In My Humble Opinion

Evil Relies on the Silence of the Good...and Usually Gets it

2010-05-11T16:29:00.001-05:00

Perhaps it is a bit strong to refer to those who state their passionate opinion as evil, but then again, perhaps not. The opinion to which i refer is the charge that Teaparty members are "racist". This sounds merely quirky and lame at first blush, but after some reflection i have Humbly come to realize how vile this lie truly is. These false accusations cause innocent people to suffer.

It is disgusting how those who merely state their opposition to the current status quo are branded as racist, and even terrorists. Some of the members of the Teaparty movement are people of color. These allegations of racism against the general membership of the Teaparty movement end up causing shouts of "race traitor" to those members who are minorities.

In these unsettled times, fear is used as a political tool to herd the masses into the confined pens which the entrenched leadership control. The Patriot Act is a good example of this. "I will keep you safe if you allow me some little extra power until the danger is past," was the promise. Only, there is never any safety, so the little extra power ends up being permanent, and growing, too. And so, in these unsettled times, referring to any grassroots movement by such frightening terms as "racist", "terrorist", "militia movement", and "gun loving" is an OBVIOUS ploy to utilize fear--no! TERROR--to minimize and demonize that movement!

Doubt me? After the attempted Times Square car bombing, were there not theories flying around that it was a "white male in his forties", and "probably a right wing extremist" going around? Remember the guy who suicide-crashed his plane into a government building a few months ago? He was referred to as a "right wing extremist" even after his web site was exposed as really Marxist in nature.

Wake up! Use of fear--that is, terror--to accomplish political ends is TERRORISM! Those who tell their lies about the Teaparty movement are either part of a concerted effort to control our very society, or are dupes who believe whatever they hear from their beloved leadership with no effort to think critically. The Teaparty movement is racist??? HOW??? And think before you answer this question. Apply the same standards of "racism" to those you choose to follow.

There is a civil war IN PROGRESS in this country right this minute. It is being fought in the media. It is being waged in the Congress. Celebrities are virtual WMDs. Little people, like me, have almost no ability to make the slightest difference in the outcome. And when this civil war is over, the real bloodshed will begin.

Dear Lord, i hope i'm wrong.

Fatal Flaws Require Rethinking, Not Better PR

2010-03-14T23:21:00.001-05:00

We bought a car once that we couldn't afford. It cost too much. We figured eventually we'd work it out. Never did. The bank took the car back. It was a bad idea. Fundamentally flawed. In its current form, so is Health Care Reform. Not just flawed. FATALLY flawed. Jumping into it anyway will cause ruin, chaos, devastation, and anguish. Just like that minivan did for my family.

The sentiment seems to be that, regardless of how flawed the Health Care Reform bill may be, it is crucial to pass it now, presumably because people are dying because of the flaws of the current system. My sentiment is horror. This was the same general mindset of the people of Germany in the early 1930s. They sold their humanity to the first one who promised a solution. Sorry, that's a bit extreme, but emotional arguments bring that out in me. A slightly less extreme example is our longtime friend, England, whose NHS is currently killing people because of the flaws in their healthcare system. Based on the news from across the pond, this is a constant occurrence. Emotional thinking, wishful thinking, unrealistic thinking, result in bad BAD ideas being tried, resulting in disasters, regardless of how saintly the intentions were.

I once painted a garage floor. I spent more time picking out the color than the right type of paint. After three weeks, the paint was still "tacky" wet. Yeah, I'm that kind of genius. I ended up moving out and leaving the landlord to deal with it. (I'm not proud of that!) This Health Care Reform bill will do the same thing to the American people as I did to my landlord. Not only will more harm than good result, the next few years will be spend undoing the damage, at massive cost to the American people.

There are a few flaws which must be considered as severe enough to kill the current form of Health Care Reform, if they exist. There can be no excuses, no plans to work it out later. If there is a fatal flaw, drop it, and redo it from the ground up.

First, Constitutional flaws. The Legislative branch derives its authority from the Constitution, and even take an oath to defend it. All actions taken by all branches of government, and all employees and agents, must adhere to the Constitution. No excuses. MUST.

Second, legal flaws. This hasn't been a big deal to Congress of either party in recent years, but it needs to be considered when the very weight of the act being considered can have catastrophic consequences. When the bill being considered is whether the Honorable Joseph T. Blow should be on a stamp, it is safe to skip this consideration. Already, there is a massive concern over whether this bill is in violation of the Hyde Amendment, forbidding the Federal Government to pay for abortions. Creating new law which violates old law is insane. Repeal the old law first, or fix the new law. Doing neither invites disaster.

Third, practical impossibility. If Health Care Reform will cost, as I suspect, several trillion dollars over the next decade, during a period of existing financial instability, the result can be unthinkable. US bankruptcy. Not even during the Great Depression did we face this prospect. We are seeing it in Greece now. We may face it this decade if Health Care Reform passes. More of the States may face bankruptcy. More local governments. Who is going to pay for millions more people's health care?? My wife and I decided we would cut spending on a few things to pay for that minivan. Perhaps we should have cut spending first, then bought a car. There is actually an existing law which states new programs must be funded before being implemented. Is it too much to ask for lawmakers to obey that law?

Fourth, social impact. Not quite what it sounds like. Cramming a law down the throats of people who don't want it, at best, is a step towards tyranny. Bad precedent. VERY bad. Eventually, there will be an election, people will get a chance to demonstrate their anger, but only after the damage is done. So, maybe there is a change in the majority party. Sounds good, right? Remember, this is after the precedent of passing a massive bill against the unanimous dissent of the minority party, and even the majority of the American people. The new majority party will now have fresh bitter memories and new superpowers to ram through unpopular destructive legislation. The term "nuclear option" will come to be business as usual.

Fifth, disenfranchisement. This flaw is really more of an effect. Passing a law that 60% of the people hate is saying, "You're little people. You're a nobody." What good could possibly come from that?

The Health Care Reform bill has been pushed from the beginning with secrecy and guile. The "Louisiana Purchase" and the "Cornhusker Kickback" provisions are just the ones we know about. They were "gifts" to balky senators who would otherwise have voted no. So was the Stupak amendment, but he's going to get shafted out of that. My point is, Congress shouldn't have to give gifts to get a law passed. Not if it is good. Certainly not gifts that the American people are paying for. It's beyond sleazy.

Maybe it all doesn't matter anyway. Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has enough votes to pass it now. She's not worried. It's a little odd that she passed the House version in the middle of the night on a Saturday, within minutes of knowing she had the votes to do it, but she is holding off on voting the Senate version, even though she says she has the numbers. Could she be less than honest? Schedule the vote, Speaker! Commit to your folly. Pass it and live with the consequences.

I don't know whether to dread the flood, or look forward to the cleanup which will follow.

You Have no Right to Live, Sicko, Revisited!

2010-01-18T15:20:00.003-06:00

In a previous blog, i stated my Humble concerns about a Reformed Health Care system which penalizes those who are particularly in need of medical support, the smokers and the overweight. Since then, i've seen the penalties decline to a less draconian level. This greatly reassures me. Until i think about it again. ANY penalty on any aspect of lifestyle MUST be viewed as an insertion of control over YOUR life by a despotic regime! It is an attempt at control, social engineering, and tyrannical.

Please note i Humbly limited the scope of my accusation of tyranny to penalizing and controlling lifestyle. There are valid areas wherein a benevolent government must assert and maintain control. Commission of a violent crime may be viewed as a "lifestyle choice", but then, so too could being a citizen at all. Assault, as an example, is part of some cultures, sometimes to extremes. Yet, assault is a crime. Being fat isn't. Smoking isn't. Creation of anti-Constitutional civil law to penalize these where criminal law does not, is frankly evil.

There are well-meaning busybodies who wish to say that we have no inherent right to be fat or smoke. Well, actually, yeah, we do. The 9th and 10th Amendments say we have all rights not reserved by the Constitution to the Federal or state governments. We have the right to engage is all kinds of stupidity. We have the right to vote without the slightest understanding of the issues, or candidate's position on them. That, i Humbly assert, is more of a danger and detriment to the American people than a chubbo with a Marlboro.

As for "Health Care Reform", i Humbly expect only bad things from it. Politicians are creating it. They are a bunch of fatuous egotistic morons (with a few exceptions). Those in office who have medical experience are being ignored in favor of jackasses like Barney Frank and Barbara Boxer. We are allowing them to strip away, first, less popular rights in exchange for a hypothetical improvement in health care. After those rights are taken away, NEVER to be restored, we will find out, "Oops, we underestimated the cost of insuring those 36 million people Health Care Reform is covering! We're going to have to start cutting costs somehow." It won't be just the obese and smokers (other than those in office) who will find hard times in getting medical care.

It will be everyone.

Avatar: Why Make an Effort When the Effects are Hot?

2009-12-12T11:35:00.002-06:00

I haven't seen the movie at this time, only the reviews. I do plan to see the movie, though. Still, what struck me the most from the review i read last (Associated Press), was the extremely easy-to-hate portrayal of the antagonists in this epic film. How easy it is to hate warmongers and nature rapers. The bad guys are both groups combined.

Apparently, there are natural resources located, of course, directly under the village of the nature-revering natives, and they must be taken even if it means the violation and destruction of paradise. Is there any ambiguity? Is there any reason to not hate the bad guys? Perhaps after seeing the movie, i'll change my opinion. Hollywood does, on occassion, surprise me.

In the real universe, people are a complex mix of good and evil. Human nature (and nature nature) is inherently selfish. Survival means never being sorry about who or what you eat. Survival means the weak get shafted, and the strong get the girls. It means killing rivals, and doing atrocious things to prevent problems in the future. Consider the lion. What the new male of the pride does to establish his leadership is heinous and horrible. But that's nature. Humans are (debatably) the only animals on this planet who make an effort to rise above their nature. (Although I've heard stories about dogs, cats, and dolphins that make me wonder.) The point is, any real examination of the motivations and mindset of most people will reveal some sympathetic traits, and some contemptible traits. Because goodness and evil coexist within us, individuals are rarely just one or the other. My favorite movies are those where the villains are the most lovable, the most appealing.

I don't know, having never written a screenplay, how hard it is, or if it would have been much harder to make the humans as sympathetic as the aliens they are in conflict with. So, i offer only my Humble opinion: we've been set up.

I've never wiped out a nature-loving village or defiled a natural paradise for scarce resources in my life, and have no desire to ever do so. But i get the feeling there's gonna be a line in this movie, or perhaps merely implied:

You humans are all alike.

Free Choice Doesn't Mean Your Choices are Free

2009-12-09T08:56:00.005-06:00

Forgive me, readers, it has been two months since my last confession--er--blog. That last one was about the so-called Health Care Reform Act, and so is this one. Abortion proponents want a federal law requiring that insurance cover abortion. Senator Boxer considers this debate to be anti-woman, an assault on women's rights which could take women back to the 70's.

Seems like a simple issue to me, in my Humble opinion. Abortion is not being limited at all under this or any federal legislation. What is being debated is, who covers the cost? Boxer demands that all insurance carriers cover abortion, or there is no longer "freedom of choice".

