Common Sense as I See It

On #Aristotle Ethicas: A Happy Man

2011-06-07T21:27:00.000-07:00

Again, it is perhaps absurd to make our happy man a solitary, because no man would choose the possession of all goods in the world on the condition of solitariness, man being a social animal and formed by nature for living with others. Of course the happy man has this qualification since he has all those things which are good by nature: and it is obvious that the society of friends and good men must be preferable to that of strangers and ordinary people, and we conclude therefore, that the happy man does need friends.

This includes both Material goods as well as social goods. After all, which man would want to be all alone, sharing nothing with society, or at least family and friends?

I recently stayed at home, while my wife, sister-in-law, and foster-son went to visit my parents for the day. By the end of the day, I was pacing like a caged animal, and wondering what time they'd be coming home. It's the small things such as people in the house that make a man happy.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: Friendship

2011-06-07T21:19:00.000-07:00

Some will say that they who are blessed and independent have no need of friends, for they already hall that is good, and so, as being independent, want nothing further. Whereas, the notion of a friend's office is to be as it were a second self and procure for a man that he cannot get by himself.

It is evident that even the most highly successful men will need friends. This is even if it is only to talk and share companionship. There is an inborne and deeply spiritual need to have society and to share news.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: On Payments

2011-06-05T08:12:00.000-07:00

They are certainly fairly found fault who take the money in advance and then do nothing of what they said they woud do, their promises having been so far beyond their ability; for such men do not perform what they agreed, The sophists, however, are perhaps obliged to take this course, because no one would give a sixpence for their knowledge. These then, I say, are fairly found fault with, because they do not what they have already taken money for doing.

This sounds like most politicians to me, alway taking first, and making grand promises that he can never deliver. And then he always blame his failures on the other party, the DC Crowd, even the voters themselves.
What people don't know, is that most politicians never mean to keep their campaign promises.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: Honor and Property

2011-06-05T07:31:00.000-07:00

This is plainly the principle acted upon in political communities: he receives no honor who gives no good to the common stock: for the property of the public is given to him who does good to the public, and honour is the property of the public; it is not possible both to make money out of the public and receive honour likewise; because no on will put up with the less in every respect: so to him who suffers loss as regards money, they award honour, but money to him who can be paid by gifts since as has been stated before, the observing due proportion equalises and preserves friendships.

The keyword here is give, as in a voluntary contribution. However, in today's world, voluntary is a dirty word, as the government, by force, takes what it wants from you. Politicians take money from everyone and give it to people who are useless drags on society.

On #Aristotles Ethicas: Friendships

2011-05-30T11:14:00.000-07:00

Quarrels arise also in those friendships in which the parties are unequal because each party thinks himself entitled to the greater share, and of course, when this happens, the friendship is broken u. The man who is better thinks that having the greater share pertains to him of right, for that more is always awarded to the good man: and similarly the man who is more profitable to another than that other to him: "One who is useless," they say, "ought not to share equally,for it comes to a tax, and not a friendship, unless the fruits of the friendship are reaped in proportion the works done." Their notion being, that s in money, partnership they who contribute more receive more so should it be in friendship likewise. On the other hand, the needy man and the less virtuous advance the opposite claim. They urge that "it is the very business of a good friend to help those who are in need, else what is the use of having a good for powerful friend if one is not to reap the advantage at all?"

Unfortunately, the government seems to think in the same way, except that they take by force, (Taxes, seizures, outright theft,) rather than let the people give what they want to who they want. Then the government keeps 75 percent of the take for administrative fees.

On #Aristotles Ethicas: Family Life

2011-05-30T11:04:00.000-07:00

Between Husband and Wife the relation takes the form of aristocracy, because he rules by right and in such points only the husband should, and give to the wife all that befits her to have.

That's right, I try to give my wife everything she needs. However, I don't always give her what she wants. But then, I don't always get what I want either.

On #Aristotles Ethicas: Communities and Friendships

2011-05-30T10:59:00.000-07:00

Furthermore, friendship seems to be the bond of social communities and legislators seem to be more anxious to secure it than justice even.

If the Aforementioned are how communities are supposed to form, then todays legislators, in an effort to stay employed have set us one against the other. This has the effect of making us strangers to one another, where we are strangers, we don't watch out for each other.

I see it every day in our communities where children form gangs and go to war with each other, and where the law enforcement officers don't have the equipment to protect themselves, and the magistrates and city officials mudsling at each other.

This isn't how communities are supposed to work, we are all to be neighbors and help each other when needed.

On #Aristotles Ethicas: Communities

2011-05-30T10:52:00.000-07:00

Again, it seems to be implanted in us by Nature: As, for instance, in the parent towards the offspring and the offspring, towards the parent, and in those of the same tribe towards one another, and specially men of the same nation; for which reason we commend those men who love their fellows: and one may see in the course of travel how close of kin and how friendly man is to man.

This is seems, is how communities and countries were supposed to be. Where man take care of his neighbors voluntarily, there are communities.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: Practical Wisdom in Politics

2011-05-22T09:50:00.000-07:00

Again, that is thought to be practical wisdom in the most proper sense which has for its object the interest of the individual: and this usually appropriates the common name: the others are called respectively Domestic Management, Legislation, Executive Government divided into two branches, Deliberative and Judicial. Now, of course, knowledge for one's self is one kind of knowledge, but it admits of many shades of difference: and it is a common notion that the man who knows and busies himself about his own concerns merely is the man of practical wisdom, while they who extend their solicitude to society at large are considered meddlesome.

I am guessing that in Aristotle's time, these people used to be chosen because of their wisdom, however, today our legislators have knowledge of management, and get chosen only because they are either the lesser of two evils, or because they trick a dumb downed populace to vote for them.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: Government, Masters, Workmen

2011-05-22T09:34:00.000-07:00

Of practical wisdom exerted upon a community that which I would call the Supreme is the faculty of Legislation; the subordinate, which is concerned with the details, generally has the common name politics, and its functions are action and deliberation (for the particular enactment is a matter of action, being the ultimate issue of this branch of practical wisdom, and therefore people commonly say, that these men alone are really engaged in government, because they alone act, filling the same place relatively to legislators, that workmen do to a master.)

It should be noted that the "Master" that Aristotle speaks of, is the body of people that chose them to serve. From people who served with the greatest with the greatest of intentions, we have devolved to self serving idiots that care only about money and being re-elected.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: Domestic Management and Government

2011-05-20T21:07:00.000-07:00

For this reason we think Pericles and men of that stamp to be practically wise, because they can see what is good for themselves and for men in general, and we also think those to be such who are skilled in domestic management or civil government.

For the last 20 years or so, I've noticed that we seem to have gone from skilled domestic management or skilled civil government to people who have no skills in either branch. Because if this were true, we wouldn't have budget shortfalls, and individual states wouldn't need to depend upon the federal government for anything.
Since our so-called domestic managers have actually never worked in any other field than politics, they've never had to manage their money, or worry about a paycheck. If they had, they'd know how to balance a budget, and/or cut programs that don't and have never worked.

Maybe what we need are people who've actually worked for a living, to be our representatives, and we should make them live in the area where they are elected, and not in DC. That might do some good.

On #Aristotle's Ethicas: Democrats, Liberals, etc

2011-05-20T20:55:00.000-07:00

The Necessity of this equality of ratios is shown by the common phrase "according to rate," for all agree that the just in distributions ought to be according to some rate: but what that rate is to be, all do not agree; the democrats are for freedom, the oligarchs for wealth, other for nobleness of birth, and the aristocratic party for virtue.

It's amazing what time has changed. Aristocrats have grown selfish, the democrats no longer hold to freedom or self determination, all the parties want to hold on to power by enslaving the people they represent.
If you stop to think about it, when the government pays someone not to work, they are enslaving that person for their vote. If that person doesn't vote for them, they don't get paid.
It's been said that when the people who live off of the government can vote, they will always vote to rob the treasury. Honestly, when was the last time that you heard a welfare recipient say, "I don't need a raise," and when was the last time you heard a democrat say, "We don't need to raise taxes," or, "Since we are in a recession, I don't need a raise in my salary."

It's only when a man stands on his own two feet and works hard for his money, that he realizes that the government take more than it needs to take, and for stupid reasons.

