preserve dead insects, and then they turn to us and say, "Gee, you folks are just going to have to pay a little more for all this."

Here's news, you jackwagons in DC -- We never wanted this bullshit to begin with. YOU pay for it! You're making six figures and snuffle up as many perks and bennies as you can fit inside the trunks of your chauffered limos. You pay for it. I can't even find a job.

On the up side -- Nice that this information comes out a week before the elections. Add the elimination of income tax credits to congress's failure to extend the Bush Tax Cuts -- and they're putting us all in the poor house. And why? To coddle and baby their SEIU and AUW thugs, the bumbling, illiterate members of the Teachers unions and the lay-abouts at the Post Office.

What a country, huh?

Just one more extremely good reasons to vote the bums out.

Save the Republic.

Some interests more "special" than others?

So the Comrade has been flying around trying to whip up enthusiasm for socialism and wage slavery. Yeah, that could happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath. And if it was me, I wouldn't call Pazzo Pelosi "the greatest Speaker of the House" and expect to win any friends or influence people.

It's come to my attention via all the dust the Comrade and his minions kicked up about the US Chamber of Commerce supposedly using "funds from foreign sources" as campaign donations, that the Comrade and his merry marxists have raised even more money from unions -- and many of them proudly claim to be "global." Interesting that AFSCME, the union representing state, county and municipal employees, is the Comrade's and the dems' largest donor. Follwed by SEIU and several other unions. All unions.

Yet unions represent only 7% or less of employees at privately-owned businesses. By contrast, 74% of of government employees are union members.

And the Comrade crows about "special interests."  That's kinda funny. People who work for, I don't know, let's say, Verizon or who own their own business are "special interests," but union members, who are largely government workers, aren't "special interests." I mean, it's not like the general American public are primarily government workers in a union, know what I mean? Unionized government workers seem like a pretty clearly defined and exclusive little "special interest" group, dontcha think?

And here's another question:  While the Comrade is wandering around the country in a thong and halter top, waving pompoms, cheerleading his "non-special interest" groups, at least trying to inspire them to drag their sorry dependent asses to the polling place next Tuesday... Who's minding the store?

'Course it's not like the Comrade ever really liked making any decisions. He has his little agenda written in tiny little letters on the cuff of his shirts, and he doesn't consider anything else and doesn't like to have to think about anything else. He doesn't make decisions. He follows the marxist line. He knows how to campaign, but he doesn't know how to govern.

So I guess that leaves him plenty of free time to go out and jump up and down and make a lot of ludicrous accusations about private citizens. He's looking pretty desperate.

But who's taking care of things in the White House? Robert Gibbs? Everyone else has resigned.

Good God, Save the Republic.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

George Soros and the banality of evil

Lots of terrible things have been written about George Soros. About how, as a Jewish teenager in Europe during WWII, his father sent him to live with a Christian friend who claimed to be Li'l Georgie's godfather and took Georgie around with him, confiscating property that belonged to Jews. And no doubt directing them to the nearest train station, too. In a "Sixty Minutes" interview, Soros said the experience was among the most formative of his life, but no, he didn't feel bad about it at all. After all, if he didn't help the Nazis, others would have.

Maybe not, Georgie. Maybe if no one had helped the Nazis at all, ever, the world would have been a very different place. Ever consider that, you blockhead? Or is it just "shit happens" in your alternative reality?

Soros seems to fancy himself the Master of the Universe. Maybe that's part of that formative thing he got from the SS and the brownshirts. Soros has destroyed the economies of several small nations, including Thailand and Malaysia -- deliberately, just to make himself richer -- and also is proud that he "broke the Bank of England." That is, assisted in devaluing the British pound and thereby kicking the British economy while it was floundering helpless already under a load of socialist crap. Which, I believe, Soros is working very had to do right now to the USA.

He likes Red China. But then, he would. Slavery. Destitution. Poverty. Despair. Certain people in big boots carrying riding crops... His kind of world.

I don't know exactly what happened with our own "economic crisis" that got the Comrade elected (for sure) in 2008. I know the feds and the likes of Barney Fudd are totally ignorant about economics and labored diligently to prod Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to do their share in wrecking capitalism in America, but I mean, what, exactly was the tipping point? The sudden gust that knocked down that house of cards? I wouldn't be surprised if it was Soros. Maybe he and his cohorts dumped a billion wrinkly old dollars into foreign markets while placing their bets on the Chinese Yuan. His style perfectly. If a person is unconscious and bloody in a ditch at the side of the road, hurry over and rummage through his pockets. He might have two or three dollars in change. Maybe some gold teeth or a wedding band. That's Soros' way of life.

That's how Soros got rich. He learned that at the London School of Economics. So maybe there's a kind of cosmic justice to his later coming back at England with a financial wrecking ball. Now he's directing that at the USA.

I noted some months ago that the Comrade was elected after a long, deliberate smear campaign against George Bush laid the groundwork. I just found out that Soros funded the whole thing. Soros compared George W to a Nazi and said in another interview that he (Soros) was dedicating his life to destroying George W. Soros doesn't seem to be a very happy person, does he?

Goes to prove. Money can't buy you class. Or a human soul.

Now Soros is going after Fox News, too. Apparently Bill O'Reilly pissed off the old bugger and in a separate interview, Neil Cavuto didn't kiss Soros' ass, either. So Soros really hates Fox. Soros just bought NPR, more or less, to use as a weapon against Fox. That's why NPR fired Juan Williams. Apparently in Soros's alternative reality, anyone who deals with Fox needs a good spanking.

Do you like the way that can of worms turned out for you, Georgie? Now the whole world hates NPR and we're all starting to take another look at you, too, Fat Cat..