I am aghast. This anti-logic comes from one of the Committee of One Hundred, some of the most powerful people on the planet. This is like when one of my two young children comes up to me and asks if they can have something, and I tell them yes, they then expect me to jump in the car, go to the store, buy it, sometimes assemble and test it, and hand it to them. Is that what the leadership of this nation have become? Five year-olds? If would be funny if the potential cost to my sons weren't so potentially catastrophic.

And yet, as a conservative, I'm almost tempted to concede this foolishness! Let 'em have all the abortions they want! Who are the fetuses being aborted most likely to become had they gone to term? Liberals? Most of those fetuses would have had a liberal mommy. Not all, true, but most. Abortion is a choice, but so is pregnancy, yet I have no qualms about demanding insurance cover ob/gyn, L&D, neonatal, pediatrician, and so on. My Humble opinion is that these things are actually good for our country. The practice of killing unwanted infants is not. Abortion diminishes the value of human life.

I would be willing to compromise this supremely moral issue to this extent: abortions covered as a result of the Health Care Reform Act would mandate reversible sterilization be performed at the time or shortly thereafter. The cost of reversing that procedure, however, would not be covered. Freedom of choice doesn't necessarily have to mean all the choices are yummy.

Ask my five year old.

You Have no Right to Live, Sicko!

2009-10-17T22:27:00.002-05:00

In an article in the Washington Post, "Wellness Incentives Could Create Health-Care Loophole" there is a dire threat. Live by Our standards, or else. The health care "reform" package under consideration would allow employers to increase employee premiums by 50%. That's around $200 per month for a single person, $500 per month for a family. That is a HUGE penalty for being fat!!

Some fraction of those being penalized will drop their insurance, which may be in violation of the new law, resulting in a HUGE penalty for being fat.

Failing to be insured may also result in refusal of care, shortening the lives, productivity, comfort, and contribution to society by the despicable smokers, fatties, and poor lifestylers. "I shouldn't have to pay for porkers' health care!" people will scream. Some already do. "If you smoke, you deserve to die!" some cry. "I don't want gang members/gays/punks/alternative lifestylers/goths (or whatever group with some hypothetical health issue) taking up MY healthcare resources!"

People can come up with good reasons to hate the overweight, the smokers, and the other with health issues. Drug addicts, alcoholics, substance abusers will be given a bandaid and shown to the door at emergency rooms. There will be no compassion. It was a choice YOU made to be unhealthy! Only the wealthy will be able to get care. Poverty, likewise, is a lifestyle choice.

And then there's the issue of religious influence on health care. Jehovah's Witnesses believe, wisely or not, that the Biblical injunction against taking blood doesn't mean only drinking it, but accepting transfusions as well. This can be argued to mean they are at greater risk, require specialized (i.e., more expensive) treatment, and are more likely to die anyway, so why waste public health care resources on them? "Let 'em pray for health!" There are those who believe God can literally heal them when He chooses to. They are already under attack in the courts. I don't know who's right. Maybe they should be imprisoned for letting children die. Maybe they should be free. Maybe the state should take away their children for their protection. Maybe there should be some marriage license "do you believe in using doctors and hospitals" test to allow marriage. There's no easy answer here, other than perhaps the Reader's opinion. Are You a "Jail 'em!" or "Free 'em!" type?

This scares the crap out of me. I'm obese. And I, contrary to the supercilious opinion of 200 million non-obese people, can't stop being obese tomorrow! If I made a sincere effort with reasonable support (nutritional guidance, physical trainers, medical advice) I might be able to get off the obese list in a year. More likely two. But as the Washington Post article points out, there won't be any support. Health care will be reserved for the healthy. And as soon as an argument can be made that any particular health condition can be blamed on lifestyle, you'll be targeted too. Or perhaps just a family member, loved one, or friend.

What will you do when your mother tells you she's been denied medicare because she's "too active, and at risk for injury"? Say your goodbyes? Council her to stay home and be silent? Go through nursing home brochures for your entirely healthy mother, effectively ending her life because of a lifestyle choice? How about when you receive a "believed to be currently using tobacco products" letter, with an invitation to pee in a cup? Don't believe in "false positives"? "These tests are reliable, smoker! Get ready for a big cut in your pay!" Thinking you can sue? Yeah, see how that works for ya.

I know I'm obese. I know I need to change that, and I will, in my own time and my own way, with the best expert advice I can find, and without forcing my wife and children to make sacrifices, too. If this healthcare "reform" travesty passes, the right to make those decisions will be taken away from me, or I and my family will be penalized into submission.

It is extremely troubling when the government can dictate personal, private, and lawful behavior, and that day is coming when a bunch of misguided ivory tower politicians who won't be subjected to their own stupidity take over that ubiquitous industry, health care, and run roughshod over our rights. Think you won't be affected? If so, I Humbly think you're a fool.

My prediction is, people will be suiciding to spare their families. We'll read horror stories about the grandpa who was kicked out of the hospital after being caught smoking, and died soon after. We'll read about women who decided to abort rather than quit smoking cold turkey. The health, finances, families, and very lives of American citizens will be held hostage to the benevolent despots of the healthcare industry. And some politicians will hand them the power of life and death.

They're lining up the votes in D.C. right now.

"Rights" and Wrongs

2009-10-17T20:53:00.002-05:00

This is a strange one. In Maine, a woman was being arrested under an active warrant. She believed, without seeing the warrant, that it was bogus. She went in her house to, the officer on the scene believed, lock the house. She had apparently grabbed her "stun gun" electric dischage device, rated at 975kV. When the officer moved to assist her, she turned and allegedly fired on him, jolting the officer, but not disabling him. The officer took the noncompliant woman into custody.

This woman, 65-year-old New Sharon, Maine, resident, Carol Murphy, has had a history of bad relations with all levels of law enforcement, all levels of courts through State courts, even chastising a judge in court. All warrants, according to Murphy, were flawed as a result of an earlier "void" order. I Humbly assume this was in Murphy's head when she went to get her stun gun.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and when the "knowledge" is regarding Law, the danger level can be off the charts. There is a legal precedent for resisting arrest when the attempted arrest is unlawful or materially flawed. With this in mind, a citizen facing an arrest warrant grabbed a weapon and (Allegedly) used it on a law enforcement officer while he was executing a warrant.

The thing is, that precedent applies firstly to "false arrest", being held without warrant or cause. In this case, there was a warrant. Murphy was told about it, and without asking to see it, (Allegedly) grabbed a weapon. Clearly she cannot argue there was no warrant, since she didn't ask to see it and was refused. The precedent also applies to warrants not sworn to with just cause, as is required of arrest warrants. And again, having not seen the warrant, she had no basis for establishing the validity of the warrant, other than the wording of the officer, and her own experience with the court which issued the warrant.

About that "void ab initio" order. It is apparently maintained by Murphy that the order obviates all previous fines, fees, penalties, and court orders resulting from the charges for which the order was handed. Therefore, I Humbly theorize, an arrest warrant for "unpaid fines" might sound flawed. However, the legal council voice in my left ear says, the officer was not actively pursuing Murphy when she (Allegedly) attacked him, and perhaps the just cause statement was demonstrably false, but in that case ALL arrest warrants made against innocent people are flawed, and arrest may be resisted with up to deadly force.

A just cause statement is an opinion sworn to that a law has been broken, and that someone is believed to have done so. Only when this opinion is known to be false by the person making the statement on the warrant, is the warrant flawed. All that would be necessary under this Humble legal theory is that the subject believe him or herself to be innocent. Not just mostly innocent, but really truly innocent. Thing is, innocent people can be wrongly convicted, sent to prison, and even executed. If we say, if you know in your heart you are guilty, you can't fight arrest, you make a presumption of guilt, AND are de facto admitting guilt by failing to resist arrest! Instead of fighting charges in court, they will be fought EVERYWHERE.

The precedent was intended to maintain the right of self defense even to those who are being wrongly arrested by corrupt law enforcement personnel, who may be acting under the unconstitutional authority of a oath breaking judge. By stretching the facts, Murphy will probably make just this argument. The officer on the scene might not have known any of this until the handcuffed, peppersprayed Carol Murphy was under lock and key.

The thing that really perturbs me is that people with less understanding of the law than I Humbly possess (which is pretty miniscule) are saying "Way to go! Too bad you didn't kill the nazi stormtrooper!" and "He deserved it, because in 2004, they killed one of her horses!"

What I Humbly fear, is that Murphy may be exonerated for retrieving a deadly weapon and using it to (Allegedly) assault a law enforcement officer executing a warrant. Instead of the "flawed warrant" test, she will create the "reasonable belief in lack of faith" standard. And that will allow hundreds of thousands of assaults upon police officers in the line of duty.

The fault is not with this woman, who might or might not be playing with a full deck, but with whoever issued that warrant, which may or may not be total garbage. If it is, the first shot has been fired on the dismantlement of law and order in this country. What cop will happily face attacks by criminals without the backup of the law? It takes a special kind of hero to go to those doors in the first place, knowing they might face a weapon. After an incident, though, they have a right to see their attackers prosecuted. The attacker can say, "I know I'm innocent, so the warrant was in bad faith, giving me the right to grab a gun and use it."

Not only cops will die. And Maine, you will be to blame.

A Little Thing Called The Constitution, or How I Stopped Worrying About Forced Innoculation

2009-09-29T19:16:00.003-05:00

According to a news story in New York, anyone in New York working in the health care industry is required by the State Department of Health to be immunized against both seasonal influenza and H1N1 (Mexican Swine) flu. The real news story is that there are thousands of health care professionals who are opposed to this mandate.

Well, cheer up, doctors, nurses, therapists, techs, and everyone else! I'm here to Humbly give you some ammunition for your fight. What the State of New York has forgotten is that you have constitutional rights. Specifically, the fourth and fourteenth amendments protect you against government intrusion of this sort.

The fourth amendment limits the government's ability to search and seize persons and property without due process of law. Subjecting citizens to a vaccination is equivalent to placing those citizens' lives at risk. There is no possible way to give a flu vaccine without risk. In fact, given the risk, and the government's perception of the necessity of immunizations, they decided it was necessary to immunize the manufacturers of the flu vaccines against lawsuits. There is a near absolute in law called strict liability in tort which says that any product used properly by consumers which causes harm to those consumers will be cause to hold the maker of that product liable for damages. But not flu vaccines. So, when the inevitable few have harmful side effects, they will not be able to hold the makers liable. And states don't allow their citizens to sue them in their own courts. A New Yorker who takes that vaccine, voluntarily or not, and is harmed, is therefore deprived of life and freedom by the state, without due process. No warrant was issued, no judge shown just cause. No study showing rates of harmful side effects were presented to those who made the decisions. In fact, those studies have been buried by the CDC!! Mention to your lawyer this little tidbit. This will be evidence usable in court. Being in a federal court, the State of New York is gonna have to explain why they didn't bother doing their research, and the CDC is going to have to cough up the original study, not the fudged up one they posted on their web site.

Also, consider the fourteenth amendment. It's the one that says individuals will not be discriminated against because of the group to which they belong. Health care workers, I'm pretty sure you have the same rights as prostitutes. This is a tougher issue to push in court, though. It's scary! The big bad low-mortality H1N1 virus has people scared, and their fear can only be alleviated by having YOU get a shot. Understand that this is exactly the same as putting Americans of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps during World War II?