#Aristotle's Ethicas: Liberalism

2011-05-15T09:20:00.000-07:00

Yet, he will not give to improper people, nor at wrong times, and so on: because he would not then be acting in accordance with Liberality, and if he spent upon such objects, would have nothing to spend on those on which he ought: for, as I have said before, he is Liberal who spends in proportion to his means, and on proper objects, while he does so in excess is prodigal (This is the reason why we never call despots prodigal, because it does not seem to be easy for them by their gifts and expenditure to go beyond their immense possessions).
To sum up then. Since liberality is a mean state in respect of the giving and receiving of wealth, the liberal man will give and spend on proper objects, and in proper proportion, in great things and in small alike, and all this with pleasure to himself; also he will receive from right sources, and in right proportion: because, as the virtue is a mean state in both respect of both, he will do both as he ought, and, in fact, upon proper giving follows the correspondent receiving, while that which is not such is contrary to it.

It's a bit long winded, but my take is that Aristotle considered such men, being liberals, as those who should be wise enough, and noble enough, to take only what they need from good sources, and give to other people as they need.
Unfortunately, this has been turned 180 degrees, and the liberal has become a person who wants to steal from other people, from the fruits of their labor, in order to give to people who don't contribute.
Personally, I feel that since our governments, both state and federal, wish to spend beyond their means, Aristotle would considered these governments tyrants.

Musings on #Aristotle's Ethicas.

2011-05-14T14:13:00.000-07:00

Now, liberality is a term of relation to a man's means, for the liberal-ness depends not on the amount of what is given but on the moral state of the giver which gives in proportion to his means. There is then no reason why he should not be the more liberal man who gives the less amount, if the has less to give out of.
Again, they are thought to be more liberal who have inherited, no acquired for themselves, their means; because in the first place, they have never experienced want, and next, all people love most their own works, just as parents do and poets.
It is not easy for the Liberal man to be rich, since he is neither apt to receive nor to keep, but to lavish, and values not wealth for its own sake but with a view of giving it away. Hence it is commonly charged upon fortune that they who most deserve to be rich are least so.

Let me preface this by saying that I started reading Aristotle's Ethicas a month ago, and I've found it very interesting. Aristotle was a philosopher that believed that before a man could serve his country, he had to know how to interact with other people, and interact the right way.

I know that everyone will get something different from the passages, but what I got out of this was:
For some reason, the Definition of Liberal has changed since Aristotle's time. Now a liberal wants to redistribute wealth, even going so far as to steal it from other people, rather than give from his own wallet. If he can't bully people into giving freely, he'll steal it by using the government to do it.

Immigration Reforms...yeah right.

2011-05-12T11:19:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week, President Obama was in El Paso, Texas, where he was stumping for re-election, and trying to illegal immigration as his campaign speech.

From what I heard, he kept saying that the immigration system needs to be reformed, and that we should allow more immigrants in our country, despite the fact that most illegal immigrants work for cash and don't pay taxes. Not to mention that they are a drag on the system by getting on welfare, and medicare and medicade and just plain don't care.

Once again, President Obama has proven himself not to be a part of reality. He thinks that bringing in more new people, that they'll work honestly, and will pay taxes. This isn't true, it never has been, never will be. If it were, then they wouldn't run anytime a cop came around or someone screamed INS.

Between you, me, and the rest of the country. At this time in history, we don't illegal immigrants coming in and trying to take jobs, while citizens are out of work. But that's just me talking.

Maybe the sysem needs to be reformed

2011-05-10T13:33:00.000-07:00

There comes a time in each person's life, when they wake up and realize that a strong federal and state government, along with it's supporting/leaching agencies, are sapping individual freedoms and destroying families.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong supporter of a system that looks out for children, but when that system starts abusing it's power, then that system needs to be reformed.

An agency which purports to think about children and their wellbeing, but doesn't actually talk to the children, and show them some comfort, needs to be rethought, reimagined, and given some humanity. I think that people that work for said agency should be parents, and should have at least have raised one child. I would think that having raised a child would make it easier to think like a parent, and a parent could easily spot things which would stand out from the ordinary, take for instance, druggie parents that feed their kids only junk food, or leave needles laying around, or kids that are always wearing long pants and shirts, to hide bruises.

Maybe said system should be based out of the church, and not the state, because when you don't think like christ, then you don't really see evil anywhere, and everything becomes subjective. Maybe I'm rambling, but then maybe I have a right to, either read this, or not, I don't care.

The Mississippi River is rising again, Is this a surprise?

2011-05-09T06:30:00.000-07:00

It's late spring, early summer, and as Gomer Pyle used to say, "Surprise, surprise," the Mississippi is rising again. Is this really a surprise? It seems like every year about this time, Tennessee and Mississippi get flooded. And as usual, the news crews rush down there, bemoaning the fact that people are displaced and their homes are flooded.

Don't get me wrong, I do feel sorry for people who are displaced, but come on, when will people realize that living near a big fast moving river has dangers, and that they should move back away from the water? I'm sure that FEMA will declare it a disaster area, and federal funds will pour in.

Contrast this to the wildfires in Texas, which were a genuine disaster that couldn't be prevented. FEMA and the White House have already said that Texas is SOL (Shit out of luck,) and there won't be Federal funds for those who lost homes to something nobody could possibly control, much less predict.

It just goes to show that Obama is a tyrant and won't lift a finger to help people who didn't vote for him, or might be TEA Party Members, or even libertarians. You'll have to forgive me if I'm confused, but isn't a President supposed to work for everybody, not just those who voted for him? Should he represent all American's?

Is it any wonder that half the country wants him gone, hopefully back to Kenya, where he has a passport.
Because god knows, he doesn't use an American Passport when he travels.

Obama's way to kill the economy, and steal yet more money from our pockets

2011-05-05T18:28:00.000-07:00

The draft of the transportation proposal, which reportedly has been circulated within the Department of Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget, would create a $300 million office within the Federal Highway Administration to be called the “Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office.”

If anything shows how out of touch this administration is, it is this. Why would anyone who's trying to find a way to stay within budget, create a 300 million dollar office?

Common sense would say that this is a bad idea and that any one who wants to be re-elected, should run screaming as far away from this, as possible. But, our favorite teleprompter in chief, who by the way, doesn't have any kind of degree in economics, or even in common sense, would rather move our country even closer to Orwell's Big Brother world.

I will tell you this, I will not allow anyone to put anything on my car that broadcasts my location or travel plans to anyone, period. This would be a violation of my right to privacy, and another stupid tax would go even further in breaking my bottom line.

Listen up and listen good, Big Brother Obama, We don't want this change you want to bring, and we don't see any hope at all for this country with you in charge. Maybe you should just write your memiors and go join Carter in retirement.

Texas Railroad Commision changes name and wants secret meetings

2011-05-03T08:42:00.000-07:00

In recent news from Austin, The Texas legislators voted to change the name of the Commission to the Texas Oil and Gas Commission. And in an amendment, they also voted to have secret meetings when it comes to rate increases and other controversial discussions.

In my humble opinion, the name change is needed, but the secrecy is not. The taxpayers should always be allowed to be present when the Oil and gas commission discusses the raising of tax rates. This is because it's ultimately the consumer that pays for those increases, and we should always have the ability to sit in on such discussions.

The fact that the commission wants to meet in secrecy, only sounds to me like they want to raise rates and don't want us to know about it, until it's done with.

This is not government by the people, for the people, of the people, it's government by state, for the state, of the state, and it's illegal, as per the Texas constitution.

I am sick and tired of the State and Federal Government thinking that they can disregard the will of the people who voted them into office. This is a cancer that needs to be cut out.

Osama Bin Laden dead. (Or is he?)

2011-05-02T02:03:00.000-07:00

My wife woke me up at 12 am, asking, "Are you awake enough to hear the radio?" Between my mumbling, she cryptically said, "Because if it's true, Obama just got re-elected." Needless to say, I groggily came around, wondering if I'd missed time and it was 2012 already. Instead, I heard that US Forces in Pakistan had just Killed Osama Bin Laden.
My first thought was, "Damned, now he won't get to stand trial or spend time in G'Tmo." Then I kind of thought about it, and maybe it's for the best. I know that the families of 9/11 won't be happy that they didn't get to stone him, but justice was served. Then later, somewhere around 2am, I heard that the World's most wanted man was given a full military funeral at sea, and I was like, "What the hell? Since when do we honor terrorists so?" When they mentioned it was in accordance with Muslim law, I couldn't believe it.
Bin Laden had orchestrated the death of 3000 people, sent us into two stupid wars, got our brave soldiers killed, and he gets a full military funeral at sea?