But no, not a cat. Soros is just a twisted old rat-bastard. A run of the mill sociopath. Evil mainly because he's really not very well informed. His political IQ is somewhere around the 3rd-grade level, maybe. And that would be generous. Or maybe he was relieved when the Communists took Hungary from the Nazis and feels indebted to Marx somehow. Who knows what goes in the weird little brains of marxists?  Can't call it logic.

I saw Soros some time ago on an interview with Charlie Rose, and just watched part of the same interview again on YouTube. Both times, Soros struck me as something like, as Will Rogers would say, "a baby who has got hold of a hammer." Soros has lots of money. He's smart enough to win at hedges -- but I think anyone who really pays attention could be smart at hedges. You've just got to be really alert and exceptionally predatory. Where Soros is deficient is in information and in-depth knowledge about politics and government.

Soros doesn't understand the difference between "democracy" and "individual rights." He's assuming we all make the same basic error, or at least he's pretending we do. Failing to get his arms around this fundamental political concept, he's incapable of understanding America. It's not that he thinks he can buy us. More like he thinks he can break us.

Go ahead, Georgie, make my day. Invest a little more of that cash you roll around in, probably naked, in Curacao -- so you won't have to pay US taxes on it. Invest a little more in marxist media operations here on the continent. Invest as much as you can. Throw all your chips in the pot, sucker, and we'll see who wins.

By the way, how come they deported that old Polish guy for being a guard at Auschwitz, yet Soros runs free? Doesn't really seem fair, does it? Where is the justice?

Save the Republic.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

The muslim problem, or When in Rome....

Well, after my long diatribe yesterday about how sick and tired I am hearing about trivia, Juan Williams gets fired from NPR for making the observation that he does get nervous if he's getting on a plane and sees muslims among the other passengers.

I wouldn't be nervous. I'd get off and take another flight. Only prudent. After all, for all the hoopla that some -- VERY FEW -- muslims state about how moderate they are, it was muslims who flew those planes into the Twin Towers. It was muslims who had a long, brutal, and bloody history of hijacking other planes, and even cruise ships, holding passengers hostage, shooting them and dumping them onto the tarmac or into the sea. It was muslims who held the Israeli Olympic team hostage at the Munich Olympics, and on and on.

It seems to me that it is muslims who have something to answer for. Not the people who are nervous about them. Being only nervous about them seems rather a generous attitude.

I have tried to understand Islam and can't say that I really do. But I don't really understand Buddhism or Hinduism, either. The difference is that I've never heard of any Buddhists or Hindos blowing up things, killing people without cause or mercy, and trying to consume whole cultures and impose their backwards and superstitious stamp on everyone else in the world.

I don't think it's the West that's being intolerant of muslims. I think it's muslims being intolerant of the West. In Europe, for example, many Muslims live in exclusive enclaves where they ignore the law of the surrounding nation and practice sharia entirely at their own discretion. The host nation's police aren't even allowed inside these enclaves, and probably would be stoned or would "disappear" if they did cross those lines.

Angela Merkel from Germany recently delivered a speech where she noted that "multiculturalism has failed in Germany." By that, apparently she means that while many muslims live in Germany, they don't assimilate into the broader culture. They closet themselves in their own communities and ignore the laws and rights of their hosts. The Muslims don't participate in or contribute to the nation around them, although they do happily collect unemployment benefits, pensions, health care, and all the other freebies those socialist nations dole out.

An informative anecdote from American history:

The Latter Day Saints, the Mormons, were among the most despised people in the USA ever. Why? It wasn't due to religious intolerance or some kind of idiot prejudice. It was because the Mormons segregated themselves from the larger community and followed their own practices. The trouble came because Mormons also looked down upon others around them. The Mormons believed they had a special mission from God on earth and since they were a Chosen Few, they didn't have to abide by general law or the custom of the country. It was OK for Mormons to rip off "gentiles," gouge them, take advantage, etc. etc.

The Mormons were kicked out of Missouri and Illinois where they set up communities. In Illinois, at Nauvoo, the Mormons eventually became a voting majority, and it was then the rest of the town rose up and forced them out -- across the frozen Mississippi, to hear the Mormons tell the story. Simply that the Mormons had never been neighborly and the townspeople didn't want to have to live by Mormon principles, whatever those may be.

In short, the Mormons were very bad neighbors. Sounds like a little thing? Not really, and especially not on the frontier. For example, the Mormons might sell a Gentile shoddy merchandise -- after all, the buyer was a Gentile, who cares? -- and the Mormons may or may not help out if a Gentile's barn was on fire, but had an obligation to assist other Mormons. The Mormons only cared about other Mormons and shunned all others. That's why people hated them and had all kinds of mostly unfounded suspicions about them. The multiple wives thing only pushed the prevailing negative attitude over the edge into action.

Mormons now are part of the larger community of America. I'm not biased against them in any way. I'm only looking at history for parallels to the situation of muslims today in the USA -- and in other Western, mostly Christian nations around the world.

The muslims don't assimilate. They show little inclination to adopt the custom of the country and don't seem to respect the views of the people around them. When muslims start blowing up things -- and it surely was muslims who hijacked those planes and flew them into the WTC, the Pentagon, and into the ground at Shanksville PA -- they only give cause for suspicion and even fear from the people they live among. I mean, if they hate Western culture and Christians and Jews, why do they come here? I wouldn't dream of moving to Iran for any reason.

The muslims are suffering a backlash from all of this, too. The French have banned wearing the burkah. There's Merkl's recent comments. That Dutch guy, Geert something, even has a video out -- banned in some nations -- about the muslim enclaves all over Europe. The Western world is beginning to decide that muslims are bad neighbors. It's the Mormon thing writ large.