This post is NOT legal advice. I am not a lawyer. If you have legal issues, find a lawyer. Ask him when the fourth and fourteenth amendments were repealed. And consider moving out of New York. Your fears as an individual, justified as they are, are of no concern to the entity of the State of New York. Nor will your losses be of concern if you have some bad side effect from the shots. May I Humbly recommend Texas?

Notes From My Father's Eulogy

2009-05-24T02:35:00.003-05:00

Okay, you're afraid of a depressing, ponderous, mournful post here, and I Humbly do not blame you. Rest assured, Humble Reader, that I will try to keep this from being a dirge.

My father served in the Navy for 22 years, retiring as a Master Chief Petty Officer after relinquishing his Warrant--his officer status--to gain a greater set of retirement benefits for his family, not for his own prestige.

A navy career is almost always a great sacrifice. Either your family stays home waiting months for your return, or sometimes they don't wait, and you lose your family. Some sailors just don't start a family, putting it off until the leave the service. In all of these, the serviceman (or woman) makes a huge sacrifice. It's not unique to the Navy, but it's probably the worst service for family.

The sacrifice is often just as great a load upon the family of the serviceman as it is on himself. The proper place for a husband and father is at home, not floating in a boat halfway around the world. It is so hard, you can barely imagine it if you have not lived through it. On top of the deprivation of half of the parental support, there are frequent relocations. Imagine what happens to kids whose efforts to make new friends is completely wasted, demolished, because their father was assigned to a new duty base. Imagine what happens to these children after the 3rd or 4th time, how they just give up on having friends. Imagine the loneliness. If you do, you have a small idea of the sacrifices made by a serviceman and his family.

My father made those sacrifices. My family made those sacrifices. Why? For the furtherance of my father's career? To gain prestige, status, rank, pay, authority, or personal sense of accomplishment? NO! My father paid this price to keep his family, his homeland, his nation free and safe. Dad was the best at what he did--it doesn't matter what his specialty was, he was a professional, and one of the best in the world at his occupation--and he chose not to leave his assigned tasks to a lesser person.

As I said in front of a room full of friends and family, part of the reason they were there to honor him, part of the reason they were safe and free and alive, was because my father and millions of servicemen like him, made sacrifices.

I asked those at the service who had served to please stand, and help me honor my father. They stood. And then something happened that I was not expecting.

Everyone there who was sitting, applauded.

To the servicemen out there who have made sacrifices in honorable service to this nation, AND to the families who have made sacrifices, as well, I Humbly salute you, just as I and those standing in the church saluted my father.

Sacrifice, service, and honor. For all these, all you get is a flag on your casket.

And the sincere gratitude of more people than you would ever believe.

They Put Up!!

2009-05-24T02:17:00.003-05:00

Again, forgive me for not having posted recently. (I Humbly assume there is someone out there who cares. Arrogant of me.) We suffered a loss in my family. The only hero I ever had in my life, my father, passed away on Wednesday, May 13, in his sleep. I do not say this to garner sympathy, but to explain where I have been. In this difficult time, I have been with my family, as I always will be during any trials that arise.

In my last post, Put Up or Shut Up, I told you about the decision to save money in our local school district by releasing the best teacher I've ever seen. I submitted a letter to the editor in the local newspaper.

While I was out of state, working out funeral arrangements with my family, I got a call from the principal of my son's school. He thanked me for having spoken up about the situation, reassured me that the termination was only due to low seniority, not any lack of competence or any cause for termination. The teacher was to be kept on as a substitute, and given high priority when hiring resumed. But there was some good news. The former kindergarten teacher had just been reassigned and put on contract for next year as a first grade teacher.

Now, I am not saying my Humble letter to the editor had any effect. I don't know if anyone who makes decisions was at all aware of it. Maybe, maybe not. All I know is that I opened my yap, and spouted my opinion; that the principal of the school stated that he considered it to be a well-written opinion; and that the day after it was printed, Miss Redacted was re-employed. In order to maintain my Humble standing, I have to believe it's all coincidence. But I got a very nice thank-you note from Miss Redacted.

It's hard to be Humble sometimes. Especially when you're being bombarded with praise.

My father would have been both amused and proud.

Put Up or Shut Up

2009-05-12T18:48:00.002-05:00

Forgive me, readers, for I have sinned. It has been almost a month since my last blog post. My child has had some medical issues, and as he demands attention, I have less to spare for You, the Humble readership. Am I up to 2 yet?

Not too long ago, we had elections for municipal offices in the town where I reside. For months before that election, I had people drop by my home, and tell me how I should vote for them, because they were dedicated to the people they would represent, and to their platform. EVERY ONE MENTIONED EDUCATION as a top priority.

Think about that. Education is important. Who would dare say it wasn't that big a deal? Who would destroy their political aspirations by saying children were their parents' problem, not the taxpayers. Who would even contemplate saying educated people are everywhere, so if we don't produce any locally, some will move in from other places with well funded schools.

Okay, fine. Some got elected. All of those elected claimed education was a top priority. Last week, my son's kindergarten teacher mentioned that she wasn't being renewed for next year. I Humbly admit to some bias, because this lady treated my son with all the care and compassion I could have ever dreamed of, sparing his feelings and dignity, while gently guiding him through his first school experience. I Humbly admit my bias when I say she has to be one of the best teachers in the entire state. But she got pink-slipped. Budget cuts were required because of the economic climate. Tax revenues are down everywhere, and our town is no exception. In fact, please bear with me as I paste in a copy of my letter to the editor:

My son has been in kindergarten this year at the local elementary, and another will follow him in August. When we requested my son's teacher for his younger brother, we were informed that Miss Redacted won't be renewed in the coming year. I was floored. Ms. Redacted is a super example of the outstanding professionals teaching our children, and part of the reason why the local elementary is a highly rated school and credit to this community.

I know the weak economy has caused a drop in tax revenues, that belt tightening is required in every department of every level of government, and that schools are not excepted from the budget scalpel. But this strikes so close to home that it feels like an axe!

I'm confused. Someone out there made decisions involving the termination of teachers. Presumably, after all the lesser means of cutting costs were exhausted, the school staff budget was cut. Yet, during the last election, EVERY candidate told all of us that education was the highest priority! Obviously no elected official would have allowed one of the finest teachers in the state to be let go. So, who did? Who made the decision to axe Miss Redacted? Was any public discussion held, or was this a decision made behind closed doors?

To simply say that firing teachers is a cost cutting measure is very shortsighted. our town attracts families partly because of the superb reputation of the schools here. If this tragic decision is an indicator, the loss of this one teacher is just the beginning of the end of the superior rating of our town's schools. Whoever it was who pink-slipped Miss Redacted, please reconsider. The cost to this community is higher than the meager salary you are saving.

Okay, bottom line, either EVERY cost cutting measure was tried without eliminating budget shortfalls, or SOME elected official lied about education being a top priority. TEACHERS are getting axed??? TEACHERS??? We're not talking eliminating frills here. We're talking about taking the most critical members of the educational team out, and playing shorthanded. I know I don't need to say that the opposition isn't a competing school.

It's ignorance.

Hail, Barak Caesar!

2009-04-30T15:32:00.002-05:00

All my posts are my own Humble Opinions. This is just a warning that this post is more Opinion than commentary.

President Obama enjoyed a historic rise to power. From "community organizing" to state level government, to a Senate seat, and then the White House. No one remembers the political enemies whose wreckage was strewn in his wake, however. No moral or legal considerations prevented Obama's teams from furthering his career. If Jim Ryan was going through a difficult divorce, and his ex-wife accused him of lewd conduct, it didn't matter if the court records were sealed, and a child might suffer, it came out! The point is, his historic rise to power came at a cost that many others paid.

Now he sits at the apex of the United States government. He can dictate a memo, sign a hardcopy, and millions of people will be affected. Executive orders are notoriously difficult to balance. It takes a majority of the Supreme Court, or a supermajority of the Senate. Neither is likely to happen unless Obama is caught being tyrannical. Look at the recent Statue of Liberty "photo op" fly-by. No paper trail leads to Obama. His team made the call and takes the blame, even if it was President Obama's own idea. That's power.

Recently, the president announced both the Chrysler bankruptcy, and then the Chrysler-Fiat merger. He sees no conflict in an elected executive announcing the actions of a corporation. It is his divine right. He is a god-king. He remembers those who anger him, and deals with them. He rewards those who sing his praise. Anyone who speaks ill of him pays a price.

The rights and freedoms we enjoy as American citizens are daily encroached upon by his Praetorian guard. Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, and Hillary Clinton all do his bidding, and sound oddly alike. Biden is usually off-key, but when was he not?

Bear in mind that even the most despotic of the Roman Empire's caesars were very popular. They held circuses more frequently as life got harder for Romans, and tossed bread to the audiences when the economy soured, or the caesar emptied the treasury. Hence the phrase "Bread and circuses" as a means to mollify the masses.

Those masses worshipped the caesar as a god. The caesar demanded it as his due. Other gods were allowed, as long as the proper ceremony and sacrifices were made to Caesar. Christians defied Nero. Lions ate Christians.

Oh, perhaps Obama won't kill those who fail to worship him properly. But he has the power to destroy lives. It's been 100 days. The honeymoon is over. The price for defying Barak Caesar will come due soon, and his Praetorians will collect brutally.

This is all just my Humble Opinion. Maybe he will be a benevolent ruler. But right now, I'm kinda glad I'm a nobody.

Sorry, New York, He's New!

2009-04-29T13:37:00.002-05:00

The whole "photo op" thing, where the backup Air Force One and a F-16 buzzed the Statue of Liberty, sending Manhattan folks running into the streets in terror that 9-11 was being repeated, all that was just a misunderstanding. President Obama is really sorry, and it won't happen again.

And that $320,000 pricetag, on top of the hundreds of millions lost by panicky traders, that's just awful, says Obama. He'll look into it. Promise.

Is it even worth mentioning my Humble skepticism?

My Humble guess is, Rahm Emanuel, in his role as Chief of Staff, suggested updating all that Bush era publicity material. Coming as it did from the god-king's head priest, no one was about to say, "Gee, your holiness, won't that cause widespread panic and mayhem?" Louis Caldera, the White House Military Office chief nervously signed off on it. No need to tell him that if it blew up, he was going to "take one for the team". In statements to the press, Caldera is quoted as having "approved" the fly-by. This is HOT! Caldera used code for "it was my superiors poor judgment to do this. I was just the unlucky bastard who had to sign the order." Who actually requested the fly-by that Caldera approved? We'll never know. Caldera is taking one for the team.

Caldera is an interesting case. He's a West Point grad and a lawyer. He has to be as smart as they come. Obama, lacking executive experience must surround himself with experts. Right? Yet this particular expert has been tossed under the bus. His service to this country in the armed forces has been essentially thrown out the window because of this blunder.

So, all in all, sorry, New York. Sorry thousands of terrified financial district workers. Sorry, tourists. Messina is looking into how it ever could have happened.

What a load of crap.