If you are thinking that Obama might get re-elected. Don't fret, it's a year and 5 months until the next election, and the way Obama is going, most of us will forget that Bin Laden is dead by then, and we'll be backto concentrating on the spiraling debt, the massive entitlements, and other things, and Bin Laden will still be sitting at the bottom of the ocean, being chewed on by sand crabs.

It's sad, but it seems like some people just won't listen, because the easiest way to win this war, and yes it's a war against Islam, is to destroy mecca, Medina, and let the Israeli's blow the hell out of the al-asqa mosque that stands on the site of Solomon's temple.

I find it just a bit odd, but so far, Obama has gotten us into two more wars, one in Libya, and maybe one in Pakistan by invading countries that haven't touched us or attacked us. So much for the idiot in chief's promise to bring troops home.

By the way, I have a message for the US Forces that killed Bin Laden. "Way to go, guys, YOU ROCK!!!"

Climate Change: Facts

2011-05-02T01:53:00.000-07:00

Unless you live in a place where the temperature stays 72 degrees year around, it rains at 3:30 pm every day, like clockwork, and it's always a nice 60 degrees at night, and the grass is always green, no matter what the season, your climate is always changing.

Take for instance where I live. Friday it was 85 degrees, the sand was blowing. No, I don't live in the desert, I live in west Texas and where I work, there is sand. Saturday it was 65 degrees and there were hints of rain. Right now, it's 44 degrees outside and the high is estimated to be 61 degrees and the low might be 40 degrees. And to top it off, it's supposed to be May outside, though it feels more like February.

I hate to tell you people, but we live in a closed, yet dynamic system, and the climate is always changing. Get used to it. The important thing is not to let the Global Destruction fanatics scare you. Honestly, climate is gonna change, it's just a part of life. Embrace it, let it invigorate you, and simply enjoy it. If it's not to your liking, hang around because it will change, it's just a fact of life.

3 months after the explosion at Deepwater Horizon (Or What good is the government?)

2010-06-18T14:11:00.000-07:00

     Deep Water Horizon, one of Beyond Petroleum's deep submergence oil wells, exploded on April 20, 2010.
     It's been a little over 3 months, and what has our shining example of Government efficiency done? As of today, June 18, 2010, very little. Operating under the mantra, "Let no crisis go to waste," the federal government has done, well, nothing, except hold hearings, and open up a line whereby people can reach lawyers to sue Beyond Petroleum.
     What has Beyond Petroleum done since then? They've tried four different containment rigs, all of which have failed, they have tried to suck the oil out of the water, and they've tried to shoot debris into the well head in order to close it down, and have sent ships into the area to suck the crude out of the water.
     In that time, the Congress has invoked the Jones Act, a piece of legislation from the 1920's, in order to keep foreign countries from sending help. So far, 43 countries have offered technology that can clean oil from the water, and have offered to help with the clean up, and our government, in it's infinite wisdom, has said, "No, we don't want your help."
     Hey, DC, I'm saying, "Hell, yes," it's about time that other countries offer to help us, especially since we've spent 60 years helping out other countries, and still send them aid money. "LET Them HELP, we'll take all the help we can get." As far as the Foreign money that's been offered to clean up Ground Zero, in New York, I can understand that, since most of that's been from Muslim countries that still spout nonsense about us being "Devils," but as far as Deep Water Horizon, I don't get your thinking. The ocean water travels the entire world, and effects most of the gulf coast, and could effect the East Coast, and maybe beyond. We need to get it cleaned up, and if people are offering to help, let them help.
    Beyond Petroleum has followed the law in setting up a 28 billion dollar fund in order to help defray the cost of cleaning up the region, and have even hired local people and their fishing boats to help with the clean up. Beyond that, I do think that Beyond Petroleum should be fined for inadequate safety design, and should be cited for not having that handy-dandy little shut off valve in place, or maybe having a back up, or even as Chief O'Brien of DS9 put it, "The Tertiary Backup system."
     But so far, this administration has used this disaster to try to push Cap and Trade, create a new regulatory agency, and I suspect, have ordered the Coast Guard to impede the clean up.
     I also suspect that if BP doesn't put a stop to this oil spill and stay for years cleaning up the mess, the Free Market system will put them out of business, as their investors and the public will cease using BP's oil, gas, and diesel.
     So, since I asked the question: "What has government done?" I am going to answer again, "Not a damned thing." and as for the Great Obama, now is not the time to play Golf, get back to work and at least pretend like you give a shit about the people of Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida. I know it's a stretch to act like you care for the people that put you in office, but once again, it's your job to care.

Health Care Take over at any cost

2010-03-13T07:34:00.000-08:00

A government-takeover of healthcare at any cost. With this singular mission, House Democrats are moving swiftly — as early as next week — to send the Senate government-run healthcare bill to President Obama for enactment — and may do so by avoiding a vote on the actual bill in a futile attempt for political cover.

How can this happen? The short explanation is simply legislative trickery. The longer explanation is that any number of procedural gimmicks may be used — and used simultaneously. Here are just two of the schemes under consideration:

The Slaughter Solution

Named after Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY), this strategy would create a legislative trick to approve the Senate healthcare bill through the House of Representatives without an actual vote on the bill. That’s right. The Majority thinks they can circumvent democracy and hide their true actions by simply claiming in companion legislation that the Senate healthcare bill passed the House.

The result of this shenanigan: the Senate healthcare bill goes straight to President Obama for his signature.

Reconciliation

“Reconciliation” is an expedited budgetary mechanism designed to control the size of government and balance the government’s financial ledger with a simply majority vote. But Democrats in Congress are planning to abuse the legislative process by using “reconciliation” to vastly grow the size of government – with a government-takeover of healthcare.

The Majority is also baiting their Democrat Members to send the grossly-unpopular Senate healthcare bill to President Obama by promising “corrections” to the bill through a reconciliation package. But what this bait-and-switch tactic really means is that the kickback-laden Senate healthcare bill becomes law while the so-called “corrections” being made to quell widespread disgust at their backroom deals and to appease their union allies faces an uncertain future in the Senate.

Either option — alone or combined — tramples basic principles of democracy and defies the will of the American people. At town hall meetings, through letters and calls, and in recent elections, the American people have loudly stated that they do not want a government-takeover of their healthcare.

Regardless of what the American people want, the Majority has proven its commitment to utilizing backroom deals to force government-run healthcare down their throats. Here are just a few of the special deals still in the Senate bill:

· The “Cornhusker Kickback:” Provides that Nebraska — and only Nebraska — will see its full Medicaid costs paid for by the rest of America.

· The “Louisiana Purchase:” Gives an extra $300 million in Medicaid funding to Louisiana.

· “Gator Aid:” Shields 800,000 Florida residents from Medicare Advantage cuts.

· Special Exemption for Insurer Proposing 56% Rate Increase: Exempts Michigan Blue Cross/Blue Shield from the new tax on health insurers, despite an Obama Administration report highlighting the insurance carrier’s proposed 56% rate increase in 2009.

Our freedom in healthcare is being bought and sold in Congress. This is beyond disgraceful. But since Democrats have a 75+ vote majority in the House, our nation could see government-run healthcare enacted next week.

Common sense states that if you have to trick and bribe people into voting for your bill, then it's going to be a worthless bill. People need to stand up and stop this crap, unless you want to hand more of your money over to this oppressive government. This President and this congress have just proven themselves to be criminals and mobsters. Under the RICCO statutes, Obama, Reid, Boxer, and Pelosi should be arrested for high crimes and misdemeanors. They have proven themselves to be aristocrats and that they consider us their own private property.

We, as sovereign American Citizens are no one's property, and we won't be treated as such.

Carbon Dioxide isn't a deadly poison

2009-12-07T17:18:00.000-08:00

At the Copenhagen summit for climate change, there is a rumor that they are going to declare Carbon Dioxide a deadly gas. Would you think they were stupid? After all CO2 (carbon dioxide) is something that we, as living beings exhale every minute. Then, thanks to the great creation that we live upon, plants take in this waste and spit out oxygen, which bonds with nitrogen and we breath it in.