So CAIR, which is supposed to be dedicated to establishing communications and understanding between muslims and everyone else, can complain all they want. I used to be on their mailing list, matter of fact. But I don't recall ever hearing muslims as a group renounce muslim terrorism, and I don't see that they're doing one damn thing to eradicate it in any of their countries of origin. After all, a crazy Christian who blows up a building in the USA will be prosecuted -- not for his religion, but for his criminal action, no matter why he did it. But the muslims appear to have no regard for any of us at all. (As a matter of fact, their exclusiveness sets up the "them vs. us" scenario.) They seem to come to the West solely to take advantage of Western technology and personal liberty and our creature comforts, yet they're unwilling to add anything to the mix. Who needs them?

There is considerable wisdom in the old adage, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." Otherwise, it may end very badly. Culture clashes usually do.

Save the Republic.

And the real issue is....

To hell with the country being bullied into socialism, a national debt that will destroy us all, Iran getting cozy with the tangle of marxist dictators in Central/South America, and the fact that our president is deliberately trying to destroy the nation. Let's just put all that aside, because we all know that the #1 issue is....

Whoopee Goldberg and Joy Behar walked out on Bill O'Reilly during his recent appearance on "The View."

I can't remember when I've been so sick and tired of hearing about something so trivial. I'd call it a tempest in a tea pot, except that a tempest in a tea pot might be kind of intriguing. Lilliputian, you know?

I've never watched "The View." I don't really care what a bunch of liberal women think about, and I can't stand Joy Behar's voice -- sorta like nails on a blackboard. And I don't think Joy Behar is funny so much as she is catty and snarky, and not very subtle or creative about it, either. I do like Whoopee Goldberg, but I'm not overly concerned about what her politics are. After all, she's not running for office.

Bill O'Reilly refuses to let it rest, and now Whoopee Goldberg is making the rounds of Fox shows elaborating on why she walked off the show. Does it really matter?

I mean, really, who cares? Slow news day or what?

The last time I even tuned in to "The View" was out of simple curiosity shortly after the show was launched. All they talked about then was losing weight. I've had enough of that from Oprah. Then we were supposed to be all excited about Rosie O'Donnell getting in fights with people. She's just a bully. I was rather glad to get out of public school just to get away from the bullies of one kind and another.

Barbara Walters is OK. I used to watch her celebrity interviews before the Academy Awards shows, but lately I'm also sick of looking at people with extensive plastic surgery. It looks painful. Peoples' mouths stretched from ear-to-ear, a constant look of surprise around their eyes, sort of floppy-looking injected lips that don't fit with the rest the face, and skin that looks, frankly, like the "plastic wrap" effect I get from my graphics software program. Cosmetic plastic surgery really doesn't do a whole lot to improve the human face, though apparently it gives some people an ego boost.

I'm just tired of it all. It's tough being a woman. You're supposed to be concerned about peoples' health -- I'm not. You're supposed to want to interfere with everyone's love life -- I don't. You're supposed to be manic about ugly shoes -- my very favorites are moccasins because that's about as close to barefoot as you can get and still step on broken glass and bottle caps without injury. And you're supposed to get all dewy-eyed and on the edge of your seat when the subject of "spirituality" comes up. I'm not quite sure what spirituality is, though I am a fan of "Ghost Hunters."

Of course, there is a larger question:  Does anyone watch the networks anymore? Apparently there was some big thing on a couple weeks ago about Islam, with some guy in a turban -- or maybe it was one of those bizarre clamshell-looking hats -- who took off his shoe and banged it on the table and promised to bury us. Or no, that was Kruschchev at the U.N. 50 years ago. Oh well. All power-mad lunatics begin to look alike after a while, and I've been around for a while. At any rate, supposedly Christiane Amanpour shut the guy off really quick as he was threatening to give Islam a bad name. Gee, imagine that.

I used to do this killer imitation of Christiane Amanpour, all because I didn't know her name. To me, she was that woman on TV who was always talking about "The children. We've got to do something about the children." This was in regard to some war or another in the Middle East, and the children starving or something. I think she's actually too bossy to be a good reporter. Too controlling. Journalists are not supposed to actually BE the story, unless they get taken hostage or beheaded or something. That goes for Bill O'Reilly, too.

And I get such a kick out of celebrity news. Never heard of the "celebrities" they talk about. Can't figure out what Paris Hilton ever did except have sex with a guy on the Internet and stand around like a piece of furniture talking into a cell phone. I think she looks like a turtle, if you've ever looked at a turtle square in the face. I understand that Justin Bieber is Canadian and has nice hair. Don't know another thing about him. I'm just saying, with such scintillating "celebrities," why would anyone bother to keep track?

And as far as "The View" goes, apart from Barbara Walters and Whoopee Goldberg, who are these people on that show? Have they ever done anything but lose weight and/or buy shoes?

Anyone remember the movie Fahrenheit 451? The old one with Julie Christie and that German guy whose name I don't recall playing the lead as the Fireman. Julie Christie is the guy's wife, and she's all wrapped up in this big-screen TV and her "cousins" on some show very much like "The View." And everyone takes Soma -- I read the book. Soma is a tranquilizer that deadens people to anything but physical sensuality and general pablumesque cheeriness. They had to get rid of the books; the books were causing trouble. Sound familiar?

Don't want to give too much of the plot away, but 451 is the temperature at which paper burns. So maybe we should blame this epidemic mediocrity on the Internet and the lack of books?

You know, Ray Bradbury was born near where I live. He was the keynote speaker at a business conference I attended, and he was pretty good. Very thought-provoking. And if you don't know why I mention Ray Bradbury right here, you should probably go back to watching the Cousins on "The View" and making sure you've got enough Soma to make it through the day.