Terrorism Enables, Justifies More Terrorism

2009-04-20T16:28:00.003-05:00

Governments and dictators throughout history have used the violence of their opponents to justify the tightening of their grip on their own people. Call it the Reichstag effect. My Humble study of history is admittedly weak, so I may have a detail or two wrong, here. Hitler's opponents were blamed for torching the Reichstag, the German equivalent of Parliament or Capitol Hill. He used this act to justify expanding his powers, and weakening the rights of the German people. By my definition, this made Hitler a terrorist.

Gun haters continuously make obscene statements about those who want to preserve their gun rights. In 1981, an emotionally disturbed loser took shots at President Reagan. One of his shots went wide and struck Jim Brady, nearly killing him. He and his wife used their status as victims to justify a campaign to, in essence, repeal the Second Amendment. Now, they fuel the hatred of gun owners.

And today, I see anti-Semitic people using every Palestinian victim of Israel's self-protection as a justification for allowing another Holocaust. Ahmadinejad once again condemned Israel today, calling the entire nation "racist". For a would-be nuclear power, this is a chilling stance to take. This is the rise of a genocidal movement in progress. More chilling, many anti-Semites are thrilled about the looming threat of mushroom clouds over Israel.

The hatred of anti-Semites gives them strength, motivation, determination, and, as far as they are concerned, all the justification they need to wipe out a million or so people. Yet, that diseased toad, Vice President Joe Biden, has the gall to tell Israel that they would be "ill-advised" to use military force to defend themselves.

This administration has been hailed as historic due to the ancestry of the President. I Humbly suggest that this administration is historic due to its incredible lack of testicular tissue. After millions die in Israel, I'm sure Obama will write a sternly worded protest to the UN Security Council.

My applause to those delegates who walked out on Ahmadinejad's rant. That took some guts which Obama lacks. Let's pray he grows a pair before a world war starts.

I'm a Suspect, I Guess

2009-04-16T15:27:00.002-05:00

In my profile, I proudly state that I am a veteran. I cannot and do not claim to be a veteran with combat experience. I've never been within 3000 miles of "action", never been under arms other than firearms familiarization in basic training, and never once put my "life on the line" for my country. I can claim that, having enlisted, I signed up for whatever my country and my service asked of me.

There are millions of veterans of whom was asked the endangerment of their lives, loss of body parts, and even their lives. Now, the Obama administration has made a point of asking more of them. The injured were being considered for a program where they would pay for their own treatment. Fortunately, the Obama administration realized the political cost would be too high, and scrapped that little fund-raiser idea. Now, the Secretary of Homeland Defense, (former governor of my state) Janet Napolitano, signed off on a report to local law enforcement saying that veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were ripe for recruitment by "right wing extremist" groups.

Some people actually fail to see the harm in this. "If they are the most likely to commit violent acts, they should be watched!" was on actual comment I read on the Fox News site. It seems obvious to me that calling groups who have differing ideology from that of the reigning administration and majority parties in both the House and Senate, is a slippery slope which may lead to suppression of free speech, even up to political imprisonment.

Napolitano graciously admitted that she really ought to apologize (someday maybe), and will meet with the leaders of veterans groups. Nevertheless, she signed off on that report to law enforcement, remember? Saying local police and sheriffs were smart to target returning combat veterans, right wing extremists, and "pro-life" radicals. Is it just me, or do left wing extremists tend to view even moderate right wing positions as "extreme"? And is it not just barely possible that the words "returning" and "from Irag and Afghanistan" could be left out of the "people to watch" profile?

I'm a former long-haul trucker. A couple of weeks ago the FBI reported that most unsolved crimes on or near highways are probably committed by truckers.

In the recent reporting of the tragic murder in Tracy, California, whose main suspect is a woman, the reporter pointed out that most murders are committed by men.

I oppose casual termination of pregnancies where other options exist, and the mothers life (NOT lifestyle!) is at risk.

I keep guns, and enjoy target shooting.

According to the Obama administration, all this makes me a suspect.

This nation is in peril, alright. And the source of that peril is the one pointing the finger.

Hey, Ruth! C'mon!!

2009-04-11T19:23:00.003-05:00

I Humbly find those two words to be the most irritating of arguments: C'mon! It's a synonym for "No intelligent person could possibly disagree with me." Should we not register guns? C'mon! Should taxpayer money not go towards college educations for the disadvantaged? C'mon! Shouldn't all medical care be administered by the federal government? C'mon! Shouldn't tobacco be flat-out banned? C'mon! Shouldn't Constitutional rights be limited whereever there exists a potential for abuse? C'mon! You're a fool and a jerk if you disagree with the C'mon argument.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg used essentially just this argument, recently. She referred to an argument from an Israeli Supreme Court Chief Justice, Aharon Barak, to wit, "Torture? Never." C'mon! Nope, no legal discussion necessary. No careful reasoning, no thought, just the raw emotion of that passionate appeal. Torture prisoners even under the most dire of circumstances? C'mon!

Ordinary people saying, "C'mon!" are signalling a closed mind. They clearly have a prejudice. They have decided, and YOU are the fool if you do not, upon hearing those two words, agree with them. Ordinary people do not have the extraordinary power of Supreme Court justices.

Justice Ginsberg, responding to a question about citing foreign law, said, essentially, "C'mon!" Yeah, of course the Supreme Court should hear citations of foreign law. Oh, she stated arguments that, early in this nation's history, foreign law was commonly cited. She appealed to the desire for status and popularity within the world community, saying Canada was cited more in foreign courts then we are! I try hard not to use profanity, but this kind of high-school argument has me biting my Humble tongue. The framers of the Constitution should have foreseen this idiocy, and put in a clause saying, "Whereas other nations upon this earth shall find it agreeable to jump off a cliff, the Supreme Court shall not do so."

Okay, not every issue facing the Supreme Court was considered by the Constitution. What remains is for the Supreme Courts to do what we pay them to do: decide the law. Are the actions of the other two branches of the federal government allowed by the Constitution? That's ALL.

C'mon!

Just Come Out and Say It! Let Israel Die! Part 2

2009-04-07T19:40:00.004-05:00

You know, when I said "just come out and say it: Let Israel Die," in response to Secretary Clinton's bizarre comments about who caused the Gaza violence, I really wasn't expecting the Obama administration to step up and do it! They did it!

Vice President Joe Biden, that silver-tongued devil who teamed up with Barak H. Obama, decided to threaten Israel if they even thought about attacking Iran. He said "I think he would be ill-advised to do that" when asked about Prime Minister Netanyahu's possible option of attacking Iran if threats of nuclear weaponry are sufficiently realized.

Biden essentially said, "You can't do anything just because they're getting a gun, and have said they want to kill you. You have to wait until after they do kill you." The idea that hundreds of thousands men, women, and children, whose only offense is to be alive and living in the middle east, would die, that's not enough of a threat to Biden.

I am disgusted. I am nauseated. Vice President Biden, you are a traitor to the human race. Your kind allowed Hitler to kill twelve million or more people. Your kind allowed the slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Rwanda. You, sir, are a vile, pathetic, useless stain on this nation. Some portion of every life lost in an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel will be YOUR fault. You are giving aid and comfort to enemies of mankind, enemies of peace, and enemies of justice.

I wish I could tell this to the Veep's face. I wish I could get the press to hear me tell the people of Israel that this is NOT our leader. This is just a gutless piece of crap who managed to get on the winning team. I wish I could tell Ahmadinejad to his face that any more terrorism out of his country, regardless of who the victim is, will result in a "regime change" in his own country. I wish I were still young and fit enough to run with a rifle and a pack into action, and defend my ideals, and the best ideals of the United States, with my life on the line. I'm nobody, though. This isn't false Humility. It's just the way it is.

If mushroom clouds form over Israel, Biden, you may see a lot of "nobodies" stand up and do something about it. And you.

Sorry, U.K.! He's New.

2009-04-01T19:50:00.002-05:00

Here in the States (probably works the same everywhere) whenever you receive utterly, horrendously, egregiously bad service, the purveyor is usually new at the job. A humble, "Sorry. I'm new," is usually all it takes to explain the situation. Quite often, an experienced coworker cleans up the mess, and deals with the problem. It's all just part of learning the ropes.

Of course, when a newbie can't seem to get the hang of it, they are usually invited to find other employment.

Our new president is entirely inexperienced at international politics. When, for example, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom comes to visit, the President usually does a few things to show a warm official welcome to a major ally. President Obama handed back the Churchill bust, and gave Brown a classic movie boxed DVD set...that didn't work. And now, on his first official state visit to Britain, he presents the queen with...an iPod. Oh, it was an iPod worthy of a queen. It had 40 Broadway musical showtunes on it. Perhaps Andrew will like it.

Okay, GB, so our newly elected president seems to be a blithering idiot when it comes to showing courtesy to major allies. The thing is, he wasn't hired on a probationary basis. We can't just kick him out. We'll have another election in three and a half years, and if he hasn't improved by then, well...honestly, the Democrat party will find some new scandal to blame on Republicans, causing the majority of us to forget the last three and a half years. It's called "wag the dog" and it worked great for Clinton. Short of declaring war on England, Obama has a pretty secure job.

Don't be too critical of the U.S. as a whole, though. During the November election, we heard a lot of adulation for Obama coming from your side of the pond! So, how do you like him now???

Most of the people in the U.S. feel warmly about the U.K. We have always enjoyed our relationship with you since we got that "colony" thing sorted. It's ancient history. Almost anyone else, in this country, would have gotten Brown and QE2 far better gifts than cheap electronic crap.

Perhaps a nice pen.

All Hail Obama Caesar!

2009-03-30T14:18:00.002-05:00

The President has powers granted by the Constitution. That is his source of authority. Other powers are voluntarily granted by those who choose to do what he suggests. Take the former CEO of General Motors, Rick Wagoner. GM has been having problems staying afloat in a free market (with some government involvement). They asked Congress for some monetary help. It wasn't enough. They made it known that they needed more. The President decided that part of the problem was their top management, and suggested that, if they wanted ANY more financial assistance, it would only come after Wagoner's resignation. He gave it.

Now, the President is saying that no amount of help is going to keep GM afloat. They're bankrupt. No use throwing good money after bad. Oh, maybe if GM, the unions, and the pension plan all make a few little concessions, they can talk some more. How idiotic would they have to be??? Wagoner tried that!

Obama, make 'em a deal. Put it in writing. If they do A, B, and C, you will given them $D. Failing that, quit telling them how to run their business!

I would Humbly suggest that what Caesar--er--President Obama is doing is illegal and unconstitutional, except that his commands are voluntary. No obligation to comply. Oh, except for that thing about money needed to stay alive. Hmm. Isn't threatening to withhold lifesaving treatment unless conditions are met called coercion? I'm no lawyer, but our government was never intended to use our tax money to coerce people and companies into complying with their agendas. They have other powers to use to coerce people and businesses.

My own (admittedly Humbly optimistic) opinion is that GM will do whatever is necessary to stay alive, get past this current crisis, and in five years, will be better than ever. Unless they let Barak H. Obama, a man who never ran a for-profit business in his life, be their de facto leader. Some of you actually believe that the President has highly experienced and intelligent advisors. Those of you who believe this aren't using your ears or your brain. They all sound alike. Even Secretary Hillary Clinton, the world's smartest woman, sounds like a mouthpiece for the President.