If true, this is tyranny, and it could lead to a tax on breathing. Can you image having to pay a tax to breath in and out? Would you pay it? I wouldn't. Why should I pay for something that our planet gives us for free.

Rumor is that the globalists and power elite want to be the only people to live on Earth. Common sense has it, that if there are only 5000 people, and they are the power elite, who have never done honest work in their lives, what makes them think that they'll survive alone? I hate to tell them, but without farmers, ranchers, gardeners, they won't be able to grow their own food, or butcher their own food.

Why don't we take these morons and dump them on an island in the middle of the ocean and see how they'd survive without servants.

Rumor also has it, that our idiot of a president will surely sign this stupid treaty and doom us to the death of a thousand cuts.

Would you buy a new house without first looking it over?

2009-11-17T21:14:00.000-08:00

Would you buy a house without first walking through it, to make sure all of your furniture will fit? Of course not, then why should a representative or Senator vote on a Bill without first reading it? If our elected officials had any common sense, they wouldn't vote on any Bill set before them, before they'd had the time to read it. At the very least, they should vote "no" until they've actually read the bill.

Take, for instance, the Cap and Trade Bill, and the Health Care Bill in the house and Senate. These bills are 2000 pages each and they have been sprung on the representatives and Senators at the very last minute, no debate is allowed, and the idiots still vote before reading them. I'm guessing that it's the same for the Stimulus bills, and every other bill that runs through congress.

I think that Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid should take a step back and give the representatives and senators three weeks to read over the bills, then vote. Because as it stands, they are violating the law and forcing people to vote on things they haven't read. I am predicting that if they don't stop this, the American citizens will start a revolution and nobody will be able to stop it, until it's over.

Why Relgions should stay out of politics

2009-11-12T14:26:00.000-08:00

Can we say, "Un-freakin-believable?" I'll reiterate what I've always said, "Churches should stay out of politics." Why would I say that? It could be because the Church's job isn't to influence policies, or to influence science, but in reality, it is because the Church is supposed to take care of people, without government help. Or maybe it's because of stupidity like this.

As usual, when religion and politics intermingle, people forget about science and about common sense. 350/million is stated as the upper limit of CO2 in the atmosphere. What would a church know about what happens when it goes above? As a scientist, I can tell you that in the billions of years that the Earth has been around, it has never gone above the 350/million. If anything, everytime CO2 has gone up, plants have flourished and O2 has been released to counteract the CO2.

It it true that we are supposed to be stewards of the world, but that doesn't mean that we need churches telling us what to do, or even governments. We should be working as individuals to fix our problems.

There have been rumors that Al Gore wants his brand of Enviro-nonsense to be recognized as a religion. For Real? Science that 1/2 of the scientists in the world now disagree with should be a religion? What's next, Church of Optimus Prime?

Hasan psychotic? Why was he promoted to Major?

2009-11-12T14:10:00.000-08:00

If you haven't seen my other articles on Major Hasan, you can read them here and here. Today I was browsing the news sites, when I came across this one.

What caught my attention was the following paragraph.

Hasan had been a trouble spot on officials' radar since he started training at Walter Reed, six years earlier. Several officials confirm that supervisors had repeatedly given him poor evaluations and warned him that he was doing substandard work.

Both fellow students and faculty were deeply troubled by Hasan's behavior — which they variously called disconnected, aloof, paranoid, belligerent, and schizoid. The officials say he antagonized some students and faculty by espousing what they perceived to be extremist Islamic views. His supervisors at Walter Reed had even reprimanded him for telling at least one patient that "Islam can save your soul."

I've been working for a living since 1992, and I know from personal experience that on the times when my work was substandard, I was threatened with termination from my jobs. Why then, was Major Hasan not passed over for promotions, and why was he promoted to Major?

I think it could have been one of three reasons.

1) Islamophobia - I think that because he was a Muslim, he was given chance after chance after chance, and all because they didn't want to offend him, or have him go to CAIR and complain that he was terminated because of his religion.

2) Political Correctness - If it had been a Christian Psychologist that gave the "god can save your soul," speech, he or she would have been fired, but since Major Hasan was a religious minority, and he wasn't christian, nobody did anything about it, or did anything but complain.

3) Fear - They were afraid that if they released him, they'd have to answer questions about why they did it, and they just let it go.

To be perfectly honest, if he was all that they say he was, then why did they keep him in the army? Maybe if they had terminated his employment, 14 people would be alive now.

Those crazy lovable russians

2009-10-17T15:58:00.000-07:00

Today seems to be a day for whacky news articles. This one, about the Russian's and weather modification made me chuckle.

I suppose if we wanted to attack Russia, we could do it on a day when the air force is doing weather service. (chuckles)

Their economy must be good, if they can afford a city budget of 60bil. But, with all that money, I wonder why they haven't thought about doming the city over. After all, if Houston is thinking about it, surely Moscow would be a good site for one too.

Global Warming, for real?

2009-10-17T15:31:00.000-07:00

After reading this article, Underwater Cabinet Meeting, I could only shake my head. Come on, do these people not know that we respire carbon dioxide and breath in oxygen?
I also keep wondering if nobody has read the new science reports that state, "Solar flares at a minimum, temperature drops, global warming a myth." Let's take these one at a time:
1) Our local star is the source of heat for our planet. We ride in the third orbital zone and when there are solar flares, it gets hot, and when there aren't it gets cool. Or more accurately, when there are a lot of sun spots, it gets hot, and when there aren't, it gets cold. It's called solar convection and our environment traps the heat under the clouds.

2) If you want to get rid of Carbon Dioxide, stop killing trees, or plant more trees. But then, if we planted more trees, we'd have a green house environment and maybe the ice caps would melt. The world used to be covered in forests as far as the eye could see, and that's why there was an abundance of life and water. When we started stripping the land of trees, we got hot temperatures, no water, and dust storms that blocked the sunlight and radiation from the ground.

Which would you rather have? Con artists getting rich selling so-called, "Carbon indulgences," or be able to keep your money for yourself?

Here's a few things heard on the news in just the last week or so.
1) Electricity companies urge congress to pass cap and trade bill.
Well, duh.....if the cap and trade goes through, they can buy carbon credits and still charge you an arm and a leg for electricity. They'll sell their own investors into slavery to make more profits. It's just greed, pure and simple.

2) Al Gore denies global cooling.
Well, this one may not have been on the radio, but it's true none the less, because he's still trying to hype the global warming myth, because it's his company that will sell the carbon credits and he looks to get very rich on the deal. Again, greed, pure and simple. You can bet he won't have to worry about it, nor does he.

3) NASA/Scientists report drop in temperature/ no change of temperature.
This is a given, considering that for the past ten years, the temperature has only gone up 1/10th of a degree. In that time, it's actually stayed pretty much the same. The only places that have reported increases are places where the gauges are within 50 feet of blacktop. You see, the tar and oil traps heat. So go figure...right?

4) California to outlaw plasma televisions.
Come on really? We'll outlaw modern technology because a 52 inch TV leads to global warming? What would you have us do, get rid of TV's, computers, heaters, air conditioners, ovens, stoves, microwaves, iceboxes, and go back to primitive technology? I am very doubtful that any device that's energy star rated actually contributes to global warming, but then global warming is a myth. If California makes plasma's illegal, then that will be a step toward tyranny. Why would you want to destroy california's economy? Could it be because the "terminator" is just a stupid moron that's actually a liberal?
Or could this be vast conspiracy to get people to move out of california so he can sell it to mexico? (Sarcasm, folks, I don't actually believe that he's capable to running such a fantastic conspiracy, after all, he is an actor, and rather bad one at that.)

So, what we are actually looking at is just another chance for the nanny state to take over and tell you what's best for you and your pocket book.

After all, global warming is just a myth.

Gays in the Military: Why do you have to flaunt your sexual behavior in public?

2009-10-10T17:41:00.001-07:00

After reading this little blurb, I only have one question?
Why do gay people feel that they have to display their sexual behaviors in public?
I've always been a firm believer of "What goes on in the bedroom stays in the bedroom." If two guys want to stick their joysticks in places not designed for joysticks, then that's their business, but I do draw the line when it comes to public displays of affection.