Save the Republic.Read a book. An e-book will do.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Les pleurnichards (French crybabies)

Seems the French are rioting over conservative (only in France!) President Sarkozy's plan to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62. A-w-w-w-w. How can they stand such torture of senior citizens?

Many French buttheads are in the streets raising hell, breaking windows, etc. If they have enough energy to do that, surely they can work to age 62? Or perhaps those are the 60-year-olds out there. The government is spoiling their plans for an extended vacation?

Just saw Daniel Hannon, Brit member of the EU, on Cavuto. Hannon says this is what happens when you have an infantilized population. True.

I noticed a long time ago -- having worked in union shops -- that if you treat people like children, they tend to respond that way. Take away their goodies, and they throw a temper tantrum. Like the French, or the Greeks from a a few months back. On the other hand, if you address people like adults who can and will assume responsibility for their own lives, people tend to respond like adults -- accepting the reality of state bankruptcy and cooperating to do something about it.

Hannon made the same observation. He also noted how peculiar that as Europeans are in the streets protesting spending cuts, the American Tea Party is in the streets protesting government spending. Interesting. Guess there's still hope for us after all.

In an article in the newsletter from Hillsdale College, Mark Steyn noted that many Europeans have been severely infantilized over several decades. They expect to be babied and coddled and have some good uncle (reminds me of Unkl Addie, as in Hitler) look after them and take care of them cradle to grave.

I don't know. I don't trust that our Uncle Sam has even the vaguest notion about what I want from my life. He can keep his government cheese. I'd rather not have to pay for more than "my share" over my entire lifetime.

There's some kind of public forum tonight in my district, Rep. Bean(head) may show up. She makes so few public appearances here in the district. And of course, her opponent, Joe Walsh -- no, unfortunately not the guy who's a member of the Eagles band. I like him anyway. Better than Bean(head). I'm trying to go and for a change, actually have the time. I'm just afraid I'll go off like some kind of maniac and ask her what the hell she was thinking when she saddled us all with socialized medicine. Not that I'd get an answer.

Enough for now.

Save the Republic!

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Voters are scared?

A comment from the Comrade that's been getting a lot of play in the press is that he says "Voters are scared, and they're not hard-wired to think clearly when they're scared."

Interesting. First of all, when you're scared, your adrenalin starts pumping. All of your senses go into overdrive, and your brain starts working really, really fast -- assessing escape routes, evaluating the possibility of surviving a confrontation, etc. The question is not one of thinking clearly, but what you think about -- SURVIVAL.

Actually, you begin thinking with a desperate sort of clarity. Your objectives loom large and all the clutter about whether you should have bought those shoes on sale, or if he really loves you -- all that just goes away.

The Comrade and his merry marxists have put the nation into a situation where we have to consider whether or not we are going to survive. Scared? I'll say.

Is that a reason to vote for the dems? Perhaps they didn't single-handedly create the mess the nation is in, but  they are responsible for making it much, much worse. They crow about the debt George W left, and then happily triple it in less than two years.

And I'm not only scared about the national debt, but how it translates into a loss of personal freedom.

One effective way to take away peoples' freedom is to take away their money -- as in "taxes." I'm not complaining about any particular tax, just the whole lump of them all together. We already work five or six months out of the year to pay our federal income tax.  Most people don't notice how much it is because taxes are withheld from their paychecks; they never have the money in their hands. To wage earners -- look at your withholding, and figure how many hours you put in to support this out-of-control government. And if you're a business owner or an independent contractor, you're well aware how much harder you  have to work every year -- or every quarter or month -- just to pay those taxes. They are crippling.

Debt isn't that scary. I'm pretty deep in debt, but most of the debt I owe is to the state and federal government. I'm not too worried about it, because I know I can pay it... IF I'M FREE TO MAKE A LIVING.

It's that last part that's getting kind of iffy. The Comrade can flush his socialized medicine, food stamps, even Social Security and Medicare. Just keep his slimy crawling claws off my freedom. I'll be fine, as long as I can operate as a free agent in the free market -- and that's the freedom that he's destroying.

So am I scared? Yeah, I'm terrified. And I'm thinking hyper-clearly, fight-or-flee response fully engaged. And  what I'm terrified of is the Comrade and the Big Marxist Government he represents. Everything else I can handle.

Save the Republic!

"Comrade lite" is still marxism

Now people are talking about "Obama 2.0." How cute. They've turned him into software.

I wish he was software. So easy to hit "uninstall" and "delete." Then run an anti-virus scan and you're good to go.

The Comrade says, Gee, he's sorry if he's left us all with the impression that he's just another tax-and-spend liberal. No. No. I don't mistake him for a tax-and-spend liberal. I understand quite well that he's a dedicated marxist. Tax-and-spend liberals are rather tame and timid by comparison.

And he's only "Obama 2.0" from one side of his mouth. From the other side, he's accusing the US Chamber of Commerce of collecting campaign funds from foreign sources, and worse -- DEMANDING THAT THE DONORS' NAMES BE DISCLOSED.

You know, he wants to know what corporations are donating to the Chamber and to Republicans so that he can send his thugs and bullies from the SEIU to protest and intimidate and terrorize those businesses. This is how the Comrade does "democracy." Mob rule. Terror. The threat of violence.

Is this what you want for the USA? Or have we had enough of that over the last couple years?

He doesn't know anything but marxist-socialist crap and apparently is incapable of learning and/or of admitting he's been wrong.. He's embraced marxism his whole life. He's not going to change. He doesn't like America. He's shown that to us -- and the rest of the world -- over and over again. He wants to turn the USA into Red China and all of us citizens into ass-wipe industrial slaves.

Is this your vision for the future of the country? Is that what you want for yourself and your kids?