The Nixon administration was often accused of "groupthink" (a term from Orwell's 1984) because they invariably advised Nixon to do what he wanted to do anyway. Anyone who spoke up and disagreed ended up packing up and leaving. Perhaps the Obama administration is doing the same. It's hard to say for sure. The "most transparent administration ever" isn't exactly letting anyone in on how they do things.

Get out of the business world, Obama. It's not like "community organizing" in Chicago. You have to actually produce.

Or else, people of America, your president is starting to grant himself unlimited power. Get used to saying, "Hail, Obama."

It's Our Fault, So We'll Punish Ourselves Part II

2009-03-26T14:16:00.002-05:00

According to a report in Reuters, U.S. to blame for much of Mexico violence: Clinton, Secretary Clinton shockingly takes blame for the epidemic of drug trafficker violence in Mexico on behalf of our entire nation. I have two primary school aged children, who I am trying to teach to take personal responsibility. When they try to explain to me that they did something wrong, but it was someone else's fault, I put them in the corner. Secretary Clinton, you are not fit to represent this nation. You are not competent to lead the Department of State. You are not as ethical as my four-year-old son. In case you didn't pick up on it, I'm angry.

The problems in Mexico are a result of their lack of an industrial base. Uh, this paragraph really stands on just that one sentence. It's an absolute fact. If Mexico had an industrial base adequate to employ the majority of their workforce, the workforce would not find it necessary to run drugs up to the gringos, or illegally enter this nation to find work.

Secretary Clinton "strongly feels" that the "insatiable demand for drugs" by Americans has made Mexican drug cartels spring into existence. With all due respect, madame Secretary, that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard from you since you blamed the "vast right wing conspiracy" for attacking your skirt-chasing husband. By what authority do you blame the nation that pays your excessive salary for the problems of another???

President Obama, it is time for you to admit that your choices for cabinet officers have demonstrated pretty bad judgment. Your Treasury secretary is a tax-cheat. Your Attorney General is a racist. Your Homeland Defense Secretary doesn't believe in protecting the border. Now your Secretary of State is attacking her own country in defense of another! It was just good luck that your original choices for Commerce Secretary, a Governor with a pending "pay to play" investigation and a senator who himself said the Commerce department was a waste of taxpayer money, both bailed out before they could damage your already crappy reputation still further.

I'm no elected official. I don't even have a college degree. But I can think of three ways to stop this nation's drug demand. Legalize drugs. Enforce current law. Offer effective treatment for addicts. Clearly, enforcing border security will never happen under this administration. Okay, fine. Then the government should take responsibility for allowing drug running as a result of shirking their duty to control the border. That means government sponsored detox. Intelligent readers will say that if it's voluntary, addicts won't go. Fine. Enforce the laws, cut the drug supply (raising the price dramatically), and jail criminals who chose to break laws (to pay those exorbitant prices for junk) rather than go to a detox clinic. Wait a sec! Didn't we just raise taxes on cigarettes to get people to quit? Weren't a bunch of altruistic geniuses telling us that a $2 a pack tax on smokes would encourage people to quit? Aren't there commercials on television telling me that the evil tobacco companies are making cigarettes as addictive as they possibly can? Therefore, causing price increases on illegal substances should lead to people choosing to quit, and voluntarily go to detox, right?

Don't you dare try to tell me that Secretary Clinton isn't responsible to a FAR greater extent than almost ANYONE else for the crisis in Mexico! She was First Lady, an unelected, unaccountable, cabinet-level advisor for EIGHT YEARS. Then, she was a SENATOR for eight MORE years. What did she accomplish???

Addiction is a serious problem for the addicted, their families, their communities, and for society. But according to Secretary Clinton, we are supposed to feel guilty for the problems of the nation that is SUPPLYING illegal drugs???

Clean up your own mess first, lady.

Sick, Sick Society

2009-03-24T17:19:00.002-05:00

In a Tweet, I asked (rhetorically) "Is this the Soviet Union? China?" I got a reply from FakeBillClinton saying, "Clearly neither, or you would be told to SHUT THE F*** UP!" I blocked him for that because of the obscenity. I have small children. Too bad. The question he was asking was a valid one.

How can it be that I can speak freely when this country is becoming a totalitarian regime? I would have liked to have a discussion with FakeBillClinton, but, sadly, he doesn't seem to have the restraint to hold a discussion in a civilized manner. Perhaps he meant it as a slightly off-color joke. In today's society, vulgarities, no matter how obscene, are passed off as normal conversation.

FBC may not have had parents who enforced this one particular standard of etiquette, or after having reached adulthood, FBC may have just rejected any inhibition on his self-expression. People like him use vulgar language on their cell phones in crowded places, exposing school age children to their vulgar vocabularies, cheapening the language as a whole.

Venerable entertainer Bill Cosby tried to call upon "his people" to clean up their language, and was reviled for it. I recall a moment from the Hurricane Katrina disaster, where a concerned group shipped a truckload of Bibles to New Orleans. "We don't need no F***ING BIBLES!" was stated by several disappointed Louisianans, who were hoping for richer, more luxurious offerings. Some people, probably including those who sent the Bibles, were shocked. Others probably didn't notice or see anything wrong with that kind of free expression. Kinda reminds me of the guy who works at the sewage plant, saying, "After a while, you don't even notice the smell anymore."

So, it's a sick society, our kids are exposed to far too much verbal sewage, and I cut off someone rather than have a conversation. I feel like mourning.

By the way, I'm nobody. Totalitarian regimes don't come after nobodies until they've eliminated all the real threats to their power. Until then, I'm just "proof" that there is still Free Speech. The Supreme Court seems to not care that the current regime is working to silence the opposition NOW.

It's Our Fault, So We'll Punish Ourselves Severely!

2009-03-24T15:12:00.004-05:00

In my post, There Will Be Violence, I Humbly asserted that threats of coming violence would be used to justify government intrusion and revocation of civil rights. Perhaps I was being too optimistic. Reportedly, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, in order to protect Americans, will work to disarm Americans.

Apparently (please correct me if I'm wrong, AG Holder) we are planning to reduce violence in Mexico by making it harder for Americans to protect themselves, because, apparently, some Americans are abusing their rights to keep and bear arms by selling guns to criminals in Mexico. In so doing, we are choosing to weaken the ability of Americans who obey the law (criminals will still be able to shoot civilians and law enforcement types just as they could before) to protect themselves from criminals, including those Mexicans who cross the border illegally. Uh, doesn't that give them an incentive to cross the border, knowing that they won't be facing armed citizens? Has anyone considered a less drastic way to stop sending arms to Mexico? Perhaps enforcing current law and border security?

We have a word for this: surrender. We'll lay down our arms, and you won't. Please don't hurt us.

Okay, some of you out there know this is just another cobblestone in the Liberal Plan to re-make this country into a Liberal paradise. Government (a Liberal-run government, that is) needs to control industry, expression, and education. The people need to toe the line, and that means only government employees should be armed. School children will be indoctrinated to report--er--discuss counter-revolutionary activities they see of their parents.

Normally, I view this kind of extreme prediction as alarmist "conspiracy theory" chatter. The thing is, it's happening.

What's an AIG?

2009-03-22T12:20:00.002-05:00

No, no. Don't get me wrong. I know who AIG is today. A year from now? Will my Humble memory be able to drag this one back out to the light of day? Ask yourself: who was Enron? Haliburton? Sandy Burger? Gary Condit? John McCain? Teresa Heinz?

I Humbly theorize that it is the nature of Americans (we TV watching tuberous mass) to forget (if not forgive) even the greatest of horrors which do not personally affect us. A year from now, someone will say something about "a bigger bonus than an AIG executive", and you will give him a blank look like he was referring to something from the Taft administration. None of which has anything to do with the point of this post.

I resisted long and hard commenting about AIG and other "Bailed-out" (I use a capital "B" because we loaned them Billions) corporations. The Bailouts were intended primarily to keep large employers from going under, slow the decline of our economy, and keep the wheels of industry greased, as they must be, with money. This has all mostly been a failure, given today's 8% unemployment rate. The point of this post is to state my Humble opinion of the proposed 90% taxation of executive (or perhaps all) bonuses given by Bailed-out Businesses. Frankly, it stinks.

It shouldn't be necessary to even explain why this is so horrendous. I trust my Humble readership to already be able to understand why without a simple explanation. Some of you dear readers, however, may have lives that require time and effort, making mental exercise a luxury, not to be wasted frivolously. That's okay! Read on, and I'll do it for you.

This is a punishment tax. Whenever lawmakers say they are "outraged and appalled" right before announcing a new tax, that tax is intended to "correct" the "outrageous and appalling" behavior just mentioned. The discussion is not intended to get you thinking about what anyone should be doing, or why any such behavior should be considered good or bad by politicians. There is no rational discussion! What you get is an impassioned attack on an easy target! Evil coporations are taking YOUR tax money, and giving it to fat-cat executives! Hmm. That does sound evil! I can't afford a new car, even though I pay taxes, but a Bail-out CEO can pay cash for a new house! I have to budget new shoes for my bambinos but the Man can buy whole shoe stores. Why not tax those bonuses?! That's just taking our money back!

See how easy it is to get caught up in the emotion of it all? Forget the logic, reason, intelligence, just focus on your own needs. Folks, this is called pandering. It's emotional appeal, striking a chord within your viscera, not intended to fire up any neurons. YOU are smarter. YOU can see through the bull--uh--smoke. You KNOW that targeting a single group for punitive taxation is a slippery slope, giving Congress the non-Constitutional power to implement controls over private citizens and industry. Congress has a Constitutional obligation to protect commerce, but they are talking about punishing bad corporations with massive taxes on those evillest of things...bonuses.

What's next? A 50% tax on tips, because some Senator got bad service at Denny's?? Maybe a 72.5% tax on used car sales because Representative Chick N. Choker of Wisconsin bought a lemon? Why not? It has become fair play! Make an argument about how Industry X has violated the "public trust", and how this will simply level the playing field and make things right. How? Don't you worry your little voting head over the details.

Okay, almost the end of this post. Pop quiz: Who is AIG again?

THINK, people.

They Say There Will Be Violence

2009-03-19T21:08:00.005-05:00

I've seen a half dozen different articles claiming government officials are expecting a summer of violence. The latest one is the report that London Police are preparing for violent protests at the G-20 Summit in April. This is, imHo, about the same as saying "Go out and have a violent protest" to the discontented masses. Preparing for violent demonstrations is a sensible and realistic practice. Announcing plans for dealing with violent protests is idiotic. Why not just advise violent protesters to stock up on gas masks and body armor?

I can (Humbly) think of two reasons to talk about anticipated violence: to score points with fearful constituencies; and to start the process of enacting controlling legislation to "prevent" violence by preempting civil rights. Gun control legislation is the easiest to move following a spree of shocking violence. No need to come up with supporting facts, or to counter arguments that violence has actually decreased since the "Assault Weapons Ban" was repealed.

Local governments with "concealed carry" licensing have all seen a drop in murder and robbery rates. Local governments with restrictive gun laws tend to have much more violent crime, with and without guns.* One tragic school shooting later, however, where a minor steals a gun from a responsible adult, and guns suddenly become the "leading cause of death among children", and MUST be “controlled.” The NRA becomes the evil child killer enabler. Liberal pundits start raving that "the senseless slaughter of our children must end!" Never mind that ONE adult carrying a concealed handgun could have ended this heinous crime in its tracks. Voters who are irrational with fear know guns are evil!