A soft kiss on the hand, or quick smooch in public is okay, but guys, girls, and those who haven't decided which sex you are: I don't want to know about what goes on in your bedroom, nor do I want to see it in public.

Do I think gays should be able to serve in the armed forces, yes. Do I think it should go further than that? No. Because war is not about Sex on the battlefield, it's about fighting and winning. Do I care if the top general or admiral might be as gay as a three dollar bill? No, but I don't need to hear about his or her sexual exploits.

Do I think gays and lesbians should be able to get married? No, because Marriage is a sacred institution, given to us by the creator in order to procreate.

Do I think it's okay for two committed gay or lesbians to have a relationship? Sure, but don't call it marriage, call it a civil union, call it a gayraige, or something. Don't insult my spirituality or my religion by calling it what it isn't.

Should gay or lesbians be able to adopt? Sure, if two adults are in a committed relationship and feel they can help raise orphans, go for it. I don't care.

Personally, I think the federal government should be out of the marriage game altogether and leave it to we, the people, do decide what our relationships are. It's not up suits in DC to tell you that you can't cohabitate, or get a job, or visit your companion in the hospital, or collect your partners insurance policy after they die. Those things are legalities that we all deserve, regardless of sexual orientation, but you don't have to take it out of the bedroom.

So, in this case, maybe don't ask, don't tell, isn't such a bad thing. After all if you don't ask me about what goes on in my bedroom, I won't ask you what goes on in yours.

President Obama gets Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-09T09:47:00.000-07:00

When I heard this, I was understandably confused and angered. I mean, what the hell has President Obama done to deserve a peace prize? Nothing. Nothing at all.

Since becoming president, he has done the following:

Gone on the Obama's apology tour
passed the bailout package that sent us into depression
passed the cash for clunkers program
bought out banks
appointed thieves and socialists and communists as czars
told Israel to stop building on their own land
has not taken a firm stance against russia, iran, or Venezuela
has attempted to put the ex-president of honduras back in power
has tried to pass the medical reform bill that nobody wants
has used the race card twice and insulted the harvard police by calling them stupid.
has had one beer summit
Has called patriotic Americans terrorist and cowards
has all but ignored the general on the ground in Afghanistan
has tried to get the olympics and failed
has fired one Inspector general for accusing his friend of fraud.
has broken laws that he himself has signed.
has buddied up to hugo chavez and fidel castro
is engaged in destroying our way of life.

So, in my honest opinion, he has done nothing that could even remotely entitle him to win the Nobel Peace Prize, and like his idol, Jimmy Carter, will probably use it to bash us over the head and further his socialist agenda.

It leads to an interesting question: What is the criteria for getting a Nobel Peace Prize? Is it selling out your country, or using your race to accuse everyone else to being racist, or maybe even running roughshod over the constitution?

Religious Leaders should stay out of politics

2009-08-19T16:23:00.000-07:00

After two days of silence on health care, Obama re-engaged Wednesday, urging religious leaders to back his proposals and preparing for a pep talk to a much larger audience of liberal activists, whose enthusiasm has been questioned.

To which I say:

Religious leaders should stay out of this fight, because when you mix religion and politics, you always invariably tend to lose the message you want to send. The mandate of the church, as set forth by God and Christ, is to spread the good news of the ressurection of Christ, and the joy of his redeeming grace.

I don't recall a time when God said, "dabble in the politics of mortals.". So that means that God has never been interested in illegal immigration, political refugees, or even healthcare. The creator is, as always, is more interested in your immortal soul than he is your mortal body.

Anytime religious leaders forget their task, they end up going against the will of God and things like what happen in afghanistan and iraq happen, namely people killing for political reasons, but blaming it on God.

President Obama losing message

2009-08-11T11:58:00.000-07:00

The title says it all: President Obama is losing his message on the proposed Healthcare bill that he wants passed before 2010.
It's not just the white house, it's also the democrats who have lost their message. It seems like they have forgotten that they didn't inherit their seats, but were voted into office.
At a recent town hall meeting, a democrat representative screamed at local doctor who just wanted some answers, while another one accused Republicans, senior citizens, and Veterans who want answers, and flock to the meetings to get answers, of being "Political terrorists" no better than Timothy McVeigh.
Of course, it's not all democrats that do this. So far, the "Blue Dog" democrats have held their own by bucking their own party. My hat is off to them. Keep up the good work.

My big question is: Why do those people who don't a single thing about the medical system, want to change it and mess it up? That leads to another question: Why in the hell should illegal immigrants get any part of healthcare in this country, where they legally don't belong?

That question was a brought about by the Hispanic league of representatives, who told Obama not to change a single thing in the bill. They did this because there is a loophole big enough to drive a mack truck through. Nowhere in the bill does it say "Only legal American Citizens can get these benefits." The HLR thinks that if it's left alone, they can get illegal immigrants rights to more free medical care.

I say that this is stupid, and they should remember who voted them in. They don't work for non-citizens, they work for us, the card carrying american citizen. If this is not fixed, it won't make a difference, because as soon as it starts, people who want it for free, so they don't have to pay for it, will flock to it and it'll be as broke as social security, medicare, and medicaide.

Having worked in the medical field, I can tell you that a majority of the ER visits are illegal immigrants who won't pay to go to a private physician, or those who will wait until their sick kid throws up five times at midnight, before going to the ER.

The Emergency room is not for the common cold, flu, or stomach aches, it's for things that will kill you if you don't get treatment.

In short, I believe that the Democrats should leave the medical system alone, and if they want to take on a cause, they can take on the trail lawyers, who are the real reason why medicine is so expensive.

Let's face it, the government doesn't have a good track record with taking care of private information. Because of that, I don't want them to have control over my medical care, or my medical information.

Czar's, Czar's, Czar's.

2009-08-07T20:07:00.000-07:00

According to my research, there are 31 Czars in the United States Government. As best as I can tell, these people didn't have to undergo any congressional interrogation before being appointed to their positions of power.

If we go strictly by the constitution, any cabinet level position must be confirmed by the senate, and if these Czar's haven't been confirmed by the senate, then they are above the law, and the Senate has no oversight into their activities.
Take for instance, Obama's new Healthcare Czar, who wants everyone to send "fishy" emails and letter to the white house, so they will know who is dissenting against the Universal Healthcare that he wants.

Also, consider his E-Czar, who was a thief, or his pay Czar.

For cryin' out loud, this is the United States of America, not the USSR, we don't need no stinking czar's running around.

If you want people in cabinet level positions, we, the people, get to have our representatives get oversight, and that's the law.

Give me Liberty or Give me Death

2009-08-07T19:57:00.000-07:00

The White House announced early in the week that "Dissenters are spreading misinformation about the Healthcare reforms. If you get a 'fishy' email, forward it to the White House." To me, this smacks a bit of the Evil Empire.

Say what you will about Bush, but never in the last 8 years did he collect people's email addresses, names, and personal information in order to create a database of dissenters. The fact that Obama's healthcare Czar did, is almost a high crime and misdemeanor.

When will congress start to get a handle on this problem and tell the President that he is not the chosen son of Abraham here, and he is not the high pontiff, nor is he god?

To my Texas mind, all these Czar's running around puts me in mind of the KGB, and I don't like it.

Science: Are humans to blame for Global Warming?

2009-07-27T11:02:00.000-07:00

Is it just bad science that compels astronauts and some fringe scientists to conclude that humanity causes global warming?

Onboard the space station, the canadian astronaut said that "the polar ice caps have melted, and some of the snow is gone." He attributed this to human caused global warming. But, is he just blowing smoke, or do we, as the residents of the planet, have to take some of the blame?

Evidence shows that the Earth is coming out of a global ice age, and sunspot activity is the highest it's ever been, and the volcanos around the Ring of Fire, are pouring billions of tons of Carbon into the air.

Is it folly to imagine that we two legged masters of the Earth can be the cause of the ozone layer depleting, or is it just bad science?

I seem to remember these same scientists as those who were on the Global Freezing bandwagon thirty years ago.

I suppose the next question is, "What do we do about it?" Somehow, I don't think that just taxing a person for driving a car, or breathing, (yes, I can see where this is going,) will fix anything. All it's going to do is a) rake in big bucks for someone to sell pieces of paper with "Carbon Tax Credit" written on it, b) make people feel better about themselves, and c) destroy a vibrant economy that's already reeling on the ground.