Our lives and our freedoms depend on reclaiming the nation from this jerk and his cohorts.

Save the Republic!

Friday, October 15, 2010

How do you spell "fraud"?

One of my favorite, fairly recent political cartoons was about the Stimulus bill and all the oft-referenced "shovel-ready jobs." The cartoon featured a donkey with a guy standing behind him, holding a shovel under the donkey's butt. Waiting to catch the "shovel-ready" jobs.

So now almost two years later, the Comrade concurs. In an interview that's supposed to be published by the New York Times this weekend, the Comrade admits there were no shovel-ready jobs. I suppose that's his latest excuse about why a TRILLION DOLLARS in stimulus money has yet to have any significant impact on the economy.

So, he admits he was lying.

Just like socialized medicine. He repeated over and over again in relation to the socialized medicine bill:

1)  You will be able to keep your current insurance.
2)  This is not a "tax."
3)  Socialized medicine will decrease the cost of health care.

All lies. We all knew it, too, even while the bullshit dribbled out of his mouth. 'Course that didn't stop Pazzo Pelosi from corrupting congresscritters to vote against their better judgment and the will of their constituents in order to pass that piece of shit legislation. Pazzo's so addle-brained, she is apparently willing to pass the bill and then see what's inside.

Wouldn't you love to go shopping with her? Do you suppose she regularly arrives home from the mall with a stack of Mystery Boxes she's paid for? Have to wait until she gets home and open them up to see what's inside. I really believe she's either stoned on oxycontin or is in an advanced phase of Alzheimer's.

I swear to God, these people are so pathetically stupid it's insulting to even listen to them.

And now apparently the Comrade has recruited Tom Daschle to go on TV and continue to try to sell socialized medicine. Or, rather Daschle has a book out about socialized medicine and he's touting it on his own to make money. (Uh-oh, maybe he's a closet Fat Cat behind that silly smirk.) Or Daschle wrote a book about socialized medicine and is trying to attract attention about it in hopes that the Comrade might hire him for some useless boondoggle job in the White House. Take your pick.

Daschle says, like Pazzo and Dick(head) Durbin, that years from now we'll all look back and laugh at all this, as we hug socialized medicine to our hearts and thank our lucky stars that the nation's gone marxist. I think he's wrong. And you know, he was on Sean Hannity's show, and Hannity asked him six different questions, and all Daschle could come up with was, "I think 40 years from now the public will love socialized medicine." Kinda like a vinyl record stuck in a groove. Apparently since he got booted out of office, he can no longer keep writers on staff, and on his own can't come up with any more than a single sentence.

And anyway, his statement is a slap across the face. Know what I mean? He might be out looking for an expensive ride on someone else's dime -- after all, he's a politician -- but many of the rest of us have a lot more honor and self-respect than he does.

Do you trust any of these people? They prove over and over they're liars and cheats, they call us stupid and simply assume we're incapable of making our own menu choices, for pity sake, let alone what kind of health care we want, and then they expect people to vote for them? Is that how you make friends in the Comrades brand new world? You insult, bully, rob, and expect people to believe you're benefiting them?

I really, really believe that democrats are becoming a self-identified group of morally and intellectually deficient degenerates. "Damn, I'm just too stoopid to be anything but a dem-o-crat." You can spot them a mile away. They're the ones with their hands out. Pull the string at the back of their neck and they demand a pension. After all, they did wake up early two or three times to call and ask a buddy to punch in for them. Isn't that how it works?

Please, please, let's vote these jokers out. We can't afford anymore of this crap. We've got to get this country moving again.

Save the Republic.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Lessons from Chile

As noted before, I've been watching those Chilean miners coming up from underground. Had to watch it on CNN overnight, because Fox apparently doesn't have news people on staff 24/7. Anyway, CNN did a bit about reading emails they were receiving from viewers all over the world.

They read three of these emails that came from people in Red China. Red China does a lot of mining. I don't know what kind of safety standards they have or observe, but since the government in China takes the attitude that they have population to throw away, apparently their mining safety standards aren't very high or taken very seriously. Seems to be numerous "mine disasters" that few people outside of China ever hear about, and that even fewer people in the Chinese government really care about.

One of the emails read on CNN noted that the Chilean rescue program was very "humane." That kind of struck me. Very humane? The whole purpose of the rescue program is to save the miners from a rather horrible and lonely death. And nothing like this has ever been done before. And it seems that in China, mounting such a massive and expensive effort to save 33 lives would never happen. You see, China takes the "macro" view of economics, the same "macro" view behind socialized medicine. That is, you weigh the dollar cost of a life against your chances of retaining power, and your retaining power wins almost every time. Let the miners die if it would be expensive to spare them.

The two other emails from China echoed similar sentiments but in other ways. Sorry I didn't try to write them down. Taken all together, these three emails sounded like lonely, longing voices. Like, "Gee, Chile really cares about people. Wish we had something like that."

But, you know, the Comrade and the US NIC has set up Red China as kind of a brilliant economic model for the USA. Apparently we're all supposed to strive now to reduce ourselves to pawns on the chessboard of the "Greater Good," and let the Comrade and the merry marxists exploit and dispose of us as they see fit. That's the macro-economic view. Abandon all individuality and humanity, ye who enter here.

I like Chile better. I like the USA better. I think Red China is kind of a sad and probably pretty brutal and desperate place to live. I don't want to be like them. And I don't think that's what most voters had in mind as "hope and change" when they voted in 2008. However, I think it's pretty unavoidably obvious that that's exactly where we're heading. The Comrade has packed his Czar staff with unapologetic Maoists and the like who think China is a good model for the future of the USA.

I don't agree. Do you? Don't forget to vote on November 2. It's really important this year.

Save the Republic. It's not too late.