This isn't a pro-gun-rights rant. It's an anti-liberal despotism rant. Think about the news not reported. Ever read ANY article, or hear ANY news story about how John Michael Doe, a concealed weapon license holder, shot and killed, yada yada yada? You know they would shout it to the rooftops if this happened!

This blog is not intended to be a gun rights rant. Really. It's my Humble intent to illuminate my Humble readership as to the value of a good scare, politically. The unofficial motto of the Obama administration is "Never let a good crisis go to waste." That's not a joke! Use every problem, disaster, protest, failure, and disappointment to move our agenda forward.

So, let's all predict a summer of escalating violence, encourage protesters to plan for normally effective countermeasures, and have liberal legislation drawn up and ready to throw onto the table after the "shocking" violent demonstrations take lives. Have a “gun show loophole” law that strips law-abiding citizens of their rights ready for when another school shooting takes place. Have a "Fairness Doctrine" ready to put in place after "rabid Conservative hate speech" is blamed for inciting a violent crime. That's not too cynical, is it?

Sadly, (and Humbly) it's only realistic.

1. The Bias Against Guns, and More Guns, Less Crime, by John R. Lott, Jr.

We're Gonna See Some Real Change Real Soon

2009-03-17T22:30:00.002-05:00

If my Humble memory doesn't deceive me, President Obama promised us all change in D.C. politics. I'm still Humbly waiting. Today, he blasted AIG for taking contractually obligated bonuses. He neglected to blast himself for having taken over $100k from them, or Senator Dodd for ensuring they could legally pay out almost half a billion bucks in bonuses. And he totally ignored Secretary Geithner's contribution to the mess. Nope. It's the evil corporate empire's fault.

Neil Cavuto is reported to have criticized the Obama administration for blasting AIG when they have so much they can be called on the carpet for. He reportedly said, "Get the U.S. economy straight before targeting one company." Smart advice. Won't happen.

Today Terry Goddard, Attorney General of Arizona, testified before Congress about border violations. Secretary of Homeland Defense Janet Napolitano, who was formerly governor of Arizona, had no reported comment. Here's what she should say: "As governor of a southwest border state for six years, and as the confirmed Secretary of the Homeland Defense Department, I know exactly what to do. It's Bush's fault!" Unless my Humble memory deceives me, that's all she did as governor.

So, until something happens, there's nothing really blog-worthy. In my Humble opinion, that is.

Character or Charisma?

2009-03-13T12:13:00.003-05:00

Eight years ago, newly elected George W. Bush was working hard to set a "new tone" in Washington, D. C. He ignored the abuses of the departing administration, refusing to investigate the destruction of government property (the juvenile prank of removing the "W" key from computer keyboards) or outright theft (rumors were widely reported that the Clinton home strongly resembled their former White House quarters). He chose to try to act like an adult in comparison. This strategy was (in my Humble opinion) a dismal failure. Failing to hold government employees, elected officials, and appointed officials to the standards set in law, set a "new tone" all right. It said the GOP was weak, blind, incompetent, and ineffective.

George Bush tried to show some character. His intentions are laudable, though his methods were misguided. He "misunderestimated" the political machinations of the opposition, their stranglehold over the majority of the mainstream media, and the frustrations of his constituents. His party paid the price. They lost the Senate majority in the next election, and the House majority the election after that. Demonstrating character doesn't accomplish squat in a hostile media environment.

Within the same time frame, his successor, President Barak Hussein Obama, has ordered the closure of Gitmo, tossed out the ban on government funded fetal tissue research, started "investigating" the previous administration's every action, changed the standard of diplomacy towards the U.K. to "barely tolerated" and "treat like crap", and used his office to attack those who state opposition to his wildly unproven attempts to stimulate the economy. Robert Gibbs, his press secretary, and Rahm Emmanuel, his chief of staff, delight in digging at conservative talk radio hosts. There is little or no attempt at maintaining decorum. The Office of the President has no remaining dignity. This is Chicago politics in action! Attack your opponents in any way you can! While the media loves you, you are always right!

President Obama has charisma, that is undeniable. He charmed a nation into forgetting that he had almost no national-level political experience, and NO executive experience. He played on the emotions of the populace, playing race and personality cards expertly. Every attack on his politics became "racial". Every skeleton that came out of his closet became an attack on whoever opened that door. "That's just campaigning," we all thought. After the election, things would be different. After all, Obama ran on a "change" platform.

Perhaps President Obama will come to realize that charisma and character are not mutually exclusive, that having attained the office of President, it is no longer necessary to use Chicago-style political bullying to accomplish his agenda.

I'm not holding my breath.

We Give Up! The Economic Collapse is Over!

2009-03-13T01:27:00.002-05:00

President Barak Obama, today, announced that "It's not as bad as we expected," in a press conference about the economy and proposed budget. How regal. How monarchial (monarchaic?). It's as if (monarchistic?) he is allowing this country to (monarchative?) go back to how it was back in August 2008. The improved economy, in comparison (monarchival? HAH! My spell checker likes that one!!!) to the anticipated economy of the next four years, allows deficit spending on the order of $200 Billion over each of the next (monarchiastic? Hmm! My spellchecker liked that too!) 10 years, above the normal overspending. (monarchismal. monarchavistic. monarchical. Now my spellchecker is allowing everything! I think I killed it! I didn't know I could do that!)

Is it, perhaps, possible, that President Hussein--er--Obama, uses fear to accomplish his monarchitudinal agenda when dealing with the masses, but monarchialistically reverts to optimistic monarchiaginal predictions when dealing with Congress?

We are of this (Humble) opinion.

I Grieve for Us, Our Ill Society

2009-03-07T01:42:00.002-06:00

I just had an email exchange with my mother-in-law. I mentioned a story in the news about quadruplets who survived a year against the odds given by the doctors who had advised some or all of them be aborted. The story was a triumph, and a caution to weigh carefully the decision to end a life. My MiL (clever abbreviation for mother-in-law?) saw this as an attack on "women's rights", the "right to choose", and "reproductive rights".

MiL is a churchgoing woman. She takes her grandsons to church with her most Sundays. She signs them up for Sunday school. She is a christian. But she is so full of self righteous hatred for the male establishment, that she considers anything less than total freedom to kill a fetus up to the moment of birth to be an invasion of the rights and freedoms of all women, childbearing or not. Any restraint on abortion is tantamount to slavery, to her.

I'm a christian, too. But that's about all we have in common. I don't hate the male-dominated establishment. I see it shifting away from male domination, pushed like a sail by the winds of guilt. Centuries of domination mean that males today inherit responsibility for what our predecessors have done. Never mind that these despicable men were also ancestors for the women of this era. We are tainted by their bigotries. So, we are cowards. When confronted with "women have a right to decide what to do with their own bodies," we sheepishly say, "it's your womb, and we have no right to an opinion."

Those babies being aborted by the millions every year, they're our babies too. But the wombs they got started in are under the control of people who may not have the best interests of their tenants in mind. When having a baby might require making massive changes in their lives, and someone is waving a "solution" that is quick, mostly painless, and commonplace, it's much harder to say no. And if any germ of anguish or doubt crosses their gaze, well, damn it, you can't judge! It's only a bit of tissue! It's not murder!

The thing is, I'm a Christian, remember? I believe in a day of Judgement, where we face God, and He decides our eternal fate. And I see millions upon millions of people for whom an unborn child is not worthy of a moment's thought. No effort to let that child live is worth the time, effort, and trouble it takes. So, we, my society, my culture, treasure the "rights" of living, voting, consuming women over those of dependant, vulnerable, utterly helpless unborn...people. All that potential is simply tossed out in a medical waste bag.

Some of you reading this will think I'm a fascist, enslaving, heartless monster for wanting to damn all those women to either give up recreational sex, or be punished with the horrific specter of life with a child. But you who defend the "right to choose", what are you damning all those women to? Will you stand by them, and share their fate on that day of Judgement?

The slaughter goes on, and it's not going to stop because of one pitiful little blog. And I grieve.

Bloggity Blog

2009-03-05T16:11:00.004-06:00

I sometimes feel a need to blog just to read myself blogging. Well, no, not really. I feel that way now, and that's a first for me. Looking at the news of the day, and reflecting on events of the past two years, I see trends driving the world in its current Titanic-to-the-iceberg direction. According to the movie, they saw the iceberg before they hit it, but the Titanic was going too fast to miss it. Do the movers and shakers of the world understand that we're heading towards a global economic disaster, are they willing to avoid it, and is it not already too late?

About two years ago, the market price of crude oil in the U.S. started what looked like an endless rise. Prices at the pump went up, up, up. Consumer luxury budgets went down, down, down, and before long necessity budgets started to follow. The housing market stopped being a sure-fire positive ROI (return on investment) requiring only a listing fee as an investment. That was Phase I of the World Economic Decline.

As we approached the general election in 2008, the world started to wake up and smell the debt. U.S. currency started to tumble in comparison to the Euro and the Yen. This provided plenty of gloating fuel at the time. A superpower with an unstable economy is like...Russia! Only Russia is doing better than the U.S.! Those nations who would not exist or have their level of prosperity save for the assistance of the U.S. were particularly acrimonious about our difficulties. No offers to help smooth out the troubles were forthcoming.

Right before the general election, Senator McCain decided to "suspend" his campaign to fix the problem. Misbehaving kids get longer suspensions than his campaign had. His solution was to push for a $700B bailout. Congress gave a $350B spending card to Paulson, Bush's secretary of the Treasury, with no requirement for oversight or accountability. One of President Bush's last acts as POTUS was to release the other $350B as well.

The nation was reeling from the increasing pace of "bailouts" and spending by congress. Those few who did the math, and didn't go insane outright, started sounding alarm bells, to which the newly installed BHO administration snorted, "you're just jealous because you didn't win!" BHO then proceeded to break every campaign promise ever made in record time. Even former-pres W.J. Clinton was careful and deliberate in comparison. In the meantime, every major bank and car manufacturer was hitting up congress for spending money!

Now everyone who claims to have been instrumental in getting BHO elected wants payback. Just a few million here, a couple hundred million there. No one cares about a little pork anyway, slimed NY Senator Chuck Schumer. Translation, "you're just jealous because we're in charge of the Senate, and you're not."

But it's the future which concerns me most. In the past, economic setbacks were overcome by market forces, NOT government intervention! A few people get crappy jobs, and do them badly when the government gets involved. Not worth the effort! To make an economy improve, kick up the activity in the private sector! Lower taxes! When taxes drop, people lose their frakking minds, and invest like there's no tomorrow. When taxes go up, people look for tax shelters. Investment, risk-taking, and consumer spending are all discouraged. Tax revenues plummet. Taxes end up going up again to cover the budget which doesn't care if less revenue came in.

Yet, no one is trying to steer around this iceberg! The FDR New Deal didn't fix the Depression! It took a massive new market for military industrial goods to employ every available warm body, creating a secondary market for everything from automobiles to pizza, to fix that hosed-up economy. Commerce seems to be a dirty word to liberals. Yet without commerce, there is no income to tax to fund their little social engineering projects.