If the government was really serious about fixing the problems, they'd mandate that the auto manufacturers have to make cars that run on 80% electricity, 20% something else, or simply say, "You have to make electric cars that travel 800 miles on a charge and can be recharged while moving down the road." If government were really serious about cutting down on smog combustible vehicles, they'd tell BNSF (The railroad through Texas, Oklahoma, etc,) to make some room in it's schedule for passenger trains between the bigger cities. I know I'd ride it between Lubbock, Dallas, Amarillo, etc. I'd rather read a book than drive.

But, the government won't, because they'd rather steal your money and make speeches, than fix the problem.

Or at least, that's how it seems to me.

Independence Day, 2009

2009-07-04T22:04:00.000-07:00

I was out tonight with my family, watching the fireworks and listening to the Lubbock Youth Symphony, and I was reminded why this country exists.

Below you will find the Declaration of Independence from 1776. I would so much love for us to get back to what they wanted us to have. We have forgotten about the founders, who took independence by force and risked losing their lives to do it.

I hope that after reading this, you feel as I do, and thank God that we live in a free country and enjoy the fruits of our labors.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Have I become so jaded that I can only see the wrong?

2009-07-01T14:04:00.000-07:00

The other day, after reading my blog, my wife turned to me and asked, "How come all you can do is complain? Why can't you find anything good in what's going on?" To be honest, I had to sit back and think about it. Have I become so jaded that I can only see what's wrong with the first black president is doing?

After some soul searching, I realized that maybe I am jaded, and I might have a reason to be, but that's only because I feel like I'm Paul Revere, and the current administration are the Red Coats marching on Bunker Hill.

To be perfectly honest, I am to the point that I hold all politicians in equal contempt, and want nothing more to do, than smack them in the back of the head, like Gibbs does on NCIS. I want to get their attention and whisper, "Hey, read the constitution. It's not your job to control private businesses, or take care of the non-contributers, or even manage the economy. Your only job is to defend our country, create laws, and then let us enjoy our lives, our liberty, and our pursuits of happiness."

If I could, I'd quietly point out that this is the United States, not midevial Europe, and that Senators and REpresentatives are not members of the aristocracy. After all, that is what our founding fathers fought to free us from. But now, 233 years later, our public servants consider themselves the rulers, and are even talking about leaving their senate and house seats to their children, all the while, trying to take away our abilities to live independant lives and our god given rights to speak out against tyranny.

Franken wins Senate Seat: What's next?

2009-07-01T13:55:00.000-07:00

After spending 8 months in court, and spending millions of dollars, Al Franken has finally won his bid for a place in the US Senate. But, what do we have to look forward to?

An unnamed senator was heard to say, "We have 60 democrats now, let's just push our agenda through the senate and ignore what the republicans have to say."

To be totally honest, the democrats only actually have 58 votes on any day, since Senator Byrd and Senator Kennedy only show up for major votes.

In my opinion, if the democrats try to push legislation through without giving the republicans any say so, then they are leaving 50% of the american people without a say so, and there could be dire consequences for this country.

I am of the feeling that politics has become more of a "We're going to do it our way," instead of "Let's work together."

So now that the democrats have their 60 votes, are they going to raise taxes on the businesses that make our country so strong? Or will they take a vital healthcare industry and make it no better than a second world system?

Are the liberals so enamoured of collectivism that they have forgotten what our founding fathers fought to bring into being? Namely, a country where a person who works hard, can make money and leave his children more than what he had.

Personally, I'd rather have a 50% balance in the house and senate, just so that they have to work together.

High Crimes and misdemeanors

2009-06-25T13:02:00.000-07:00

Last year while Obama was running for president, he co-sponsored a bill that made it harder to fire Inspector Generals without giving them 30 day notices, and submitting their name to congress.

Does it surprise anyone that our anointed president has already broken a law that he, himself helped create? If you said yes, then you must have been asleep for the last six months.

Americorp Inspector Gerald Whalpin, an unpolitical man, tracked down fraud in the Americorp and because the con artist was an Obama supporter, he got a call in the middle of the night, telling him he had an hour to either quit or he would be fired. Can you guess where that phone call came from? If you said 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, you're right. He got a call from the office of the president, threatening him, and when he didn't choose to resign, our anointed leader arbitrarily called him senile and said he was confused.

At the very least, this is the breaking of a federal law, and if our president did indeed threaten to fire him, then he should be charged with High Crimes and misdemeanors, and impeached. So far, he's done more illegal things than any other president, other than Nixon.

For 8 years, we had people trying to impeach President Bush because of faulty intelligence, and for going to war with Iraq.

Before that, we had people trying to impeach President Clinton for alleged sex acts in the oval office.

Compared to what has happened to the IG, those were the equivalent of toilet papering someone's house. Neither Bush or Clinton actually broke a law, while this president (If it's true,) has already broken one he himself co-sponsored.

Government healthcare soars to 1trillion over 10 years

2009-06-25T12:25:00.000-07:00

I am starting to think that the Democrats and Obama want to deliberately devastate our national economy. The last time I posted, it was chastise the President for trying to create a national healthcare nightmare, and putting a 600 billion price tag on it. Now, they've upped the price to 1 trillion.
Once again, I say this is a bad idea, and for a handful of reasons.

1) Most importantly, it is not the Governments job to take care of it's citizens, or make sure they have healthcare insurance. That is up to each citizen to make sure he and his family is taken care of.

2) The government already has a healthcare insurance program, that the've run into the ground with all the impact of an asteroid strike. It is called medicare. In the last 10 years, they've cut the medicare benifits that hospitals get from 100% to 50%. What's to stop them from the same to this new program?

3) The people that wouldn't be covered by this policy. Would you believe 18-30 year olds, the poor, and most likely those with medical disabilities. 18-30 year olds don't buy insurance, because the spend money on the latest shiny, the poor because they can't afford it, and those with medical problems, because insurance companies won't cover them.

4) Once the government starts offering insurance, it can undersell other agencies, it can enforce state mandates, and can practice unfair practices. Consider insurance for people over 65, there used to be companies that offered policies, but once the government got into the old person's racket, they started offering policies for pennies on the dollar, and other companies couldn't handle that, so they got out.
The federal government can create state mandates, that other companies have to pay for, while the federal government doesn't.

5) The government can't control the budget as it is, and can't control spending, and can't keep costs down.

Between you and me, I consider this another way in which the Federal Government, the Democrats, and some republicans think they can create a dependant state, where our every need will be met by a beaurocracy. I really think this is a bad idea, since everywhere this has been done, Doctors have moved, quit their jobs, and refused to deal with the government. Consider Canada, Britain, and France.

If this is allowed to become dejuer, the federal government will appoint someone who will go over your records, and will say, "I'm sorry that you have cancer (Broken hip, fractured jaw, snapped spine, etc,) Mr. Smith, but it will be six months before you can go to a doctor and get treatment."

Already there is talk to repealing the tax breaks that companies get for buying employees health insurance. Take for instance, your company pays for you a 3000 dollar a year policy. If the government starts taxing that, then your employeer will probably drop you from that program, and say "To hell with it." Does anyone actually think that thier company will give them a 3000 dollar a year raise?

The governments thinking is that your health insurance from work is like a part of your wages, so it can be taxed.

WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR YOU PEOPLE TO WAKE UP AND SEE THAT YOUR GOVERNMENT WANTS TO PUT YOUR BUTT BACK IN SLAVERY?

Everything this government is doing is trampling on our Lives, Liberties, Properties, and Pursuits of Happiness.

If we don't stop them, we'll be vassals to the state, and those in the senate, house, and white house, will own us. If we allow this to happen, we deserve what we get.

As for me and mine, I will not be a slave that belongs to anyone. I am a free person.

So-Called Healthcare reform is actually, "kill the healthcare" reform

2009-06-13T09:50:00.000-07:00

It looks like President Obama, once again, doesn't have the first idea about how the Healthcare system works. In his weekly address, he said he'd found 303billion dollars that would be one part of the 600billion healthcare reform.

Of course, this is coming from a man who has never worked in the medical field, has never visited a public hospital, nor can he obviously balance the federal checkbook. I'm going to take a few things from the article and put them into perspective.