Way to go, Chile!

Just a brief note...

Been watching those Chilean miners being pulled out of the mountain -- about 2,300 feet underground.

It's amazing! They've been down there longer than two months, and for the first 17 days, no one even knew that they had survived. The fact that they survived -- and apparently so well -- says good things about human endurance, and these guys especially.

Only two have emerged so far, and they looked pretty healthy and very happy. The second guy even brought gifts for the rescue crew!

Here's hoping if we ever get trapped underground, we'e in Chile.

Meanwhile...

Save the Republic!

Monday, October 11, 2010

Stop the Comrade before he spends again!

The Comrade is on TV right now trying to convince We, the People that we desperately need to spend probably a couple trillion more dollars for infrastructure. But wait! Wasn't the last trillion-dollar stimulus for infrastructure? You'd think we could have paved every square inch of the USA by now, except for all those funds that are probably hopelessly stuck inside bureaucrats' and union bosses' and contractors' pockets..

Oh, and this program "will pay for itself." No doubt just like socialist medicine is paying for itself.

And it will provide jobs for people now -- and then in six months, they'll be back on the couch again, watching "The Price is Right" and collecting unemployment. Again. And the USA will be even deeper in debt. Again.

Oh, and there will be an electricity supergrid. I happen to be writing something like a horror novel right now that involves the concept of the supergrid. Not a good idea for several reasons, mainly because anyone who would build such a thing is a lunatic, and you don't want to give a lunatic centralized control of your electrical power supply.

And a 31-state high-speed railway. What is it? The politicians go to Europe and get to zip around the countryside on some kind of monorail -- or they watch the jolly peasants doing so from the windows of  chauffer-driven limos -- then they come back to the US and want to spend billions of dollars to build one here. As Mom would say, just because the Europeans went and jumped in the lake doesn't mean you have to. Tell you what -- When AmTrack fills up with cross-country railroad travelers, then A PRIVATE COMPANY might want to look into high-speed rail. Until then, probably just another boondoggle -- that is, a total waste of "someone else's money." I mean, is AmTrack making any money or just another drain on the treasury?

I don't know. I kinda felt sorry for the Comrade. Is this really the best thing he can come up in the way of solving the jobs issue? Does he really believe that American citizens at this point in time, and with something like $14 TRILLION dollars of public debt... Does the Comrade think the nation is ready to commit to this kind of b.s? After all, the USA just flushed over a trillion dollars down the toilet on the last stimulus + the "Omnibus Pork" bill that passed quickly afterwards. And $16 billion more trying to buy off the states. And I'm not even counting TARP.

As good old Ronald Reagan would say:  Are you better off now than you were two years ago?

In addition, we're about to get whomped with the highest tax increase in American history, thanks to the incompetence of Pazzo Pelosi. How is it that the Comrade objects to what would amount to a loss of $700 billion in revenues over 10 years -- which is what the dems say extending the tax cuts to everyone would cost -- yet he happily embraces a program that will surely destroy what's left of the Republic before his term is up?

Is the Comrade so blind and so misguided that he really, sincerely believes that this proposal will get anyone to vote for him and his cronies? Or maybe he's just looking for a way out. Out of office, that is.

I started out angry writing this. Now I'm just sad. What a frigging mess, and with the Comrade in the White House, it won't get any better. He doesn't know a damn thing about economics. He's never run a business or met a payroll. He has no idea at all what he's doing. Or if he does, he's just plainly evil.

We really, really, really need a Republican congress to stop the Comrade before he spends again.

Save the Republic.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Democrats are fighting us, the people

Watched Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on Fox Sunday today. Just for the record, Brett Baier did NOT ask her about her tan. A significant omission or what? Or maybe yet another double standard? All right for dems to be tan, but not Republicans? (I am joking.) But seriously, what is with Wasserman-Schultz's hair? Looks like a badly-used string mop. Kinda like dreadlocks. Maybe she's going for the Rastifari vote, though I didn't realize there were enough Rastifaris in Florida to constitute an important voting bloc.

I must say, too, that Wasserman-Schultz (W-S) does tend to run off at the mouth. She talked about how the Republicans want to take the nation back to when "Wall Street was running rough-shod" and things like that. And did what she could to talk over Eric Cantor, who was also on the show.

You know, most of us folks out here in the hinterland look fondly upon a past when anyone could run rough-shod, or any other way, without paying a half-million to the EPA, IRS, etc. etc. "We used to be able to buy Coke with sugar in it, electricity was affordable and we had power all day!" we'll be telling our great-great-grandkids. If we live that long without being medically rationed into early death.

W-S also talks about all the jobs the Comrade's regime has created. What jobs? Census-takers? No mention of firing them a couple times and counting the re-hires as a whole big new batch of "jobs created or saved." The Comrade also wants to hire 16,000 more IRS snoops and thugs to dog us all about paying for socialized medicine. Yet everyone knows -- even the dems admit it -- government doesn't really create jobs. Business does. But the dems hate business -- and therefore they hate all of us, who are engaged in business in one way or another. They don't understand why we don't all just bend over.

I'm still trying to figure out where they all grew up. It's a complete mystery to me. It's their social class thing. They don't understand that there is no real division in the USA between "owners" and "workers." We all function in both capacities. They're still working on a socioeconomic model borrowed from Europe in 1580 or thereabouts.

The dems are so full of crap. And there is one congressman in Illinois -- Bobby Seals -- who's trying to run on his record of voting in favor of socialism. (Just a note... Wasn't Bobby Seals one of the Chicago Seven? One of the Weather Underground? Or a high-ranking member of the Black P-Stone Nation? Or was that another Bobby Seals? I thought the cops killed him in a shoot-out, but I could be wrong.)  I've seen his TV ads. It'll be interesting to see what the vote will be in that district.