Today General Motors announced (paraphrased) "You know that $25B you loaned us? Turns out it wasn't enough, and we might go bankrupt anyway. Sorry."

So, it's all looking pretty murky because the people who can do something are playing ugly little political games and paying back favors, and NOT getting their hands dirty trying to FIX this mess! Popularity be damned! You're not going to have a chance in hell of getting re-elected in 2012 if you can't stop the disaster today!

Why bother? They're not listening.

Just Come Out and Say It! Let Israel Die!

2009-03-04T13:46:00.003-06:00

That (title) is not my (Humble) opinion! That's what I gather from Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's statement to a middle-eastern audience today (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.21c84721b2a4459b107dfbfb9ada315a.7b1&show_article=1). As the prestigious top-diplomat for the United States, saying that (paraphrased, a little) Israel is causing violence by taking active measures in the Gaza strip, is tantamount to saying they are inciting more attacks from Palestinian militants, and justifying past attacks as well.

As I (Humbly) recall, during the 2008 campaign, the jewish community was heavily pro-Dem (many were rabidly anti-GOP). See the irony here? The knee-jerk liberal community might have to watch their choice of ruling party cater to ravening vicious militants and their enablers, while they throw Israel under the bus. The jewish community is unwittingly standing elbow-to-elbow with anti-semites who would be thrilled to hear about mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv.

Also, as President Clinton was declared "the first Black president" for his popularity among the Black populace, Senator Clinton was de facto "the first Jewish First Lady", having gone to extreme measures to win, overwhelmingly, the New York senatorial race in 2000, largely with the nearly unanimous vote of the NY jewish community. My (Humble) guess is, they're starting to wonder where "Hillary the Jew" went.

I guess there is enough irony to go around. President Bush, in supporting stability in that region, got cozy with many enemies of Israel. History will (Humbly) consider this to be dealing with the Devil. I (Humbly) suspect the Obama administration will simply be the Devil. Unless you like dead jews, that is.

My Humble Opinion is that Israel has a right to exist free of continued attacks, a right to respond to attacks that have occurred, and a right to deal with threats to their very existence in a substantial way. I (Humbly) guess this is where Secretary Clinton and I disagree.

You Can't Neglect Someone to Death Unless You're a Health Care Professional!

2009-03-04T13:13:00.003-06:00

[Please note that I am commenting on the news, not reporting it. I make no claim for the accuracy of the story any more than the source should state support for my (Humble) opinions. Please visit the URL noted in the story for the source article. ]

In a Fox News story, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490857,00.html, a Washington man was arrested for leaving his wife of more than 50 years to die on the floor. The 73 year-old woman fell more than 10 weeks ago, and was fed and cared for by her 82 year old husband. She remained on the floor where she fell after attempts to move her caused great pain. When she passed away, he called 911.

She was reported to have ulceration on her hip and legs. The husband was arrested for failing to summon aid. I realize this may be just, but is it fair? People frequently end up in hospitals with ulcers caused by neglect. Sometimes the caregivers are to blame for not wanting to go to the trouble of calling for an ambulance. Sometimes the patients themselves are to blame (yes! it's true!) for NOT wanting aid to be summoned. Some patients were otherwise healthy people, for whom summoning aid caused their major illness. Some were unhealthy people who contributed to their own unhealthiness. In every case, these were people who were helpless, and in the care of someone else.

I was struck by the bizarre double standard here. The state of Washington may pursue nursing homes who let elderly infirm patients die, but I've never heard of it. This comes across as a case where ordinary citizens are not allowed to neglect their family until they die. You have to work for a nursing home to have that kind of authority.

I strongly suspect (not based on anything in the story, just my own cynicism) that the woman who died requested that no emergency response be summoned. The husband (in my opinion) may have unwisely followed her wishes. Which would have been easier? Calling 9-1-1, and having her taken away? Or feeding and cleaning her for 10 weeks to avoid having to explain to the police? I suspect this man did what he did out of love and respect. No nursing home in existence can claim the same thing. And, having licensing requirements for qualified and certified personnel, have far less legal defense to explaining the deaths or severe injuries to their patients.

An 82 year-old man in jail with a dead wife probably won't be comforted by all this, though.

Sometimes the "Right" to End a Life Isn't Right

2009-02-24T20:34:00.004-06:00

It's been 3 months since my last post. The bizarre hijinks of the 2008 general election, and the new Obama administration have left me wondering if anything has a point anymore.

In the last couple of weeks, there have been several significant news stories. In Florida, an abortionist is under investigation for completing an "abortion" after the baby was born alive (in 2005), and the state medical examiner is being questioned as to how this was not a suspicious death. In California, quadruplets, some or all of whom were not expected to survive, ALL celebrated their first birthday. The mother stated how happy she was that she didn't listen to the people who urged her to terminate one or more of the fetuses. In Oceanside, California, a comatose man woke from a coma just after the family gave permission to stop life support. Tragically, an 11 year old Pennsylvania boy has been charged with two counts of homicide for the killing of his father's girlfriend and her unborn child. That's just in the last two weeks.

The unborn, the elderly, the injured, and the vulnerable depend on society as a whole to protect them. Our society has been failing to meet this obligation, even encouraging abdication of responsibility where inconvenient. Families are encouraged to hasten the deaths of those supremely vulnerable lives, who are not even aware of their plight. Calm deliberation is not encouraged. Platitudes about how, "It's for the best," and other options being worse, defy rational thinking. Perhaps the worst aspect of rushed, life-altering decisions is the lifetime of regret and anguish that follows those who make a terrible and irreversible decision to end a life.

I am not calling for an end to abortion, or keeping the terminal alive beyond sane limits. All I am suggesting is that the decision to end a life be taken very very seriously, and the decision to council someone to end a life be very thoroughly considered. Sometimes, tragic as it may be, the decision to let a life end is the right decision. Even Christ himself said, "Leave the dead to the dead," when a would-be follower asked him to wait a day for him to bury a family member. Yet, when is this suggestion wise, and when is it just out of a petty desire to keep the lives of others as simple as possible? Ethics is not an exact science. Ethics is a fundamental determination to strive to make the right decisions after carefully considering all aspects of the question. All the news stories mentioned above have one thing in common. Someone callously decided that an innocent, helpless person should die.

And they were wrong.

Those Who Ignore History

2008-11-13T15:53:00.003-06:00

"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it," the saying goes. Foolish people are most foolish when they believe themselves wise, and thus ignore wisdom. The lessons to be learned from the 2008 general election are out there, ready to be learned, but those who most need to learn them seem to be most ignoring them. The leadership of the Republican Party appear to be too entrenched in the Grand Old Way of doing things to consider the fact that they lost an election they should have easily won. The winners of the election also fall short of wisdom. Their leadership ignores the fact that they barely squeaked out a win, and an organized, effective opposition would have wiped the floor with them.

The Republican Party needs to just finally accept the fact that the Conservative movement has made them its home. Who disagrees with this??? Senator McCain did. You see where it got him. His running mate was more popular than he was. Since 2000 Senator McCain has been betraying the Conservative movement with moderate, compromising politics. This was no surprise to anyone who paid just a little attention to the news. Senator McCain betrayed his oath to defend the Constitution with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, which forbids political free speech in certain circumstances, such as general elections.

It is arguable (I don't have the data, though) that McCain lost by a smaller margin of votes than those he himself lost with his own legislation. In other words, CFRA took away his own win. Poetic justice, but hardly best for the nation. In another irony, President-Elect Obama ignored and loop-holed his way through those same regulations, bringing more than three humdred million dollars into his campaign than Senator McCain did. A huge portion of his campaign donations were from "unidentified small contributors". The figure I saw was close to $360M. Since CFRA does not specifically require vetting of contributions of $200 or less, anyone on earth can contribute, including fictional characters, dead people, and foreign citizens. And they did.

Attempts to call attention to these dirty tricks were labelled "political propoganda", and hence were forbidden to all but the mass media, most of whom blithely ignored all news not advantageous to Senator Obama. Only talk radio and internet newsgatherers (bloggers and online publications) seemed at all interested in unbiased news reporting. Even FoxNews seemed to blow where the popular winds blew it. Talk radio, ironically, is not by any means obligated or considered to be unbiased. Yet, they were among the only ones to report the news stories that the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the alphabet networks seemed happy to bury.

So, the Republicans lost. It's not the first time. They ignored their conservative base. Again, it's not the first time. What is disappointing is that the last time, they said it would be the last time.

Here's a history lesson: Midway through President Clinton's first term, Speaker Newt Gingrich and the GOP caucus came up with their "Contract For America". They clearly spelled out their conservative agenda, and pratical goals for accomplishing this agenda. The liberals viciously attacked, calling it the "Contract ON America". The conservative people of the United States, however, said (collectively) "It's about time!", voted a House majority for the first time in 20 years or more, and a Senate majority in the next two elections. Then the Beltway mentality kicked in. Lobbyists and cocktail luncheons, gifts, favors, and LOTS of pork corrupted the movement. By 2002, the conservative base knew they had been betrayed. President Bush was talking about a "New Tone" while he was being savaged by the other side. McCain, and the Gang of Twelve derailed the "nuclear option" which would have forced a vote for a Supreme Court nominee by Constitutional means, increasing his own power at the expense of his party, and the wellbeing of conservatives. President Bush was so lost, he nominated Harriet Meyers. After the bitterly contested elections of 2000 and 2004, hardly a voice was to be heard saying it was all just a conspiracy theory (which it was). No one who claimed violations of federal campaign law either provided real evidence, or was called to task for a false accusation! Again, GOP voters were left hanging out to dry, unsupported by the diminishing numbers of elected Republicans.

Over and over, the GOP has regrouped, reinvented itself, and had an epiphany, showing the way to go in the future. Here's a thought: Stop being liberals, and start fighting for your constituents.

If I had to give some advice to the Democrat party, it would be to tell them to be fastidiously, fanatically in compliance with all federal law. Otherwise they may see some of their hard-earned wins reversed. Although, historically, that's pretty unlikely.

Glass Planets Revisited

2008-10-10T01:39:00.002-05:00

A few months ago, I wrote a post, Monday, January 21, 2008 Governments Living on Glass Planets..." My point was, basically, when the biggest market in town goes down, the competition shouldn't party too hard. There may be a reason the market went down, and others may find themselves bailing out the same sinking boat. Also, there might just have been some major, but invisible, benefit from that first market existing and doing business in the first place. In other words, your own imagined shine may just be a reflection of someone else's glow.

A few months ago, I didn't foresee bank collapse Armageddon looming on the horizon. Last week, politicians were saying, "Unless we stick a $700 BILLION patch on this boat, it will sink." Today, the DJIA dropped under 9000, the lowest in 5-1/2 years. No, I didn't expect all this.

What I said, what I'm seeing, and what I expect to see more of, is the horror in other markets as our own struggles to recover. News across the international board is bad. No national or regional stock market is raking in big windfalls as American markets tank. Why is this not so? Isn't all economics a "zero sum game", where every loser creates a winner? Shouldn't all world markets surge as NYSEX, AMEX, and NASDAQ draw down?

I'm starting to get the idea (massive sarcasm intended) that all markets are interdependent!