In his address Saturday, Obama refers to a 10-year total of more than $600 billion in “savings” for health care. However, he does not explain in his latest comments that, under his revised budget released last month, $326 billion of that amount would come from tax hikes on Americans making over $250,000 a year, “loophole closers,” and higher fees for some government services.

What this means is 1) He's going to raise the taxes on people making 250 thousand a year. In my opinion, this is stupid, because those people who make 250 thousand, work themselves to the bone to earn that money. Most of the people who earn that kind of cash, donate to charity.
(If you close the loopholes, they may decide not to donate.) Honestly, I think it'd be easier if they dropped the graduated tax nightmare that is our current system and would go to a flat 10-15% sales tax. Just between us, when you tax people for making money, you are punishing them for going after the American Dream, and if you tax them too hard, you'll discourage them from even working.

The bulk of the new $313 billion in savings would come from cutting or reducing the growth of payments to hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers and laboratories — though the major cuts don't target doctors.

Oh yippee yay, you won't pay the hospitals (ie, the nurses, radiology departments, lab departments,) the medical equipment manufactureres, or outside laboratories, but you will keep paying the doctors. For crying out loud, if you don't pay the hospitals, equipment manufacturers, or labs, then the doctors will have to practice out of their cars, because without the payments to the hospitals, the nurses, lab techs, and xray techs will look for other jobs, and leave the doctors to do everything themselves, and those of us who have worked in hospitals, know that most doctors never show up in the hospitals, and wouldn't know a blood pressure cuff, from a CBC lab test. Nor would they be able to take xrays, or carry out the lab tests themselves. So in effect, you'd be chasing off the people who do the real work.

Over the next decade, $110 billion is slated to come from reducing reimbursements to take account of what Orszag described as the ability of providers to improve their efficiency. “Health care services should be able to achieve and do achieve productivity improvements over time,” he said. According to a fact sheet released by the White House, future increases in such Medicare payments would be reduced based on an assumption that health care providers achieve half the productivity increases seen elsewhere in the economy.

What does he think this is, an automotive manufacturing plant? Of course hospitals will only be able to achieve half the productivity increases, that because nursing is a full time job, and in more severe cases, one nurse can only take care of one patient at a time. The same goes for surgeries, and major trauma. Medicine isn't an assembly line project. The doctor has to see them, order tests, interpret the tests, and make a decision on their condition, before he can say that they will survive or not. A typical motor vehicle accident that arrives at a hospital takes anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour (per person) before the doctor can clear them from backboards, or send them home. It's not as easy as "can you feel my fingers, okay you can go."
Surgeries are even more labor intensive, and even the easiest one can not be finished in 30 minutes.

For this administration to think that they can fix it like this, just shows that they don't know what they are talking about. Maybe they should have to be a patient in a local county hospital for a day.

I hate to tell you, but in the last 14 years, the average payment from medicare has dropped from 100% to 40% and that makes it harder to hire staff, and keep them employed. People in the medical field, are just like everyone else. They want a stable job, want cost of living increases, and want to chase the American Dream, but when you cut the cost from Medicare/insurance, etc, a full time position gets changed to part time, and they lose money. For some reason, this doesn't work when trying to keep employees.

So, what's going to happen? Will the government only be happy when the illegal immigrants have insurance, at the expense of the rest of us?

I'll readily admit that I'm not a politician, and hence use common sense, but to me it seems that the dwellers of malaria infested DC don't actually care about us. They only care about lining their own pockets and selling our future to our enemies. However, not once has any of them said, "I don't need 110thousand a year, so I'll vote against the automatic pay raise."

Is our President delusional and seeing through rose tinted glasses

2009-06-04T07:47:00.000-07:00

In a speech to Muslims, in Cairo Egypt, the President of the United States gave another one of his eloquent teleprompter speeches, in which he expounded on our faults, but failed to point out the faults of the "Peace loving" Muslim fanatics around the world.

I'm going to take exact quotes and give my opinion on what the truth is:

"This cycle of suspicion and discord must end,"
I actually agree with this, but so far, Muslim fanatics are the one's causing suspicion and discord. When they stop trying to sue people for practicing free speech, I'll consider them as normal folks.
In every instance of an IED in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's the muslim fanatic that either sets the bomb, detonates the bomb, or blows himself up for his god.
Muslims in the netherlands have threatened to kill a man for speaking his mind.
In the United States, it's CAIR, the Muslim/american "peace" groups, and fanatics that are trying to sue a news commentator and blogger into giving up his freedom of speech by saying that his blogs and comments "are a theat to their organizations and lives."

"And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,"

So far, I haven't heard him speak against the Taliban, who are attacking innocent women and children in Pakistan, or those who have launched attacks against the government of pakistan. I haven't heard him speak out against the warlords who force afghani farmers to grow drugs, nor have I heard him speak out against the egyptian that killed his two teenage daughters in Dallas (just because they wanted to date American boys.) To this date, I have yet to hear him speak out against the muslim men in the phillipines who have killed christian girls on their way home from school, nor have I heard him speak out against honor killings wherever they may happen.

"Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist,"

In this, he is right, but doesn't go far enough in saying that Hamas and the PLO are the ones that fire rockets into Israel and kill innocent people.
Nor does he call them what they are, Terrorists who can't accept that Israel has given up land on three occassions or that they move into that land and shoot rockets into Israel.

"The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people,"

He doesn't mention here that the Palestinian authority won't lift a hand to arrest terrorists, nor apologize for the fanatics that kill innocent people. He doesn't mention that the PA sends money to terrorists and supplies them with weapons.

In a gesture to the Islamic world, Obama conceded at the beginning of his remarks that tension "has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations."

Like a typical liberal, he considers our country to be a colonial power, without ever realizing that we have not once stayed and set up a government in a foreign country that's been run from washington. We have intervened in Europe and Japan (during World War II) Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, and once we were done, we never forced them to accept our type of government.
While at the same time, Muslims move to other countries and expect the people already living there to accept islam as their religion, and try to enforce laws against freedom of speech, press, and religion.

Consider the following:
American Soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan can't have public baptisms, can't carry Bibles, and can't display the emblems of their faith; all because it might offend muslims.

Muslims living in America and Europe try to force the governments of those lands to accept islam as the predominant religion, and work to curtial the free expression of speech, press, and religion. And when they don't get what they won't, they start riots, and burn cars. There are even some places in Europe where the law enforcement can't go, because those are "muslim only" enclaves.

Personally, I say that until Muslims start behaving like civilized people, and monitoring and speaking against the fanatics, I will always treat them with distrust and suspicion.

Let us not forget that so far Muslims have done the following: Blown up the Marine Barracks in Libya, Blown up the USS Cole, Blown up multiple US and European embassies, Blown up the World Trade Center (in 1993 and 2001), blown up a night club in Bali, Cut off the heads of journalists and christians, and have persecuted all other religions in the name of Allah.

So far, it appears that that all the destruction is being done by the "peace loving" muslims.

Nightmares

2009-03-31T06:35:00.001-07:00

.....Normally, I don't have nightmares, but for the last two weeks, I've had two. Both have been on Tuesday morning, at around 6:25 or so. I don't usually put my personal life on the web, but since I don't know if anyone even reads this, then this is more like a journal than anything else.

......The one I had last week started out in a school building, and I was either a student or I was a School teacher, and during the dream, I came across this empty swimming pool on the third floor of the building. (I know, pools aren't usually built anywhere but on the ground floor, but.....) There were a lot of kids using this pool for a skateboard park, and there was no way out of the pool, to the lower floors. At this point, one of the kids told me that there were ways out, but I'd have to find the doorway and crawl through a tunnel to get to the lower floors. After finding and kicking the door open, I proceeded to crawl through this very tight tunnel, on my way down to the lower floors. I imagine I had gotten about halfway through it when the building started to collapse and I got trapped in this small tight place. (Of course, it was about that time, that I woke up.)

.....The one I had this morning was just as strange. I was asleep in my bed, with my dogs curled up between me and my wife, and it was just like reality, until I suddenly felt teeth biting into my leg. I put my hand down and smacked the offending dog in the head, only to have the other one bite my hand. After puling my hand back, I tried to roll away, only to fall into the floor beside the bed. It was then that they both lunged for my throat. (And of course, that was when I woke up, with my heart in my throat.)

Could these be predictions, or am I very scared of something that I can't control. Why am I remembering these dreams, and why are they happening on Tuesday Mornings?