Seals -- or the dems, anyway -- also has an ad out trying to smear his opponent, Robert Dold, I believe his name is. The ad says, "Dold is supported by anti-abortion groups and the Tea Parties." I don't know, sounds like Seals is giving citizens only more reason to vote for Dold. That race is a different district from mine, though neighboring, so I'm not sure if I've got the names right. Anyway, I find this whole approach very curious, except that it is Illinois, where the politicians for years have been trying to train all of us citizens to be good little drek-eaters and do whatever some self-proclaimed "authority" tells us to do. I suppose that's why the Comrade came to Chicago, in particular, to launch his attack against the US Constitution and American exceptionalism. Guess he recognized he could get a foot in the door here. And, yes he did.

My Rep is Melissa Bean, a real blockhead who's actually afraid of the voters. She had a "town hall" where you had to pay to get in. And then she had some 6'6" thug wandering through the audience making sure you kept your mouth shut. Then she made an appearance at a grocery store -- and complained that the citizens who came to see her were "too noisy" when they asked her why she voted for socialized medicine. Bean is a butthead (or beanhead?). What more can I say? And to think she replaced Phil Crane, who had the most conservative voting record in congress. Though he apparently was an alcoholic and didn't spend any more time in Illinois than he had to. But what conservative would?

And if I'd only moved a few miles north across the border, I'd be in Paul Ryan's district. I really blew that one!

Well, enough for now. I have some paying work to do. And have to try to figure out how to get four dinners from two chicken breasts. But I'm used to that. The secret ingredient:  pasta.

Save the Republic!

Friday, October 8, 2010

Impact so far of socialized medicine

Interesting in the news today. After several major corporations, including McDonald's, have issued statements saying that they won't be able to afford to provide their employees with health insurance anymore, the new trend has become going to Washington and requesting an exemption from socialized medicine. I think Mickey Dee's even got one, and the labor unions are exempt, built into the bill, until something like 2018. If I recall correctly.

So on the news tonight this topic was under discussion, and no one made the obvious observation. This was on Fox Evening News, one guy -- can't think of his name (Steve?), but he's conservative and a "regular" -- noted that so far, with these developments, all socialized medicine is achieving is to more tightly link the feds and big business, as big business goes hat-in-hand to DC to beg for favors. And if they're big enough, they get the favors. Of course.

(See, the libertarian argument is to deny the government the power to dole out favors in the first place. But then who could the feds boss around and humiliate? Who would fund their stupid campaigns if they can't wield an ax over somebody's neck?)

Anyway, then Juan Williams said he thought the whole thing was terrible -- insurance companies raising their rates in response to 1.) being compelled to cover people with pre-existing health conditions; 2.) being compelled to cover the 18 - 26 yr-olds, who really are notorious for reckless living, I mean, look at the auto insurance rates for this age group; 3.) not being able to put a ceiling on the total dollar amount of pay-outs insurers have to make to a given insured.

Juan thought raising premium rates was awful! Insurance companies are rich! They're a bunch of greedy Fat Cats who just have no compassion for anyone. They have no respect for human life. Etc.

But you know what? They ain't that rich. It's not like people pay premiums and the insurance companies get to keep the money. Most health insurance companies make a 2.5% to 5% profit. That doesn't give them a lot of room for charity. How can they accept the additional cost burden the feds dump on them without raising rates? Impossible. Insurance companies don't have a printing press in the back room to produce more dollars, like congress does. In fact, congress -- and the feds in general -- seem to have no concept at all of where money actually comes from. Except the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

And just a note on the wonderfulness of parents keeping their kids on their insurance policy to the age of 26. I don't know. I was aware all my life that when I turned 18, I'd either have to pay rent and board to my parents or find another place to live. By the age of 26 I'd been a productive, wage-earning, tax-paying member of society for eight years. I was already voting conservative and concerned about what the likes of Jimmy Carter was doing to the nation. So parents today are just trying to break their 26-year-old kids of thumb-sucking?

No wonder they voted for the Comrade. Bunch of idiots? Or I believe the word is "infantilized." I mean, imagine the horror of having to make your own living. God, what a nightmare! No more Spring Break in Cancun and food fights in the cafeteria? What would they have to live for? Maybe if they hadn't been so coddled, they'd be a little more cautious driving and possibly refrain from "Watch this!" kind of antics. That would help lower the cost of insuring them and make insurance more accessible to them. It's called "taking responsibility for yourself." Apparently an increasingly esoteric notion in the USA.

Anyway, I've long suspected that the whole socialized medicine law was just that -- a SOCIALIZED medicine law. The idea is not to make insurance more accessible or affordable. The idea is to drive insurance companies into bankruptcy so that people like the Comrade, Pazzo Pelosi and the other merry marxists can seize that golden opportunity they created to force what they always wanted -- single-payer, government-funded, shit-quality health care. You know, like the British system.

However, if I know America, what probably will happen is that so many people will manage to wrangle so many exemptions, that a couple years from now, people will be saying, "Hey, whatever happened to socialized medicine? Didn't congress pass a bill about that once?"

We'll all have exemptions. Just because capitalism works a whole lot better and no one will have come up with any kind of way to make socialized medicine work here. And of course, by that time congress will be probably about 80% conservative. Of course, the nation will still be saddled with literally thousands more do-nothing bureaucrats in the 159 new agencies the socialized medicine bill creates. And, of course, no one will want to fire their sorry useless asses and leave them to struggle trying to find a real job. They'll all be in some kinda labor union.

So, just another case of flushing billions of taxpayer dollars down a toilet. All cost, no benefit. Same old same old.