The Russian president is out there making comments about the failures of capitalism, and the loss of superpower status. Leading a nation which dived so deep they couldn't pay public servants or military, President Medvedev should, perhaps, tone down the smug rhetoric.

Bottom line, thrown stones come back in other nasty forms. Isn't that so, Nikkei?

Superdelegates! Assemble!

2008-08-28T13:04:00.000-05:00

Following the disastrous candidacy of George McGovern in 1972, the DNC decided on a major rule change to ensure that the will of the people (Democrat primary voters) would never again saddle the Party with a loser candidate. How's that working out for ya??

Despite all the tragic, maddening, outrageous, blatant, horrific, anti-democratic antics perpetrated by the seemingly immune Democrat Party, rarely challenged by anyone other than Conservative talk radio and bloggers, which just destroys my faith in this future of this country, I am nonetheless laughing myself to tears about this topic.

The power elite of the DNC gathered together (I imagine) in a meeting room somewhere. "We cannot allow another McGovern to happen!" they would cry. "We must have delegates who are not slaves of the people. Delegates who can vote for the best candidate!" Who could be trusted with such power? Anyone who can be relied upon to follow the DNC leadership. Let's not get bogged down with details at this point. Let's create the "superdelegate", then worry about how to control them. People like Susie Estrich, law professor at my own one-time stomping grounds of USC, and erstwhile head-honcho of the renowned Dukakis campaign, will ALWAYS pick a winner.

The success of this effort is, um, less than evident. Who have the Democrats selected as presidential candidates? Jimmy Carter, the least effective Democrat president in history. Mondale. Dukakis. Bill Clinton, the Democrat Party's version of Nixon. Al Gore. John "Swift Boat" Kerry. And now, Senator Barak Obama. Carter won once. Clinton won twice. After each one, the country was so disgusted with the Dem administrations, it elected a GOP candidate just to get the foul taste out of its mouth.

Senator Obama, a freshman senator?? His main qualification is his complexion?? A Chicago "machine" politician?? A "Neocom" (to coin a phrase) socialist with NO understanding of how to run ANYTHING??? Good choice, Superdelegates. Way to do your Superjobs.

Please, do NOT take this as a pro-GOP rant. The GOP has lost what should have been easy wins because of their own weanie-ness. But their candidates have been selected by the voting public (mostly). Most GOP candidates have held the office of governor, which tends to be a decent indicator of ability to run something. Senators don't have that. Perhaps McCain wasn't a great choice by GOP voters. GW Bush was a governor, but took his "New Tone" policy to such an extreme that it crippled and finally killed his bi-cameral advantage. No GOP president in how many decades had ever enjoyed a same-party Senate AND House?? And he lost it??? When given a chance to pick a SCOTUS Justice, he picked his legal advisor?? Okay, maybe the GOP picked less than perfectly. But it was the PEOPLE (mostly) of the GOP who were imperfect, not (mostly) the power elite.

Do Superdelegates work? (Laugh, guffaw, chortle!) Yeah, sure!

Oops! There goes the First Amendment!

2008-08-28T12:52:00.000-05:00

An ABC News producer was arrested at the Brown Hotel for not obeying their "no cameras" policy. The Denver Police chose to uphold the desires of the hotel over the rights of the press, and of the public to use sidewalks. The Brown Hotel is reported to have called police to charge the ABC producer with trespassing. The DPD officers on site sternly advised the prodicer to leave, and failing to do so, "roughed and cuffed" him. He's okay now, ABC says. He wasn't injured, and has been released on bond. I'm betting Legal is working up a lawsuit which will close nonessential Denver services for the next five years.

Other than Denver taxpayers and customers, no one suffers. Oh, a few poor people won't be using the City to stay comfortable when the pool closes, or busses cut back on their routes. But the Obama supporters who wanted to ensure they weren't shown on Nightline sneaking into a hotel meeting with Senator Obama's campaign staff, they won't be embarrassed.

Perhaps all of us will lose an opportunity to know a little more about the reality of the Democrat candidate for president. ABC might lose a few potential viewers. What does any of that matter? ABC wants Obama to win. They won't complain about one little rogue producer.

First amendment? It's a relic.

Superdelegates Have Been `Outed`!

2008-02-21T15:39:00.000-06:00

In a stunning turn of events, a chain of occurrences which were open to the view of the masses brought to light the true scheme of things in the Holy Democratic Church--err--Party. The party who viciously attacked the GOP (the Republican Protestant Church) with allegations of "disenfranchising" voters, mostly the poor and minority voters, have themselves been shown to have a ghastly system in place to ensure that the votes of registered Democrats in primary and caucus elections won't deny the anointed presidential candidate from being crowned.

In case you didn't understand me, I'll state it in smaller words. Senator Hillary Clinton is the "chosen one". The big wigs of the Democrat National Committee have already decided that in the November 2008 general election, Sen. Clinton will be in the Democrat column on the "For President" line. If the little people among the backwards, poor, misguided masses vote for Senator Barak Obama, they just don't know yet that they are wrong.

Fortunately, there exists a means to correct this injustice: Superdelegates! These stalwart heroes and heroins were not elected by those misguided, poor, backwards simpletons who comprise the base of the HDC. The poor schmoes would foolishly elect delegates who would vote their way, not the HDC way. What do these peasants know about political obligation, and entitlement?

If my math is correct, each delegate holds the same influence as between 100,000 and 500,000 Democrat voters. That's a lot of influence. Someone should have kept this a secret. The general public is now seeing reports that the Senators are wooing them. Of course they are wooing them. Between 100k and 500k voters each!! Only an idiot would fail to throw her cute daughter at a college student who, at 21 years old, might be, uh, prone to persuasion. Why would they hold back from making a perfectly legal (maximum) contribution to the election funds of those superdelegates who are themselves running for some office? I don't have the exact figures, but $5,000 to $10,000 per electable superdelegate is pretty cheap for the potential return on that investment.

If you are a Democrat, and this topic makes your stomach churn, just a little, be of good cheer. Remember, your Holy Democrat Church is sanctified by the venerated spirits of JFK, FDR, and Harry Truman. The Democrat Party works in mysterious ways its wonders to perform. They can do no wrong, and will not allow you to do so, either.

I have little doubt the GOP is any better, but they keep it secret better.

Shame on You, Federal Courts!

2008-01-21T15:31:00.000-06:00

Federal judges in a US District court have upheld the rights of the Federal Government to limit political speech. Citizens United has been told to knock off the obviously campaign-related advertisements or abide by full-disclosure and disclaimer rules required of campaign advertising.

This makes my blood boil every time I think about it. Yours should too. Think about it. This movie, right or wrong, good or bad, is a political statement. Whether it is intended, as Judges Royce C. Lamberth, A. Raymond Randolph, and Richard W. Roberts seem to believe; to affect the voting for Senator Clinton--or ANY candidate--should be utterly irrelevant!!! It is SPEECH, and is protected BY THE CONSTITUTION!!!

You judges should be utterly ashamed of yourselves for selling out the people you are here to protect! How DARE YOU?! The Campain Reform Act does NOT trump the Contitution of the United States of America! YOU do not trump the Constitution of the United States of America! It is the Constitution which bestows your power upon you, and you IGNORE it!

And yet, I have not heard ONE candidate or leader on either side of the political fence say one word about this travesty of justice! What is it? The Constitution is "nice" when you get something out of it, but who cares when some "little person" has their rights trampled on?

You elected officials take an oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic", but I see very little effort from ANYONE in government to fulfill that oath.

You judges, more than the rest, should be ashamed. You are utterly derelict in your duty to protect the Constitution.

Governments Living on Glass Planets...

2008-01-21T14:59:00.000-06:00

I've seen a few recent news articles about downtrends in international financial markets as a response to recent US stock market plunges and poor fiscal outlook. Dropping dollar vs. euro stories are old news, except to gloat new record dollar devaluations, or rising trade influx from abroad seeking bargains in depressed American economic sectors. In short, the economy sucks in the US, and foreigners are jumping in to take advantage of it.

The thing is, everything is connected. I'm no economist, and I don't understand why the dollar started falling to begin with. I mean, the root cause. Perhaps a slowing nationwide housing market has had something to do with it. Or maybe across-the-board rising costs due to rising crude oil prices are causing industry to either raise prices (reducing demand) or take a loss (reducing money supply). Regardless, worldwide America-haters have been chortling in glee. Clearly, to them, the cost of immoral leadership and imperialist meddling is the flagging economy we are currently enduring. I do not know. The fact is, our economy is having a rough spot, and people around the world love that. Or did.

The thing is, the US is not merely the tyrannical giant they imagine us to be. Tyrants don't bother paying. They take, and those who don't go along, suffer. Really, the US is the hottest market on the planet. When that market pulls back, merchants take a hit. Those merchants are the governments and people of the world.

What we have now is a temporary market shift. We've had them in the past, and they usually straighten out fairly quickly. When they don't we end up with a recession, or even a depression. The rest of the world may think that's funny, but the laughing has just stopped.

His Not-so-humble Opinions

2008-01-21T13:13:00.000-06:00

Democrat leaders have tried to turn down the volume on President Clinton's attacks on Senator Obama, and his other campaign tactics. A San Francisco reporter was harshly pummeled verbally by Pres. Clinton for asking his involvement in the attempts to redefine the Nevada caucus system in court after it appeared Senator Obama might gain an advantage from it. The Democrat leadership is wasting its breath.

President Clinton, the celebrated husband of the Democrat presidential primary candidate, Senator Clinton, has drawn some fire for stating his opinions regarding his wife's campaign, her opponents, and the attacks she has drawn herself as a candidate. According to a Newsweek article, Senator Kennedy has reportedly advised the former President to "tone it down" (my paraphrasing), because Pres. Clinton's assaults are making the Democrat party, as a whole, look bad.

While I can certainly sympathize with this concern, consider who we are talking about. William Jefferson Clinton is a former governor and president. For eight years he was the leader of the free world. During his entire career as an elected official, he was unable to restrain his nature, leading to scandals galore. Think about the psychological effects of two decades of executive power and lascivious lifestyle. Consider the ramifications upon the core being of the person who is having his cake and eating it too, and being fanatically defended against those who are trying to point out his flaws.

His wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, may or may not have been entirely aware of his activities. Regardless, Sen. Clinton vigorously, if not viciously, defended her husband. She went to far as to allege an imaginary 'Vast right wing conspiracy' to explain the continuous barrage of media artillery against her spouse. Sen. Clinton herself faced some of the onslaught as a bystander, and certainly as an active First Lady. As First Lady of Arkansas, and later as First Lady of the United States, Senator Clinton fought in the trenches to defend her husband in battles he started. I am NOT going to argue the moral superiority of either side. I am merely pointing out that Senator Clinton took the heat for her man.

No Democrat leader is going to tell President Clinton to "tone it down" and expect to have that advise followed. To President Clinton, the only possible course of action at any time is that which brings his wife closer to winning the presidential election. ANY statement, action, claim, attack, or baldfaced lie which wins Senator Clinton votes is, by definition, appropriate. ONLY Senator Clinton has ANY power to squelch the former President. And unless his assaults harm her candidacy--and ONLY then--we should not expect her to do so.