Fact: Democrat Senate and White House favor Illegal Aliens over Citizens

2009-02-15T05:33:00.000-08:00

While Checking my Email this morning, I came across an Email from NumbersUSA, which is a group that keeps track of illegal immigrants and what the government does about it.

In this email, the owner, Roy Beck let us onto the fact that E-Verify (A government program to make sure that only legal citizens get hired by American Companies) got stripped from the Obama Economic Stimulus Package. Thanks to our elected officials bowing down to the US Department of Commerce, Illegal Immigrants can now get a part of this "great for America" package (Please note the extreme sarcasm here.)

I want to know why our elected officials keep kowtowing to groups that are not a part of the Federal Government. I'll give you a few examples: The Federal Reserve Bank, the US Department of Commerce. These groups are not, nor have they ever been part of the Federal Government. If you don't believe me, read your consititution and history of the United States.

The Federal Reserve Bank, despite it's name, is a private bank, which means that the government has no control over it, yet they still gave it 800billion dollars, with no strings attached, and no way to control it.
The US Department of Commerce, also, is not a Federal Agency, rather it claims to be working for small independant businesses. Yet, it would rather hire cheaper workers than qualified citizens.

When will we wake up and see that our country is slowly fading away, and will soon be no better off than the European Union? We are a sovereign nation, with our own rights, yet at every turn, the Obama administration is selling our rights to people who swim across the big river.

Hiring illegal immigrants at this time (Remember, we are almost in a depression,) is akin to cutting your own throat. If Citizens can't find jobs to replace the one's lost, then it's no wonder that we all feel like we are unrepresented.

Rumor: Democrats want to make it possible for states to increase the welfare roles while still getting the incentive payements

2009-02-12T08:35:00.001-08:00

Overheard on the radio this morning: "The Democrat controlled congress, with the aid of the treacherous three have slipped the following provision into the Obama Bailout package: States may increase the welfare rolls, while at the same time lying about discussing retraining with welfare receipients, in order to maintain the federal incentive payments that states get for each person who goes off of the welfare rolls."

It brings to mind the old joke of, "How can you tell a politician is lying? His lips are moving."

It never ceases to amaze me, that the country of "Don't tread on me," has become the country of "I want the government to be my babysitter." Am I the only person that sees the welfare system as the new slavery? Or am I the only person who has studied history enough to know that when you get too dependant upon other people taking care of you, that you lose the ability to think for yourself?

The fourteenth amendment, section one, states, "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It could just be me, but when you take money from anyone, for anything that's not a hard days wage, that makes you a slave to them. It's doubdly so when the very people who pay you are the ones you vote for.

I guess, once again, my question is: "Why would anyone let the idiots in washington tell them what to do?"

I suppose that if your freedom is for sale, then I hope you get your bucks worth. But as for me and mine, We'll remain free and tell the dipsnots in washington to go fly a kite.

Rumor: They want to disarm us.

2009-02-11T13:45:00.000-08:00

I've heard yet another rumor. This one goes something like, "They are trying to take away our guns by taxing ammunition so high that you can't afford it."

If this rumor is true, this is the left's way of trying to take away our second amendment rights. The second amendment states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now you might ask what constitutes a militia, and I'll be happy to tell you what it is, at least according to the founding fathers.

In the days before the United States Armed forces, each state was responsible for setting up it's own state militia, and these militia's were made up of farmers, ranchers, and townspeople, who kept their own rifles and pistols over the doors of the house.

You have to realize that in the days before the United states, King George ruled the colonies and his army was the strongest army in the world, and the colonists didn't even have the right to defend themselves from that army.

The first militia's were those set up in the thirteen colonies, and those were the ones that pushed the British out of the newly founded country.

My take on what constitutes a modern militia may be different from some peoples. A modern militia should be armed with nothing more than shotguns, hunting rifles, and pistols. Personally, I don't think you or I should own a machine gun and keep it in our house, because after all, you don't exactly need one for hunting ducks or deer.

What do I think we should do, if the government comes after us? Then, I think we can take our pistols and rifles and defend our houses. In Texas, if anyone tries to break into my house, I can shoot him and then call the Law Enforcement Officers. It's called the castle law. After they've entered my house, I can, of course, take and keep their weapon, once it comes back from the police station.

Now, if the military were stupid enough to listen to the Government and attack American Citizens, then they'd be killed in the fire and we'd be justified to take their weapons and use them in defense of our freedom.

Of course, the Armed forces are forbidden to attack American Citizens, and can't even lift a gun to shoot illegal immigrants crossing the borders. Not only would be attacking American Citizens be violating the Constitution, it would be violating our civil rights. In that case, we'd have no choice but to go to the source of the problem and put people with common sense in charge again.

American Soldiers do have to keep in mind, that they have sworn to uphold the Constitution and follow the lawful orders of the officers that are above them in the chain of command. That only includes the military officers and the President, but not any single congressman or senator.

What would I do if they tried to take my Constitutional rights away? I'd fight for my rights, with every fiber of my being.

Rumor: Congress and Obama to shut down conservative Talk Radio

2009-02-10T18:24:00.000-08:00

I have heard this rumor that the new administration might be trying to get enough votes together to stifle the conservative voices on talk radio. The way of doing this is the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

"What is the fairness doctrine?" you ask. Quiet simply, it is a set of rules by which you have to balance out your reporting. Take for instance a radio talk host who speaks out against what he or she perceives to be unfair practices by the government. The fairness doctrine forces him to have an alternative viewpoint as well, or he can't broadcast his views. Further case in point, the hypothetical host calls a democrat (For instance: Geitner, the new secretary of the Treasury,) a thief and a moron. Under the fairness doctrine, the host has to have either Geitner or another democrat on, for balance of course, and if nobody will come on and discuss the accusation, or defend the person, then the host can not discuss this.

A second rumor has it that employees of the Federal Communication Commission have already threatened to walk out if the fairness doctrine is passed, since in their opinion, it will stifle free speech.

If these rumors are true, then our beloved federal government will be in violation of the first amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What this means is that the government can not ever point at a sovereign citizen of the United States of America and say, "You have to shut up, or you'll go jail."

If this rumor turns out to be true, the FCC, with President Obama at the helm will in direct violation of the constitution. If they do indeed start stripping away the rights of individuals to speak freely, then where could they conceivably stop? Would your home be taken away? Could you be put in jail for speaking out against what you consider to be wrong?

In my opinion, this all started when the political correctness was mandated by some person who didn't want to get his feelings hurt, and will stop, (thought I hope not,) with the only people who can speak free, being those who kiss the government's butt.

The Government thinks it can stimulate the economy, but....

2009-02-10T10:56:00.000-08:00

Every since the last quarter of 2008, the big guys have been saying that we are in a recession, and heading into a depression.
It started with the failure of people to pay their mortgages, which some of them should not have had at all.
This can be traced back to President Clinton and the department of housing and urban development, and the chairman of that department, who talked the mortgage companies into giving loans to people who couldn't even pay their credit card bills on time.
Once those subprime loans failed, then those companies started screaming that they migh fail and go out of business.

In their infinite wisdom (notice the heavy sarcasm,) the guys who claim to be smarter than we are (More sarcasm) voted to give 800 million dollars to the Federal Reserve bank to buy the bad loans and free up the credit lines again.
Instead of doing that, the Fed started buying up stock options for the failing banks, and have gone even further in buying stocks in other banks, such as Wells Fargo, Captial One, etc.

Now, in the first quarter of the year 2009, the smart people in washington have just voted to give another 900 million to yet more people to "Stimulate" the economy, but from what I have seen and heard, there is not enough actual infrastructure money set aside to keep us out of a depression. Instead, some of this money is being given to ACORN (The community action group that Obama elected,) the beginning of universal healthcare (Which will kill the medical service in this country,) and has increased the SCHIP program to people who make 80k a year.

In my opinion, this won't stimulate the economy, rather this will bring us down into depression.

If I were asked how to stimulate the economy, I would say.
1) Stop collecting Social security, FICA, and Medicare taxes for two years, which would put more money into people's pockets.
2) Close the borders for five years and keep american jobs for american citizens.
3) Stop giving out free medical care to people who aren't citizens.

In my opinion, if we don't stop these people in Washington from selling us away, we'll end up in slavery to Washington.