Save the Republic.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

The important thing: protecting the minority

Watching Fox this morning. Kind of a hoot. First Donald Trump comes on and says he's thinking about running for president in 2012 as a Republican. The last time I heard anything from him, he sounded like a dem, said the Comrade was doing a bang-up job and all that. Now he says he's heard that even the Red Chinese themselves are astonished at "what we let them get away with," and the USA's prestige has fallen all over the world.

Where the heck ya been, Donald?

Then Ed Rendell, Governor of Penna., comes on and says, "You don't have to like us, just vote for us." He's a dem. And what a stirring message. "A tepid vote is as good as an enthusiastic vote." I was moved to tears... of laughter.

My message to those dems who don't like what their party is doing to the nation, but who couldn't vote for a Republican in a million years -- Yeah, just stay home on election day. Your country needs you to just stay home. You don't have to humiliate yourself by being out in public when the returns come in. After the votes are counted, you can just tell your friends, "See I knew it was hopeless. What difference would my vote make against the Republican tsunami?" It won't be your fault. That should provide some comfort to the typical dem.

But Ed Rendell also said something that scared me silly. Rendell started talking about how the Republicans have blocked all the stuff the Comrade wanted to do (a-w-w-w-w-w). The hosts pointed out that the dems had majorities in both houses of congress and the White House.

Apparently that's not good enough for Ed Rendell. He noted how with 40 votes in the Senate, Republicans could refuse to let legislation come to the floor for a vote -- it's a filibuster. And Ed Rendell doesn't like that and wants it changed.

You know, I always liked Ed Rendell even though he is a dem. And even though he is a blockhead. See, that's the dems as a group -- they have no idea what America is all about. It's not a democracy; it's a republic. The majority over here is not allowed by the Constitution to just streamroller over the minority. They are forced to respect the minority. This isn't England.

And thank heavens the Republicans were able to stop the crap avalanche of the Comrade's agenda -- at least some of it.

And that's enough for now. I do want to write about how and why government bail-outs suck, but I'll do that later. And it's not because the Comrade's bail-outs have come close to shutting down the US economy. It's just very inefficient and may be yet another reason why there is still no jobs.

Save the Republic. Lock your dem neighbors in the basement on Election Day - November 2.

Sunday, October 3, 2010

I am the master of my fate....

Watching too much TV lately, but the campaigns are fun. I love seeing the dems rant in terror. I can't imagine that ol' Governor Moonbeam is running again in California. There's a state that's a glutton for punishment.

Neil Cavuto interviewed a dem Representative on Thursday or Friday -- hate to be so non-specific. The guy was on just in front of Bernie Sanders, perhaps sinking into socialist drivel by degrees. I did try to find out the guy's name, but haven't been able to. At any rate, they were talking about the Bush Tax Cuts and the different approaches to the role of government taken by the liberals and the conservatives. The Rep was definitely a liberal. At a certain moment, with Cavuto needling him, I thought the Rep was about to have a stroke. With his eyes bulging out of his red face, he looked at Cavuto with utter contempt and demanded:  "Do you want to go back to the days when there were no government controls!"

Well.... Yeah.

By Jove, I think he's got it! I mean, what does this guy think the Tea Party is all about? What does he think America is all about? And this guy's in congress? See, I really wanted to get his name. And hopefully everyone would vote against him.

Then Daniel Hannon the British Rep to the EU or whatever, has a book out called "The New Road to Serfdom." He's been all over TV and of course, I have to drop everything and listen to him. I like him as much as I like Paul Ryan. Anyway, Daniel Hannon was on Fox & Friends one morning on a panel. They were talking about the Bush Tax Cuts. The two liberals on the panel were all for the Obama-Reid-Pelosi Tax Hike. One of them said something like, "It will cost $770 trillion dollars over ten years. How can we make that up?"

The segment was just about out of time, but Daniel Hannon suggested, "Growth!"

See, folks, it's not hard. Let people make a living, and you get.... Growth. Ta-da! More income to tax. More taxpayers instead of leaches and mooches. It worked for Reagan and Calvin Coolidge and for anyone else who's tried it. So much better than kissing China's butt. However, we have the Comrade in office, and he likes bowing and scraping to people who would rather see the USA dead.  Or a doormat.

So anyway, I thought of this poem. It was actually written by a British guy who had a leg amputated. Wikipedia also tells me that it was a favorite of Nelson Mandela. I do believe FDR liked, too, perhaps for obvious reasons (the bad wheels), but I won't hold FDR's fondness for it against it. This is it:

Invictus

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

-- William Ernest Henley

Per Glenn Beck on Friday -- he had Daniel Hannon and also Stuart Varney, another sweetheart -- and they talked about some cockamamie report done by the US government NIC agency, about how the USA will just have to take a back seat to China and India as we lurch through the 21st century. They talk about "state capitalism" and things like that.

We tried "state capitalism" in the USA once. It was called "The Confederacy." Nobody liked it. It didn't work. As I recall, slavery was a big issue then just as it is now. No one really liked it but the masters, and many of them ended up dead, broke, and discredited. But they died very hard and chanting slogans to the bitter end.

So are the Comrade and merry marxists actually talking about moving forward or sliding back? You decide.

I downloaded the whole NIC report, some crap about "Transformation," and skimmed the table of contents so far -- read just enough to realize that Yes indeedy, the Comrade is leading us down the road to perdition. And making it sound like, "Hey! Shit happens!"

No it doesn't, pal. In the human world, that is, among conscious and self-willed creatures, nothing just happens, except maybe earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc. Contrary to popular green principles, we do not control nature. But we are in control of what happens to us individually and to the USA, despite the dreams of the Comrade's father. And the people of this country have fought this same fight since the 1740's. Who do you think's going to win?

Save the Republic.